This summary offers a brief statement about the topics covered in this edition of Issues Update. The goal is to provide a useful, quick overview of current issues, as well as serve as a guide to determine which updates and reports you wish to read for more detailed information.

Insight to the Beef Industry - June/July/August 2009

April - July 2009 Media Analysis

Activist Activity

‘Supreme Master’ religious group begins U.S. anti-meat campaign

The Supreme Master religious group is increasingly becoming involved in promoting a vegan lifestyle through publicizing meat’s supposed contributions to global warming. Though the impact of the group’s efforts to-date have likely been limited by its low credibility as a religious sect, its financial resources and global presence indicate that it is well-positioned to take a larger role among anti-meat activists in the United States and abroad.

Humane Society University to train future animal rights leaders

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) recently established Humane Society University, a distance-learning program based in Washington, D.C., that is set to begin instruction in fall 2009. Students will be able to pursue a Bachelor of Science in animal studies, animal policy and advocacy or humane leadership, studying under professors whose expertise is grounded in animal rights extremism.

Animal Health/Wellbeing

New guide helps beef farmers and ranchers tell their cattle care story

Consumers want and need to hear from cattle farmers and ranchers about the things they do every day to treat animals humanely, including their participation in the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program. A new communications toolkit, “Cattle Care Outreach: A State Guide to Leveraging Beef Quality Assurance,” was created for state beef councils and cattlemen organizations to help beef producers proactively tell their cattle care story and leverage the BQA program.

Diet/Health/Nutrition

Understanding the benefits of animal protein in the diet

Nutrition experts have long recognized the value of animal products in a healthy, balanced and varied diet. Lean beef is the No. 1 source of high-quality protein in the American diet and provides 10 other essential vitamins and minerals that often are missing from the diets of overfed but undernourished Americans. As more research is funded in this area, it will be important for the beef industry and other animal-based protein industries to continue to contribute to the scientific understanding of beef-based, animal protein diets.

Beef checkoff reinforces Power of Protein messages among media and influencers

Research continues to indicate that high-quality protein plays a critical role in many health issues facing Americans. The beef checkoff through its “Power of Protein” nutrition influencer and nutrition public relations outreach has educated health professionals and media about new research reinforcing the health benefits of dietary protein. Protein will continue to be important in 2010 as protein’s place in dietary guidance is revisited.

Beef Safety/Quality

Investigating emerging pathogens in U.S. cattle

Monitoring the emergence of pathogens and other possible threats to the safety of the U.S. beef supply has been a priority for U.S. beef producers. Projects funded by The Beef Checkoff have resulted in knowledge that allows researchers to prioritize research gaps and focus efforts without compromising beef safety. This article highlights recently published white papers summarizing the current knowledge about emerging pathogens such as non-O157 STEC, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium difficile.

Creating value in new beef cuts

The creation of new beef products requires an understanding of beef customers in order to develop products that meet their needs in deliver value. The Beef Innovations Group works to increase the dollar value of the beef carcass with the ultimate goal of increasing the return on investment for America’s beef producers by examining the undervalued portions of the carcass to determine the maximum value that can be realized for each sub-primal. Through the product development process, new processes and methods are explored for adding maximum value for each muscle while providing products that meet consumer needs.

Environment

Seven cattle farming families recognized for excellence in environmental stewardship

Seven families were selected as regional Environmental Stewardship Award winners in July 2009 for successfully conducting stewardship practices that can serve as exemplary models for all cattle producers. The winners actively work to protect and improve the environment and prove that environmental stewardship and good business can go hand-in-hand. The 2010 National Environmental Stewardship Award winner will be announced in January 2010 at the Cattle Industry Annual Convention and Trade Show in San Antonio.

Trade/Marketing/Economics

Middle Meat Mania increases beef sales through summer and beyond

Wholesale prices of middle meat cuts from the rib, loin and sirloin are currently lower than 2005-2006 levels. This was caused by an increase in supply, which was sparked by economic conditions that led to a decrease in demand at foodservice. As consumers fire up their grills, retailers have a great opportunity to aggressively feature these favorite grilling cuts and build long-term customer loyalty.

Veal retail campaign encourages consumers to prepare gourmet meals at home

In today’s challenging economy, consumers are looking for ways to save money by serving healthy meals at home. A recent veal marketing campaign was implemented to drive sales of veal at retail by showing consumers how easy it is to prepare a gourmet meal in their own kitchens. The summer grilling campaign, which built on the success of the “Free Groceries for a Year” campaign completed this spring, includes a sweepstakes offering a grand prize of $5,000 worth of free groceries for a year.

Imports up as sellers chase dollars

Through the first seven months of 2009, the key factors affecting U.S. beef imports have been the strong value of the U.S. dollar against most major currencies in the world and a contraction in beef imports by many of the world’s largest beef importing nations. For the United States, this combination had boosted imports through May by 13 percent, led by the Australians and Uruguay. Imports from Canada are essentially flat, and imports of Mexican feeder cattle are up 22 percent.

Exports remain depressed as economy struggles

The global economic malaise continues to have a significant impact on trade in nearly every commodity worldwide. Despite the competition from pork and poultry, and the fact that the value of the U.S. dollar remains high against most major currencies in the world, U.S. beef exports to several destinations such as the Caribbean, Central and South America and Hong Kong through the first five months of 2009 have outperformed the same period in 2008.

Slow progress for U.S. beef in South Korea

While U.S. beef regained access to the South Korean market for beef from cattle less than 30 months of age in July 2008, the industry is still awaiting the expected recovery in exports to what was once its No. 3 market. All of the major international beef producers are experiencing declining sales to this key export destination. However, longer-term prospects for the market remain encouraging due to the fundamentals of the market.

Research Briefs

Recession hasn’t cooled America’s grills

A checkoff-funded consumer survey found that beef is still the hot item for backyard barbecues this summer even in the face of a recession that has changed consumers’ food purchasing behaviors. An independent, national survey conducted in May found that 74 percent of U.S. beef lovers say their family plans to cook out more on the grill this summer than in previous years.

Issue Commentary

New online training tool gives platform for industrywide advocacy

The new Masters of Beef Advocacy program is a self-directed, online educational program designed to equip beef industry advocates to respond to misinformation and help spread the word about the benefits of beef production. It enables graduates to become effective spokespersons for the industry.

Toolbox

FACT SHEET: Beef Choices

Cattle farmers and ranchers use resources available in their area to raise cattle in a variety of ways to provide beef choices consumers see in grocery stores and at restaurants. There are more than 1 million beef farmers and ranchers throughout the United States who offer a variety of beef choices to meet the changing lifestyles of consumers, including grain-fed, grass-finished, certified organic and natural beef. This recently updated fact sheet details the different beef choices available to consumers.

FACT SHEET: E. coli O157:H7

E. coli O157:H7 is one of hundreds of strains of the bacterium Escherichia coli. This recently updated fact sheet shares important information about the interventions in place are in place on farms, in feedlots and in packing plants across the country to reduce and eliminate E. coli O157:H7. It also highlights important tips consumers can use to ensure their food is safe.

Beef industry media analysis
April - July 2009

The following checkoff-funded report analyzes media coverage of beef and cattle industry issues through a special service called CARMA (Computer-Aided Research and Media Analysis). The beef checkoff-funded issues management program commissions this analysis for tracking and responding to beef media coverage in the following areas: diet/health, environment, food safety, beef marketing, animal rights and economics.

The CARMA system rates media coverage favorability on a scale of zero to 100 based on criteria including headline, length, placement, number and quality of favorable and unfavorable sources and general tone of an article. In this rating system, articles that fall in the 45-55 range are considered neutral or balanced. In the reports on ratings, favorable means favorable to the beef industry.

Because a single article can address more than one issue, it may be analyzed as part of more than one issue area. Therefore, article volume and percentages across the issue areas will not add up.

Overview

• Total volume of coverage: 1,733 articles
• Average favorability rating: 50 or neutral
• Estimated impressions: 829 million
• Leading (non-wire) media outlet: New York Times (61 articles)

Beef industry media coverage from April-July consisted of 1,733 reports that averaged a neutral 50 rating, down 2 points from the prior reporting period. Favorable coverage decreased by 4 percentage points to represent 31 percent of the overall volume and unfavorable coverage increased by 4 percentage points to represent 25 percent of total reporting. Neutral coverage held steady, accounting for 44 percent of the overall volume.

Economic issues were the most prominent among beef industry reporting in the April-July period, garnering 543 articles. Of note, economics was the only category in which the portion of favorable coverage increased this period, as it increased by 7 percentage points to comprise 28 percent of economics reporting.

Beef marketing dominated a large share of reporting this period, garnering 497 articles that comprised 28 percent of the beef industry’s coverage. Summer grilling recipes, particularly for hamburgers and steak, received substantial media attention and were concentrated around Memorial Day, Father’s Day and the Fourth of July.

Nutrition/health coverage accounted for just more than one-quarter of the beef industry’s reporting, garnering 471 reports. Nutritional vegetarianism was the leading sub-issue for nutrition/health reporting, accounting for nearly one-third of its reporting. Nutritional vegetarianism articles consisted largely of vegetarian recipes as well as numerous reports touting the health benefits of a vegetarian diet.

Beef safety reporting increased by 32 percent this period to 394 articles, due largely to widespread coverage of several beef recalls and proposed changes in industry regulations surrounding federal oversight and meat inspection policies. Media discussion of the movie “Food, Inc.” also supported the increase in coverage as the film discussed meat production practices and E. coli outbreaks.

Media attention on the environment was dominated by reporting on the interaction of cattle and wildlife, which accounted for nearly one-third of the category’s total volume (301 reports). While articles about “cattle and wildlife” received a neutral 50 rating, negative reporting about “cattle and global warming” lowered the overall favorability of environmental reporting to a 46 rating.

Key Findings

• The documentary “Food, Inc.” received significant media attention regarding the safety of the United States food production system. Stories about the movie described its criticism of the beef industry, including the testimonial of a mother whose son died after eating a hamburger tainted with E. coli.
• Earth Day prompted reporting on adopting a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle, including reducing or eliminating meat consumption. Several articles urging consumers to adopt a vegetarian diet cited the misleading U.N. statistic that livestock production is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
• The outbreak of the H1N1 virus, initially called swine flu by the media, prompted Russia to temporarily ban all meat imports from several states, although throughout the reporting period, a majority of these bans were lifted.

Economics

• Volume: 543 reports, 31 percent of total
• Favorability: 52 rating, or neutral
• Leading Sub-issue: Foreign trade – 136 reports
• Leading Media: Associated Press – 114 articles

Media coverage of foreign trade, which emerged as the leading sub-issue in economics reporting this period, was driven by several different topics, most notably Russia’s ban on the import of all meat products from a number of states. While Russia’s ban on meat products stemmed primarily from the “swine flu” outbreak, to which U.S. beef had no connection, the fact that beef and other meat products were banned from import to Russia garnered media coverage for the beef industry. Despite denials from Russian officials, the consensus among U.S. officials cited in the media was that Russia was using H1N1 as an excuse to adopt protectionist measures. Negotiations between the two countries were ongoing, with U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) spokesperson Nefeterius McPherson announcing, “USTR expects Russia to remove these non-science-based restrictions immediately” (Reuters, May 27). The concerns over protectionism were heightened when the Associated Press reported that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev implied in a television interview that imported foods contain more chemicals. “Given a choice, our family of course gives preference to Russian food products,” said Medvedev (June 21). These reports were often neutral, though some reports that contained commentary from U.S. officials were slightly positive for the beef industry.

Foreign trade coverage was also driven by a trade dispute and negotiations between the European Union (EU) and the United States. The continuing ban on the export of U.S. hormone-treated beef to the EU provoked a number of brief business reports in April and May. Aside from mentioning that there was no scientific basis for discriminating against hormone-treated beef, reports focused on the U.S.-EU trade relationship rather than on the beef industry. Ultimately, however, media outlets reported that the United States and the EU reached an agreement on beef exports. Articles generally noted that the EU still rejects imports of beef from cattle raised with hormones, with the United States and World Trade Organization continuing to assert that the ban is not based on science. Further reports noted that the United States agreed to cancel several retaliatory tariffs, and in exchange, the EU will increase the amount of U.S. beef imports from 20,000 tons a year to 45,000 tons over four years (Reuters, May 8). Industry spokespeople praised the decision, which they viewed as a “stepping-stone” to more permanent agreements on meat exports with the EU and other countries. U.S. Meat Export Federation President Philip Seng commented, “If you’re going to engage a country in any kind of deliberations, it makes sense to engage them in a positive fashion as opposed to ... talking about retaliation or sanctions” (Reuters, May 21). It was these reports, as well as favorable comments from U.S. officials on the Russian meat ban, that boosted the favorability of economics reporting for the beef industry this period.

The struggling U.S. economy prompted a number of reports that highlighted the relationship between the beef industry and the overall economy. Several media outlets reported about the closure of smaller livestock sale barns and packing plants across the country. A USA Today feature profiled smaller stockyards that have recently closed, including the Sioux Falls Stockyards in South Dakota. Several people interviewed called these local stockyards “a way of life” (June 26). NCBA Livestock Market Services Manager Dan McCarty commented on several of the factors leading to the closure of smaller sale barns, including video auctions, and suburbs encroaching into formerly rural areas. These factors were also cited in an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette report about the closure of the Washington County Sale Barn in Fayetteville, Ark. (June 26). The Hartford Courant, meanwhile, interviewed the proprietors of Connecticut’s only remaining sale barn, the Middlesex Livestock Auction (June 17), highlighting the struggles they face to stay afloat in the difficult economic environment.

Although reporting about beef prices declined 18 percent this period compared to the previous four months, the sub-issue was often highlighted in reporting. Numerous articles throughout the period offered readers tips on ways to save money during the recession, including switching to cheaper cuts of meat. Many of these reports were neutral and slightly favorable toward the beef industry as they advised people on how to continue enjoying beef while on a smaller budget. Reporting on the “impact of weather” on cattle nearly doubled this period, driven largely by drought conditions in certain parts of the country. Outlets across the county reported in July about a severe drought that continues to affect Texas and its struggling agricultural sector. All three national networks ran evening news stories that featured ranchers forced to sell their cattle because they could not afford to feed them. Rancher Art Whitley explained to “ABC News” why the drought is of national concern, noting: “A lot of cattle are gone in south Texas. And when they’re gone, the price of cattle is going to go up, and the people in New York [are] going to pay a whole lot more for the beef” (July 28). Rancher Clint Buckland, who had already sold many of his cattle, told “CBS News” that the effects of the drought would be long-lasting: “When we don’t get pasture growth this year, it affects the cows’ nutrition, it affects their ability to conceive and have calves next year” (July 22). These reports, along with the “NBC Nightly News” (July 9), all noted that experts expect the drought to get worse before it gets better. Notably, several regional outlets published an Associated Press article that reported emergency relief funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would be delayed until fall, a wait that Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson found to be unacceptable (July 18).

Beef Marketing

• Volume: 497 reports, 29 percent of total
• Favorability: 59 rating, or favorable
• Leading Sub-issue: Beef recipes – 320 reports
• Leading Media: Chicago Tribune – 22 articles

“Beef recipes” dominated beef marketing coverage over the April-July period, accounting for 64 percent of the segments’ reporting. In April, several media outlets published recipes for Passover Seder and Easter dinner. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel published an article with suggestions for combining Passover and Easter recipes to create a blended meal and included a recipe for Braised Brisket with Apricots (April 2). The start of the summer grilling season prompted several recipes for grilled meat and articles instructing consumers how to prepare meat for grilling. One article provided a step-by-step guide — from selecting a grill to cooking the meat — with spice rub and sauce recipes that could be used for beef and other types of protein (Denver Post, May 2). Grilling recipes were also prevalent in the context of Memorial Day, Father’s Day and Fourth of July celebrations. Memorial Day and Fourth of July recipes focused on economical beef options with ground beef and less expensive cuts like flank steak. An article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer had a recipe for Green Chile Cheeseburgers as part of its ideas for celebrating Memorial Day, “with a splashy spread without breaking the bank” (May 20). For the Fourth of July, NPR’s “Morning Edition” broadcast a segment on how to cook the perfect burger (July 3). The segment featured Adam Perry Lang, chef and author of “Serious Barbecue,” who gave instructions on how to prepare his perfect burger, for which he used a combination of chuck, sirloin and brisket to form his patties. Recipes for Father’s Day recommended honoring dad with an indulgent steak. The Arizona Republic heralded steak as the defining Father’s Day meal, and Scottsdale chef George Harrison said, “Ask most dads what they want for dinner, and they will say steak” (June 17). Overall, summer grilling and beef recipe coverage earned solidly favorable ratings and portrayed the beef industry positively.

Conversely, “beef choices” coverage presented a less favorable impression of the industry, due in part to the widespread discussion of the documentary “Food, Inc.” The film was marketed as a documentary about where food comes from and criticized traditional food production practices. Director Robert Kenner and collaborator Michael Pollan appeared in a segment of “NPR: Morning Edition” to discuss the film, and alleged that the current meat production practices are unsafe, cruel and deceptive (June 12). Many of the articles about “Food, Inc.” suggested that the food industry must provide more disclosure on cloned meat and the hormones and antibiotics used in the production process. Many reviews noted that the movie depicted organic agricultural practices positively. The film’s emphasis on choosing organic products — including meat — as the best choice for consumers, while disparaging conventionally raised beef, contributed significantly to the negative tone of beef choices coverage. Despite these unfavorable reports, a scattering of beef choices stories positively discussed the beef options available to consumers. One of these pieces was a letter to the editor from the Indiana Beef Council’s Joe Moore, who praised the beef industry’s wide range of options such as organic and locally grown beef (Indianapolis Star, April 13).

Nutrition/Health

• Volume: 471 reports, 27 percent of total
• Favorability: 46 rating, or neutral
• Leading Sub-issue: Nutritional vegetarianism – 54 reports
• Leading Media: Chicago Tribune – 25 articles

Nutritional vegetarianism led coverage in nutrition/health reporting this period, with articles featuring vegetarian recipes accounting for a significant portion of nutritional vegetarianism coverage. In addition, the sub-issue’s higher volume was driven by several news reports addressing the topic, as well as numerous opinion pieces and letters-to-editors urging readers to reduce or eliminate their meat consumption to improve personal health. News coverage included reports about vegetarian fairs and other local events enticing citizens to adopt a plant-based diet. For example, the Times-Picayune published a front page article highlighting the New Orleans Veggie Fest, in which festival spokesperson Dr. Leslie Brown exclaimed, “We’re hoping people will come and hear about all the health benefits and the benefits to animals and the environment” (May 14). News reports also frequently focused on youths and vegetarianism. Several media outlets, including Reuters (April 1) and the Chicago Tribune (April 12), published accounts of a study that discovered vegetarian youths were more prone to eating disorders. Meanwhile, several stories appeared in newspapers in late July about the American Dietetic Association’s revised position that a properly planned vegan diet can be healthy for both children and adults. Notably, CNN’s medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta contributed to media discussion of vegetarianism. In a segment addressing staying fit in older age, Gupta acknowledged that his meals at home are only vegetarian, and suggested that calories from meat are harder to burn than those from plants as one ages (“American Morning,” July 9). Nonetheless, news reports on nutritional vegetarianism were less negative than letters–to-editors and opinion pieces on the topic. This editorial content increased in volume from last period and promoted vegetarianism for health reasons — often in addition to environmental benefits, resulting in the more negative tone of nutritional vegetarianism reporting.

Articles that included “beef recipes with nutrition information” declined 16 percent this period to 112 reports, averaging a solidly positive 63 rating. In April, articles with recipes containing nutrition information continued to include classic comfort foods such as pot roasts and meat loaves, a holdover from winter and an indication of consumers seeking to maximize their food budgets. Beginning in May and continuing through July, newspapers increasingly published grilling fare, such as steaks and hamburgers.

While reports addressing “beef and heart disease” were the most negative among leading nutrition/health sub-issues, their volume declined slightly this period compared to the preceding four-month period. Notably, a majority of coverage on beef and heart disease consisted of opinion pieces (19 reports) and letters-to-editors (10 reports). Such opinionated content generally advocated vegetarianism or reduced meat consumption to stave off heart disease and other ailments, while often citing benefits to the environment as well. Of the 23 news reports to mention beef or meat and heart disease, attention on a Canadian analysis of 189 health studies was most prevalent. The Associated Press reported that the findings classified red meat as among a “question mark list” of foods “where there’s not yet strong evidence about whether they’re good or bad for the heart” (April 13).

Beef Safety

• Volume: 394 reports, 23 percent of total
• Favorability: 45 rating, or slightly unfavorable
• Leading Sub-issue: Pathogens and beef – 177 reports
• Leading Media: Associated Press – 54 articles

Reporting about “pathogens and beef” dominated beef safety coverage this period, accounting for more than 40 percent of beef safety coverage. Numerous food recalls and the documentary “Food, Inc.” drove pathogens and beef reporting, which was concentrated in the latter half of the period. Valley Meats of Coal Valley, Ill., recalled nearly 100,000 pounds of ground beef in late May following concerns about E. coli. Overall, these reports were brief and included little commentary beyond announcing the facts surrounding the recall, with the exception of a piece in the Plain Dealer that mentioned the possible link between a young girl’s E. coli death and the recall (May 22). JBS Swift also announced a recall this period over E. coli concerns. Initial reports on the recall noted 18 people had fallen ill and prompted the 41,000-pound recall, which was later expanded to include more than 400,000 pounds of beef. The negative tone of this coverage was offset in a number of reports in which JBS spokesperson Chandler Keys explained, “The contamination may have come from further processing by other companies” (Reuters, June 29). Further reporting about the JBS Swift recall included reports that food safety activist and attorney Bill Marler had filed a lawsuit with the company on behalf of a 13-year-old boy who experienced E. coli related kidney failure after consuming contaminated beef. Keys also appeared in these reports and emphasized the importance of cooking beef to an internal temperature of 160 degrees to kill E. coli, stating, “There has to be a system of intervention steps all the way to the consumer, who must ensure proper cooking temperature” (Denver Post, July 7).

The premier of “Food, Inc.” generated a significant volume of pathogens and beef coverage in June as the film described instances of E. coli and questioned the safety of America’s food system. Several media outlets interviewed Director Robert Kenner; he suggested that feeding cattle corn increases the production of E. coli. Similarly, reviews of the film also drew attention to the film’s segment about the death of Barbara Kowalcyk’s two-year-old son from eating an E. coli tainted hamburger. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff wrote an extremely unfavorable piece in which he criticized meat production practices and cited the film’s statistic that moving feedlot cattle to a pasture for five days will cause an 80 percent reduction of the E. coli in their gut (June 21). While coverage of “Food, Inc.” was consistently negative, food safety activist Bill Marler was featured in a number of articles and admitted that while he agrees with the film’s message, some consumer fears about the food industry are unfounded (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, June 24).

Meat inspection/testing programs emerged as the third leading sub-issue for beef safety this period, due largely to proposed changes to current food safety practices. First, the Obama Administration’s Food Safety Working groups proposed a number of changes to the food safety and inspection system, including a new plan addressing E. coli. The plan would prompt USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service to increase sampling for the E. coli pathogen in ground beef and step up enforcement at meat processing plants (Washington Post, July 8). Secondly, the House passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act, which gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to order recalls of tainted food and frequently inspect “high-risk” food processing plants. Prior to the bill’s passage, several media outlets reported that the bill would transfer oversight of farms and ranches from USDA to FDA, a provision that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson fought to remove, explaining, “We all want better food safety. There is no disagreement here. We are a little skeptical about the FDA having the knowledge base to be on a farm” (Reuters, July 16). This article also noted that NCBA was among several industry groups that had concerns over some of the bill’s provisions.

Articles about “consumer safety information” generated favorable coverage for beef safety. This coverage increased by 72 percent from last period to 31 stories as several newspapers published stories about how to safely handle meat when grilling and eating outdoors. Such articles frequently included tips from food safety experts, such as how long to cook different proteins and avoiding cross contamination by using thoroughly cleaned plates and spatulas. NBC’s “Today” aired a segment on food safety with nutritionist Madelyn Fernstrom, who recommended marinating meat in the refrigerator and using a meat thermometer to ensure meat reaches an internal temperature of 160 degrees (June 2).

Environment

• Volume: 301 reports, 17 percent of total
• Favorability: 46 rating, or neutral
• Leading Sub-issue: Cattle and wildlife – 92 reports
• Leading Media: Associated Press – 97 rating

“Cattle and wildlife” was the most prevalent environmental sub-issue this period, garnering 92 reports that averaged a neutral rating. Similar to previous reporting periods, Associated Press coverage fueled the volume of coverage, with attention focused on lawsuits and government action related to cattle and wildlife interaction, particularly with the gray wolf population. The Interior Department’s decision to remove wolves from the protection granted by the Endangered Species Act generated significant controversy and media coverage as it pitted ranching groups against animal rights advocates. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that the Humane Society and other wildlife protection groups planned on challenging the decision, arguing the action was premature (April 4). Coverage about the removal was mixed surrounding its May 4 implementation.

While some less favorable coverage implied that the wolf population is not a substantial threat to livestock, many articles recognized the pragmatism of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune published an article explaining the government’s rationale behind the policy and cited John Hart, a federal wildlife agent who asserted, “The reason we’re doing it is good for wolves at large. It aids in the tolerance of wolves by [livestock] producers and the public when they know that problems are being addressed, and they’re not as likely to take matters into their own hands” (May 14).

Media coverage surrounding Earth Day on April 22 drove the volume of articles about “making diet green” and “cattle and global warming,” the second and third leading sub-issues for environmental reporting. Coverage consisted largely of articles providing tips to consumers about how to live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, all of which advocated cutting down on meat consumption, especially red meat. A majority of these articles did not suggest completely giving up meat, but suggested organic, local and grass-fed meat was more environmentally friendly. A Salt Lake Tribune article recommended incorporating one or two meatless days into each week to dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of the typical American diet (April 20). Many of these articles consisted of opinion pieces and letters-to-the-editor, and often cited the United Nations statistic suggesting conventionally raised livestock are responsible for 18 percent of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions. These opinion-based pieces were unfavorable overall, but some readers discussed the beef industry favorably. William Henning, a professor of food science at Penn State University, defended livestock production, citing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report that states livestock are responsible for only 6 percent of U.S. greenhouse gasses and concluded, “Environmentally conscious consumers should continue to enjoy lean meat with confidence, knowing they are doing the right thing for their bodies and for the environment” (USA Today, April 30). Reporting about ways to make diets green continued throughout this period, and was overwhelmingly negative, generating a solidly unfavorable 36 average rating.

Lingering concerns over the possibility of a federal tax on methane emissions from livestock continued to generate coverage, and an Associated Press report on the topic was reprinted in several newspapers. The report noted that although the tax was not included in a climate change bill being developed by the Obama Administration, industry groups remain concerned (June 21).

Animal Rights/Welfare/Health

• Volume: 262 reports, 15 percent of total
• Favorability: 43 rating, or slightly unfavorable
• Leading Sub-issue: Cattle diseases – 80 reports
• Leading Media: Associated Press – 97 articles

“Cattle diseases” supplanted “cruelty in production practices” as the leading animal rights/welfare/health sub-issue this period, witnessing a 38 percent increase in coverage. The tone of this reporting improved slightly, as the average favorability rating of articles addressing cattle diseases increased 1 point to a still neutral 51 rating. Articles on mapping of the cow genome, tuberculosis (TB) testing in Nebraska, and the National Animal Identification System were most prominent in reporting on cattle diseases. Stories in late April reported about scientists having successfully mapped the cow genome. Such attention discussed the potential benefits of this development. Notably, encouraging comments from USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack appeared in a front-page St. Louis Post-Dispatch article about the development. Vilsack said, “Understanding the cattle genome and having the sequence will allow researchers to understand the genetic basis for disease in domestic cattle and could result in healthier production of meat and milk while reducing producers’ dependence on antibiotics” (April 24). Attention on the genome mapping was favorable toward the beef industry compared to reporting throughout June and July about tuberculosis (TB) testing of Nebraska cattle, which was mixed. The Associated Press was most prominent in reporting on bovine TB in Nebraska, issuing news stories about the discovery of TB in one herd, the swelling and declining number of herds in quarantine while testing ensued, and updates of testing results that revealed no new cases of infection. Unfavorable reporting addressed the initial discovery and impact of quarantines on ranchers’ livelihoods, including the prospect of Nebraska losing its TB-free status and the financial harm to cattle producers that would result.

Articles addressing “factory farming” (58 reports, 30 rating) expanded exponentially this period, largely from attention to the film “Food Inc.” Numerous reviews published before and after the movie was released, and interviews with the director, Robert Kenner, fueled considerable negative attention on factory farms. In discussing the premise of the movie, many reports noted the film revealed horrible conditions at cattle feedlots. Notably, Roger Ebert’s review began, “The next time you tuck into a nice T-bone, reflect that it probably came from a cow that spent much its life standing in manure reaching above its ankles.” In addition to “Food Inc.” related coverage on factory farming, several letters-to-editors addressed the topic. A representative letter cited “ending the horrific cruelty involved in factory farm practices” as one of many reasons to promote a vegetarian diet, and declared that the “swine flu” outbreak is “one more screaming call reminding us to end factory farming” (The Oregonian, May 1).

Vegetarianism

The volume of vegetarianism-related reporting April-July increased to 204 reports, up 59 percent from the previous four-month period. The favorability of reporting on vegetarianism fell 2 points to average a slightly negative 37 rating. A prominent theme in vegetarianism reporting this period was coverage encouraging meat-eaters to try vegetarian and vegan diets or add meatless days into their eating regimes. These articles were particularly prevalent surrounding Earth Day, such as a letter-to-the-editor that read, “Meat and diary production dumps more animal waste, crop debris, fertilizers, pesticides and other pollutants into our waterways than all other human activities combined. Let’s replace meat and other animal products with more healthful, eco-friendly food” (Philadelphia Inquirer, April 21). These reports supported an increase in environmental vegetarianism stories, from 22 reports from December-March, to 35 reports this period. Of note, the favorability of reporting on environmental vegetarianism declined 3 points from last period to a 34 rating.

Mentions of nutritional vegetarianism accounted for more than half of vegetarianism reporting. A substantial portion of these reports consisted of vegetarian recipes, several of which were for veggie burgers and vegetarian grilling recipes that were often presented as alternatives to traditional hamburger cookouts. Reporting on nutritional vegetarianism also included articles about a study connecting vegetarianism and eating disorders. The study, published originally in the Journal of American Dietetic Association, found that adolescents who self-identified as current or former vegetarians were more likely to suffer from eating disorders than their meat-eating counterparts (Chicago Tribune, April 12). Articles about the study often urged parents to pay attention to their children’s eating habits. Additionally, letters-to-the-editor and opinion pieces featured prominently in nutritional vegetarianism reporting. These letters frequently urged people to try vegetarian diets and argued that such diets are healthier than diets that include meat.

Books promoting vegetarian or vegan diets were prevalent this period, especially Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson’s “The Face on Your Plate: The Truth About Food.” Articles about the book were among the beef industry’s most negative this period, although Masson preached a non-aggressive attitude toward those who eat meat. “A vegan diet takes getting used to,” Masson admitted. “I call myself an aspiring vegan … I make mistakes sometimes” (New York Times, April 15). However, Masson argued that humans were not meant to eat meat and negated the idea that animals can be raised for consumption in “cruelty-free environments.”

Conclusions

• Attention to “Food, Inc.” affected the performance of several sub-issues in this period’s coverage. Although reports on the film did not make up a substantial portion of overall coverage, the movie’s impact was nonetheless felt. Most notably, reporting on factory farming surged from only a single story last period to 58 articles this period.
• Nutritional vegetarianism reporting increased substantially this period, with the volume of stories on the topic increasing 41 percent. While this volume growth was driven considerably by media discussion of youths and vegetarianism, the attention was mixed. Numerous media outlets reported that vegetarian youths are more prone to eating disorders such as binge eating and anorexia. Additionally, the American Dietetic Association revising its position in accepting well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets as healthful and nutritionally adequate for infants through adulthood was well covered by the media. Nonetheless, suggestions to parents to monitor closely the food intake of their vegetarian children were common throughout reporting on youths opting against meat consumption.
• Reports about recalls more than doubled this period. Several recalls occurred during the reporting period, including a recall of 400,000 pounds of meat from JBS Swift after several people fell ill with E. coli after consuming the company’s beef. Notably, recalls generated coverage in the context of federal regulation as the Obama Administration increased the government’s power to order recalls of products suspected of contamination. The increase in stories about recalls coincided with an increase in the volume of coverage about pathogens and beef as these articles frequently mentioned E. coli as the source of recalls.

July-August-September 2009

‘Supreme Master’ religious group begins
U.S. anti-meat campaign

by Stephen Myers, Manager, Reputation Communications – NCBA

Summary

The Supreme Master religious group is increasingly becoming involved in promoting a vegan lifestyle through publicizing meat’s supposed contributions to global warming. Though the impact of the group’s efforts to-date have likely been limited by its low credibility as a religious sect, its financial resources and global presence indicate that it is well-positioned to take a larger role among anti-meat activists in the United States and abroad.

Background

The Supreme Master religious group is centered around its leader, Ching Hai, the self-styled founder, teacher and “Supreme Master” of the group. The group’s belief system is primarily focused on meditation, with a special focus on veganism for its followers. While reliable information and statistics on the group are difficult to find, the sect appears to have developed in Asia over the last two or three decades, and has expanded worldwide more recently.

Because of the group’s extensive presence abroad, it is reasonable to assume that it has significant financial resources, though no specific numbers are available. News reports indicate the primary means of fundraising for the group is through the books, tapes, clothing, art and other items developed by Ching Hai and sold to followers and potential converts.

While the group is likely unfamiliar to many in the United States except for some in the Southern California and San Francisco areas, it has greater exposure in Asian countries. In fact, a 1997 article in Time estimated that the group had 300,000 followers in Taiwan alone. The group actively promotes itself through offering donations and assistance during natural disaster relief efforts, a chain of “Loving Hut” vegan restaurants with 11 locations in the United States and many more abroad, and a 24-hour stream of television programming available through the Internet and by satellite, billing itself as “the ideal television channel that brings to your life Nobility and Spirituality.”

While veganism has always been a central feature of the group’s belief system, the group took an increasingly public role in attempting to link meat consumption with global warming through a 2008 public relations campaign in Australia. The three-week campaign garnered a number of news stories in Australian newspapers, and was coupled with a $400,000 (Australian) advertising campaign, including television, print and billboard ads. Additionally, the campaign also featured a Web site, AskMoreNow.com.au, with links to the group’s other Web properties, as well as the claim, “you don’t need to be a hero to save the world, just be vegan.”

In 2009, the Supreme Master group began a similar effort in the United States with a PR Newswire announcement on Feb. 2 and television public service announcements airing in several markets across the country, and some reports of billboards and bus ads in the San Francisco area. In contrast to the group’s efforts in Australia, the U.S. campaign has taken greater efforts to conceal the source of its messages. For example, the site for the U.S. campaign, LetsActNow.org, describes itself only as a “joint effort of a group of people; all volunteers, all age groups, all from different backgrounds.”

While the Supreme Master group’s Australian efforts were at least successful in generating mainstream media coverage, its U.S. campaign has been unsuccessful so far in gaining widespread exposure. Nonetheless, the group constitutes an important new addition to the list of anti-meat activists. Though the group likely lacks the credibility of other anti-meat groups like the Humane Society for the United States and Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine, the group’s base of motivated volunteers and extensive financial resources indicate it has the capability to generate additional exposure for dubious claims about meat and global warming in future campaigns.

Key Points The Supreme Master group is a well-funded religious sect with growing influence that supports a vegan lifestyle. The group is actively pushing its vegan agenda by promoting the supposed link between meat and global warming on its extensive Web and satellite television presence, as well as its global chain of vegan restaurants. The group has recently conducted targeted anti-meat public relations campaigns in the United States and Australia with mixed results.

Humane Society University to train
future animal rights leaders

by Sarah Hubbart, Communications Coordinator – Animal Agriculture Alliance

Summary

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) recently established Humane Society University, a distance-learning program based in Washington, D.C., that is set to begin instruction in fall 2009. Students will be able to pursue a Bachelor of Science in animal studies, animal policy and advocacy or humane leadership studying under professors whose expertise is grounded in animal rights extremism.

Background

HSUS recently established the latest edition to its educational arm, Humane Society University. The as-of-yet unaccredited distance-learning program based in Washington, D.C., is officially set to begin in fall 2009. Humane Society University recently received its license as a degree-granting institution from the District of Columbia Education Licensure Commission but is still seeking accreditation from the Middle States Commission for Higher Education.

Students will be able to pursue a Bachelor of Science in animal studies, animal policy and advocacy or humane leadership by taking eight-week courses in five subject tracks: advocacy, animal caregiving and behavior, humane education, humane leadership and shelter management and law enforcement. At $300 per class, it will cost about $11,700 to complete the 39 required credits. Applicants are also expected to complete their general education at a different institution before beginning the program, thereby increasing the cost to complete the program.

HSUS officials have stated that the program is targeted at current shelter employees, volunteers or those interested in animal advocacy. Humane Society University President Robert Roop was quoted by Insidehighered.com as noting, “In an animal shelter community, a great percentage of executive directors are career changers ... so this is really trying to help professionalize that position,” adding that it is the only program of its kind.

However, a simple investigation for universities offering programs studying animals on U.S.CollegeSearch.com uncovers 1,123 traditional and online options. The Web site describes the various degrees offered that are related to animals as “a springboard to such diverse careers as caring for zoo animals, managing kennels or riding stables, monitoring laboratory animals, or working with government agencies that enforce laws against animal cruelty.”

Humane Society University is not the lone avenue for individuals interested in animal sciences and welfare, but it will be undeniably different from any other degree-granting institution. The extremely one-sided views encouraged in each class have the potential to reach a large audience thanks to HSUS’ staggering budget.

Program professors, trustees are animal rights extremists

An eclectic group of professors has been gathered by HSUS Chief Executive Officer Wayne Pacelle to expand the organization’s previous educational offerings in order to train future animal rights leaders. The individuals who will be leading such classes as “Animals, Advocacy and Corporate Change,” “Farm Animal Welfare” and “Animal Protection as a Social Movement” come from a wide variety of backgrounds, including women’s studies, philosophy, communication and elementary education.

Just one of the eight faculty members in the Humane Society University Department of Animal Studies received a degree in something related to animals; the department chair has a Ph.D. in history. However, each brings years of experience acquired working within the animal rights movement. Three of the department’s professors are directly employed by HSUS, one is a co-founder of Animal Defenders International, and one is researching the (presumably negative) emotional effect on 4-H members who sell their project animals at market.

Dr. Nathan Nobis specializes in ethics and animals, abortion, environmental ethics and other topics in bioethics and applied ethics. The first book on the required reading list for his course on “Ethics and Animals” is “Animal Liberation,” a 300-plus page work by the controversial philosopher Peter Singer, who writes: “Flesh taints our meals. Disguise it as we may, the fact remains that the centerpiece of our dinner has come to us from the slaughterhouse, dripping blood.” Students will find three other books on the syllabus, each condemning the way humans currently treat animals. These books have been applauded by the radical animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals because the authors set out to show the error in using animals for food or keeping them as pets.

Dr. Kim Charmatz, chair of the Humane Leadership Department, is an opponent of modern agriculture practices. While still a student at Maryland University, she became upset about comedic ads promoting fast food restaurant Chick-fil-A at the student union. In a letter to the school paper, she stated, “The truth about the chicken industry is far from a joke to the animals who must spend their entire lives in cages or confined spaces on factory farms.”

Miyun Park will be teaching the course on farm animal welfare. She is the former president of Compassion Over Killing, an organization she founded in 1995 to actively promote vegetarianism. In 1999, Park was found to be the benefactor of No Compromise magazine, a publication supporting the violent Animal Liberation Front, which is considered a terrorist group by FBI.

The Board of Trustees at Humane Society University also consists of some of HSUS’ biggest names. Pacelle is joined by the chief executive officer of Humane Society International, two HSUS vice presidents and G. Thomas Wait, acting HSUS treasurer and chief financial officer since 1993.

Students studying at Humane Society University are likely to become indoctrinated with the core beliefs of the movement without exposure to the other side of the issues, a scary proposition for those involved in animal agriculture. It appears that the expanded Humane Society University will serve as another profitable tool for the group to promote its animal rights agenda. Agriculturists should be mindful of the potential impact programs such as this can have on the industry.

Key Points HSUS recently established the Humane Society University. The as-of-yet unaccredited distance-learning program based in Washington, D.C., is set to begin in fall 2009, educating students in advocacy, animal caregiving and behavior, humane education, humane leadership and shelter management and law enforcement. The professors selected to expand HSUS’ previous educational offerings in order to train future animal rights leaders have years of experience working within the animal rights movement. The professors come from a wide variety of backgrounds, including women’s studies, philosophy, communication and elementary education.

HSUS officials have stated that the program is targeted at current shelter employees, volunteers or those interested in animal advocacy, suggesting Humane Society University is the only program of its kind. However, the program is not the only opportunity for individuals interested in animal sciences and welfare, and the one-sided views encouraged in each class have the potential to reach a large audience.

New guide helps beef farmers and ranchers
tell their cattle care story

by Audrey Monroe, Associate Director, Issues Management – NCBA

Summary

Consumers want and need to hear from cattle farmers and ranchers about the things they do every day to treat animals humanely, including their participation in the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program. A new communications toolkit, “Cattle Care Outreach: A State Guide to Leveraging Beef Quality Assurance,” was created for state beef councils and cattlemen affiliates to help beef producers proactively tell their cattle care story and leverage the BQA program.

Background

Beef-eating consumers desire information about how the beef they love gets from the pasture to their plate. However, most do not know a farmer or rancher. This disconnect creates an opportunity for misinformation to be perceived as truth. However, it also creates an opportunity for cattle farmers and ranchers to tell consumers their cattle care stories.

Desire for knowledge

Consumers are interested in animal welfare issues. In fact, a 2007 Conscious Consumer Report from BBMG, a branding firm based in both New York and San Francisco, found 82 percent of respondents favored companies that were committed to animal welfare. This personal value came in close behind the desire for companies to manufacture products in the United States and for companies to support local businesses and suppliers. Beyond animal care, consumers also are interested in knowing more about the entire beef production process. A May 2009 beef checkoff-funded national survey found three out of four consumers (74%) are interested in knowing more about where their beef comes from.

To know beef producers is to like beef producers

Rural America — especially agriculture — is becoming less familiar to most beef consumers. According to a May 2009 national random-sample telephone survey funded by The Beef Checkoff, only 3 percent of American households derive any farming and ranching income from production of crops or livestock for food, and less than 1 percent (0.69%) of Americans say farming or ranching is their primary source of household income. Additionally, only four in 10 consumers say they personally know a farmer or rancher.

This disconnect from the people who raise food can cause consumers to have an unfavorable opinion of the agricultural industry. For example, this same survey found that of the consumers who said they know the beef industry very well, 88 percent had a favorable opinion of the industry. This is in stark contrast to the mere 35 percent of consumers who said they had never heard of the beef industry and had a favorable opinion.

New tools help cattlemen tell their animal care story

In August, the checkoff-funded BQA and Issues and Reputation Management teams rolled out a new toolkit designed for state partners to help cattle farmers and ranchers tell their cattle care story and bridge the gap between beef producers and consumers. “Cattle Care Outreach: A State Guide to Leveraging Beef Quality Assurance” includes five modules: creating a video that tells a producer’s cattle care story; hosting a farm/ranch tour to promote animal welfare; using existing opportunities to promote animal welfare; conducting a state BQA award contest; and engaging more beef producers to tell their cattle care story.

Creating a video that tells the cattle care story: Many consumers have never been on a farm, nor do they fully understand how much effort farmers and ranchers put into properly caring for cattle. Telling a story in a short, two- or three-minute video gives consumers a look into the life of a cattle producer. An animal care video puts a name and face to the beef industry and helps counterbalance online misinformation about how producers treat their cattle. This module gives tips on engaging cattle farmers and ranchers to produce videos and provides technical advice on shooting and editing a video, then posting it online.

Hosting a farm/ranch tour to promote animal welfare: A beef industry tour allows consumers and consumer influencers to interact with beef producers on a personal level. A tour gives audiences the opportunity to see animal care first-hand and to meet cattle farmers and ranchers in their area. This module supplies tips for hosting a tour, including everything from attracting key audiences to bringing the animal welfare story to life.

Using existing opportunities to promote animal welfare: Many state partner organizations have existing opportunities that could be complemented and enhanced through solid animal welfare tools and resources. This module provides customizable PowerPoint slides, stories, a photo library and talking points that help promote the animal welfare practices employed by BQA-certified producers through existing communication vehicles, such as trade show booths, magazines and newsletters, Web sites, etc.

Conduct a state BQA award contest: Conducting a state BQA award contest is an excellent way to recognize BQA-certified beef producers at the state level who go above and beyond to care for their animals. Winners also can serve as spokespersons for the beef industry by sharing their animal care story with the media, influencers and consumers. This module contains best practices about how to conduct a BQA award contest at the state level and customizable tools to promote and execute the program, as well as promote the winner(s).

Engaging more beef producers to tell their cattle care story: Equipping leading cattle care advocates — possibly graduates of the checkoff-funded Master of Beef Advocacy program who are BQA certified — with the right tools and resources may encourage other beef producers to become BQA certified and tell their cattle care story to consumers in their communities. This module contains a customizable presentation and article designed for an agricultural audience and message cards that farmers and ranchers can use in conversations with peers.

Key Points Consumers are interested in learning about beef production practices, including animal care. However, according to a checkoff-funded study, only four in 10 consumers said they personally know a farmer or rancher. A new communications toolkit, “Cattle Care Outreach: A State Guide to Leveraging Beef Quality Assurance,” was created for state beef councils and cattlemen’s organizations to help beef producers proactively tell their cattle care story and leverage the BQA program. The toolkit includes five modules: creating a video that tells the producer’s cattle care story; hosting a farm/ranch tour to promote animal welfare; using existing opportunities to promote animal welfare; conducting a state BQA award contest; and engaging more beef producers to tell their cattle care story.

Animal Health/Well-being

Understanding the benefits of animal protein in the diet

by Shalene McNeill, Ph.D., RD, Executive Director, Nutrition Research - NCBA

Summary

Nutrition experts have long recognized the value of animal products in a healthy, balanced and varied diet. Lean beef is the No. 1 source of high-quality protein in the American diet and provides 10 other essential vitamins and minerals that often are missing from the diets of overfed but undernourished Americans. As more research is funded in this area, it will be important for the beef industry and other animal-based protein industries to continue to contribute to the scientific understanding of beef-based,animal protein diets.

Background

Obesity has been described as the lens through which nutrition issues are viewed. It is the key driver of public health initiatives, food industry product development, and food advertising and marketing. However, despite the public health emphasis on obesity, the number of obese and overweight American adults and children is at an all time high. This situation has prompted an evolving debate among nutrition experts about the ideal ratio of macronutrients — protein, carbohydrate and fat — needed to optimize weight management.

Early in this debate, the discussion largely centered on the amount and type of fat consumed. Some referred to this as the “fat makes you fat” era. However, as obesity rates continued to skyrocket, emphasis shifted to carbohydrates because of the recognition that eating a low-fat diet for most Americans meant replacing fat with simple or refined carbohydrates. Until more recently, protein was largely ignored because it was generally viewed that most people consume sufficient amounts of protein from various sources.

However, over the past decade and especially in recent years, protein-related research has increased with particular interest in higher protein diets and their beneficial effect on weight loss and maintenance, appetite and satiety and other areas such as diabetes, bone health and metabolic syndrome.

Importantly, most scientific evidence on the benefits of higher protein diets have been demonstrated using test diets where the majority of protein came from animal sources, such as meat, dairy and eggs. Beef checkoff-funded research, as well as funding from other checkoff-based organizations such as the National Pork Board, the American Egg Board and the National Dairy Council have supported high quality research that has greatly contributed to current understanding about the benefits of higher protein diets.

These exciting and beneficial research findings, along with consumer awareness, have made protein a hot topic. Since 2000, protein research has increased by 40 percent and protein media coverage has more than doubled. According to a recent survey published by the International Food Information Council, there has been a 40 percent increase in consumers noting the use of food labels to identify protein content of foods. And, only 1 percent of consumers believe protein calories cause weight gain. Even with the success of higher protein diets, there has been an increased interest in plant proteins by some segments in the nutrition community who have suggested plants provide an alternative “healthier” solution to animal-based proteins.

Eco-Atkins diet

A recent paper attempts to challenge the success of lower carbohydrate, higher protein diets with increased meat consumption for weight loss and improvement of risk factors for diabetes and coronary heart disease. Called the “Eco-Atkins diet,” the researchers used all plant protein sources to build a higher protein diet. The paper, entitled “The Effect of a Plant-Based Low-Carbohydrate (‘Eco-Atkins’) Diet on Body Weight and Blood Lipid Concentrations in Hyperlipidemic Subjects,” published in the June issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, received some media attention. However, several reports noted concern and skepticism of the proposed diet.

The objective was to compare a low-carbohydrate, plant-based protein diet to a high carbohydrate diet that included low-fat dairy, eggs and whole grains (lacto-ovo vegetarian diet) to determine the effect on weight loss and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. This is what is known as the “bad” cholesterol. The plant-based protein “test” diet included vegetable proteins from gluten, soy, nuts, fruits, vegetables, cereal and vegetable oils.

It was a relatively small (47 subjects), short-term (four weeks) feeding study where food was provided and thus study adherence was excellent. Weight loss was similar between the diets and can be explained by both treatment groups consuming a calorie-reduced diet. Since all foods were provided, study participants did not have to find and prepare menus with the rather specialized sources of plant proteins.

Measures of LDL and related lipid levels decreased on both diets, but decreased to a greater extent on the plant-based low-carbohydrate diet. It is relevant that this diet was also 30 percent higher in fiber, which could have had a major impact on the favorable lipid results. The authors did not discuss this.

The authors conclude, “A low-carbohydrate plant-based diet has lipid-lowering advantages over a high-carbohydrate, low-fat weight-loss diet in improving heart disease risk factors not seen with conventional low-fat diets with animal products.”

This paper has a number of shortcomings. First, all three macronutrients — fat, protein and carbohydrate — levels and type were different between the two diets, making a true comparison impossible because one can’t properly ascribe which nutrient(s) are responsible for the effect. Second, this low-carb, high plant protein diet is not an Atkins diet and thus the title/positioning is misleading. To accurately evaluate these questions, the research design would need to compare a true Atkins type diet (or even a moderately high, meat source protein diet) to a plant-based, higher protein diet in a larger study and over a longer period. Third, long-term compliance and acceptability to such a diet could not be determined from this study. Finally, the authors implicate red meat in the introduction despite the fact that red meat was not included in either diet evaluated as part of this study.

Comparing animal and plant proteins

The Eco-Atkins paper acknowledges, “The effect of exchanging animal proteins and fats for those of vegetable origin has not been tested.” The vast majority of higher protein studies have been short-term and examined weight loss and maybe other health parameters, but have not systematically compared animal and plant protein sources. However, there is increasing interest in the research and nutrition community to evaluate the beneficial effects of plant-based protein diets.

To date, animal proteins have been the preferred protein source by most researchers testing higher protein diets because:

• They are complete proteins providing all the essential amino acids the body needs;
• They are an efficient nutrient-rich protein source, providing an excellent source of high quality protein along with ten other essential nutrients;
• Lean animal proteins, such as lean beef, provide a 2-3 fold greater amount of protein per calorie than plant proteins; and
• Lean animal proteins are palatable, accepted by the consumer and contribute to overall dietary compliance in research studies.

Key Points An evolving debate about the ideal ratio of protein, carbohydrate and fat needed in the diet to optimize weight has been prompted by rising obesity rates. Until recently, the focus was on lowering types and levels of fat or carbohydrate as a way to help manage weight. More recently, research on higher animal protein diets and their beneficial health affects has increased.

A recent paper attempts to challenge the success of lower carbohydrate, higher protein animal-based diets by testing an all-vegetable protein based higher protein diet. The beef checkoff continues to invest in high quality research to advance our understanding about the benefits of animal protein in the diet and demonstrates beef’s unique benefits.

Diet/Health/Nutrition

Beef checkoff reinforces Power of Protein messages among media and influencers

by Julie Sodano, Director, Nutrition & Shelley Johnson, RD, Associate Director, Nutrition – NCBA

Summary

Research continues to indicate that high-quality protein plays a critical role in many health issues facing Americans, such as weight management, muscle maintenance and reduced risk of several chronic diseases including diabetes and sarcopenia. In fact, protein research has increased by 40 percent since 2000. With the Baby Boomer population aging and obesity on the rise, it’s important to re-examine the role of protein in American diets. The beef checkoff through its “Power of Protein” nutrition influencer and nutrition public relations outreach has educated health professionals and media about new research reinforcing the health benefits of dietary protein. Protein was a primary leverage point for the checkoff nutrition team throughout this year through efforts to extend messages of the national advertising campaign, and will continue to be an important message in 2010 as protein’s place in dietary guidance is revisited.

Background

As a follow-up to the 2007 national Protein Summit, a checkoff-funded comprehensive protein publication titled “Exploring the Impact of High-Quality Protein on Optimal Health” was published in the May 2008 edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The supplement highlighted the growing body of research that supports the critical role of high-quality protein, such as that found in lean beef, in a healthy lifestyle. It also set the stage for health professionals to re-think current dietary recommendations for protein, shifting the focus from meeting minimal needs to consuming enough to achieve optimal health.

While protein was always recognized as a major essential nutrient, many health professionals incorrectly assume Americans consume too much. In actuality, government data show that many individuals, especially the elderly, under-consume high-quality protein.

Traditionally, protein recommendations have been based on preventing deficiency. Yet the latest research demonstrates that when consumed at a higher but still moderate amount (up to twice the current recommendation), protein may lessen risk or prevent many health concerns: overweight, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis and sarcopenia.

Last August, the nutrition team brought together a group of seven leading protein experts to discuss the latest research and brainstorm ways to elevate awareness of protein’s role in optimal health. Several of these experts were instrumental in further disseminating the research to health professionals across the country via a checkoff-funded protein Webinar series. More than 1,330 registered dietitians participated and received checkoff-funded electronic protein resources to use with their clients.

In addition to nutrition influencer education, the beef checkoff supported outreach to keep media up to date on the latest protein science. For example, two electronic press kits were distributed to 250 nutrition media. The research also was disseminated to nutrition influencers via listserv posts and an electronic resource kit. The kits promoted checkoff-funded protein research studies by Donald Layman, Ph.D., and Doug Paddon-Jones, Ph.D., two leading protein researchers. Results from media outreach included a feature story in The Toledo Blade titled “Protein Adds to Good Health.”

Media coverage of protein has more than doubled since 2000 and casts a light on this important topic for both consumers and health professionals. It provides a third-party, credible perspective that’s influential in helping people make dietary decisions. Other top media results from protein outreach include an article in the July edition of Cooking Light titled “Protein Power.” The article cited research from the checkoff-funded American Journal of Clinical Nutrition supplement. It also noted, “Science seems to indicate a call for re-examining protein needs” — a key point driven by the nutrition team’s program. Beef was mentioned under this list of “superlative protein sources,” with a note that it also offers highly absorbable iron, plus B vitamins and zinc.

The February edition of US News & World Report contained an article about Baby Boomers with a section about the importance of building muscle strength and protein’s role in sarcopenia prevention. Dr. Paddon-Jones advised consumers to eat complete protein, such as beef, at every meal.

Protein researcher Nancy Rodriguez, Ph.D., appeared on "CBS Sunday Morning" to discuss the benefits of animal protein versus plant protein and the nutrients missed without meat. Rodriguez recommended a more balanced diet in comparison to a vegetarian one that was being highlighted on the show.

In addition to national media outreach, state beef councils received an update on the current protein environment and upcoming protein research during a series of relationship-building Webinars. During the Webinars, state beef councils learned the importance of building and enhancing media relationships so they can emphasize the beef protein value in their states. State beef councils also were encouraged to offer their state dietetic associations protein-related seminars to further echo the Power of Protein message.

Protein will remain a cornerstone of the nutrition team’s program during the remainder of 2009 and through fiscal year 2010. As additional sound science on the topic continues to build, solidifying protein’s role in optimal health, the nutrition team is prepared to continue raising beef protein awareness through education and media outreach. The team will also continue to monitor closely the 2010 Dietary Guidelines process to determine the latest recommendations for protein intake, which could ultimately affect beef sales and consumption.

Key Points With an aging Boomer population and obesity on the rise, it’s an important time to re-examine the role of protein in American diets as it pertains to optimal health. The beef checkoff is using sound science and third-party experts to educate key media and influential health professionals that people should consider a moderate protein diet to achieve health benefits and reduce common health risk factors. Protein, a strong media hook and timely topic given the 2010 Dietary Guidelines revision process, will continue to be a cornerstone of the beef checkoff’s nutrition program as recommendations for this important nutrient are re-examined.

Diet/Health/Nutrition

Investigating emerging pathogens in U.S. cattle

by Michelle Rossman, Director, Beef Safety Research & Mandy Carr, Ph.D, Executive Director, Beef Safety – NCBA

Summary

Monitoring the emergence of pathogens and other possible threats to the safety of the U.S. beef supply has been a priority for U.S. beef producers. Projects funded by The Beef Checkoff have resulted in knowledge that allows researchers to prioritize research gaps and focus efforts without compromising beef safety. Public health officials track foodborne illness and monitor emerging challenges to human health. Unfortunately, to date good estimates of which foods contribute the most to illnesses caused by specific pathogens are not available. This is particularly true of emerging pathogens such as non-O157 STEC, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium difficile. White papers funded by the checkoff summarizing the current knowledge on these pathogens have recently been published. The following are brief summaries of the information. To access the white papers, please visit BeefResearch.org.

Background

Non-O157 STEC

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are a cause of diarrhea, hemorrhagic colitis and hemolytic uremic syndrome worldwide. E. coli O157 has been the most common serogroup of STEC causing disease in the United States, but it is just one serogroup of STEC frequently associated with human disease. There is a growing concern that STEC, other than serotype O157:H7 (non-O157), are becoming more commonly reported in the United States. It is estimated that the actual number of non-O157 STEC infections that occur annually in the United States meets or exceeds the estimated 70,000 infections caused by E. coli O157.

Clostridium difficile

Clostridium difficile is a pathogen originally restricted to hospitalized individuals. More recently cases caused by highly virulent strains of the organisms have occurred among people in the community. The emergence of community acquired infections, along with the isolation of toxigenic subtypes of the pathogen from ground beef and other meats, has raised concern of the possibility of foodborne transmission of this organism. Although it is known that the bacterium could be isolated from very young and sick animals, the prevalence in the healthy adult population of cattle intended for slaughter was unknown.

MRSA

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, otherwise referred to as MRSA, is a well known cause of nosocomial infections — or infections which are a result of treatment in a hospital or a healthcare service unit, but secondary to the patient’s original condition — worldwide. MRSA has recently been implicated as a community-acquired and zoonotic pathogen — meaning it can be transmitted between or is shared by animals and humans. The adaptive potential of this commensal bacterium enables it to exist in a broad spectrum of environments and survive efforts to reduce its burden.

Whether the origin of the strain is nosocomial, community or animal, the route of transmission is by way of contact with infected individuals, items or the immediate environment of an infected individual. Several case reports of zoonotic transmission involve multiple species, which most likely occurred by means of direct contact. Additionally, it has been speculated that MRSA may also be spread via aerosol and in both raw and prepared food.

Given that MRSA can infect animals as well as humans, concern surrounds the potential for MRSA to become a bacterial foodborne pathogen, which is separate from the well-documented Staphylococcal food poisoning caused by a toxin produced by the bacteria. However, currently, no reports of MRSA disease from handling or eating meat exist.

Quantifying prevalence

Research projects funded by The Beef Checkoff are underway to determine the potential of live cattle to contribute to the risk of these pathogens in the food supply. Knowing the prevalence of these emerging pathogens in live animal populations will provide a baseline for future reference and an indication as to whether pre-harvest interventions to control these organisms might prove to be beneficial.

Key Points Emerging pathogens that affect public health are being tracked in live cattle to determine prevalence levels. White papers that summarize information on MRSA, C. difficile and non-O157 E. coli are available by policy makers and researchers at BeefResearch.org.

Beef Safety/Quality

Creating value in new beef cuts

by Steven Wald, Director, New Product Development – NCBA

Summary

The creation of new beef products requires an understanding of beef customers in order to develop products that meet their needs and deliver value. Value from the customer standpoint doesn’t necessarily mean inexpensive or cheap, but rather the relationship between satisfaction received from the product and the price paid for it. The Beef Innovations Group (BIG), funded by The Beef Checkoff, works to increase the dollar value of the beef carcass with the ultimate goal of increasing the return on investment for America’s beef producers.

Working with partners at Oklahoma State University, BIG’s major role is to examine the undervalued portions of the carcass to determine the maximum value that can be realized for each sub-primal. That may mean developing individual steaks, or providing raw materials for stew meat, pot roasts and ground beef, depending on which end product creates the maximum value for the carcass. Through BIG’s product development process, new processes and methods are explored for adding maximum value for each muscle while providing products that meet consumer needs.

Background

Muscle Profiling

The foundation of the BIG new product development program is the Muscle Profiling research work from the late 1990s that was funded by The Beef Checkoff. This work, conducted at the University of Nebraska and University of Florida through NCBA, indentified the size and tenderness of several muscles within the carcass, allowing BIG to target muscle groups for further evaluation. In the early phase of the program, new cutting techniques focused on harvesting individual muscles from larger sub-primals, such as taking the top blade muscle from the shoulder clod and then fabricating it into the Flat Iron steak.

Prior to Muscle Profiling the Flat Iron steak mainly was used either as ground beef or pot roasts. However, Muscle Profiling recognized the Flat Iron steak as having more potential and it now is sold as a steak by retailers and restaurants across the country.

Adopting new cutting methods and sharing the resulting new cuts with retailers is a long process. Work on the value-added muscle program began in the late 1990s, but it wasn’t until 2002 that the first products, including the Flat Iron steak, Ranch steak and Petite Tender, were launched. It was 2005 when the first major retail chain introduced the Flat Iron. Now Kroger, Safeway and others sell Flat Iron steaks and Petite Tenders.

The foodservice industry has been very successful in launching these new cuts. In 2008, the Flat Iron, Petite Tender and Ranch Cuts established themselves on restaurant menus throughout the United States, with the Flat Iron selling more pounds than the T-Bone and Porterhouse combined (see graph). According to CattleFax, the new cuts and products from the Shoulder Clod have added $50-60 to the value of the carcass.

Innovation

Cutting technique is extremely important and still the foundation of the whole muscle product development program. Technologies and interventions to make the world’s best beef better also are being evaluated. These interventions include new cutting techniques, applied cookery processes, complex manufacturing processes such as topical and subsurface flavor enhancements, tenderizing and/or moisture enhancing marination through several different methods and mechanical tenderization.

Like most major consumer product companies, BIG utilizes an innovative New Product Development Process to help identify opportunities that may exist, and to ensure development work is conducted methodically and that all steps in the process are thoroughly completed and documented. Unlike most major consumer product companies, BIG works with many partners to ultimately develop and launch new products. Each portion of the development process is important for the successful launch of new products or cuts of beef. However, the discovery phase is where new, groundbreaking ideas are generated.

Interventions such as flavor enhancements and tenderization technologies for the round are currently being developed and evaluated in the discovery phase. Initial results show promise, and BIG is working to make the best possible eating experience for consumers. In the scoping portion of the process, BIG will test prototypes of products with consumers and foodservice professionals to ensure that work conducted has a positive impact on the product. If it doesn’t, BIG tries to identify what else may need to be done to make the product more desirable. This also serves to validate whether a product has merit before further development with a manufacturer takes place and the product is ultimately launched in the marketplace.

What’s next

New products that went through the product development process in 2007-2008 from the chuck roll provide a great example of how each muscle was optimized for various market segments such as manufacturers, retailers and foodservice operators. Often, the chuck roll is utilized only for ground beef or pot roast; now each muscle of the chuck roll has an application developed to maximize return on the carcass. The results of this work include the Denver Steak (fourth most tender muscle in the carcass), Delmonico Steak (chuck eye steak), Sierra Cut (fajita meat application similar to flank), Boneless Country Style Beef Ribs, America’s Beef Roast, and remaining trim and whole muscle that will work for further processors or ground beef. Various manufacturers and retail and foodservice markets are currently selling these products.

In the near future, new cuts/products from the round will be introduced as well. Many of the products from the round may be used by manufacturers as value-added items, such as fajita meat or deli roast beef applications, and will likely include steak products as well. Additionally, CattleFax projects that the work being done on the round can add $20-30 to the value of the carcass.

By developing new beef cuts with added value, BIG is working to satisfy the needs of all segments in the food industry by providing the best value for each product while striving to maximize potential return to producers.

Key Points The Beef Innovations Group works to increase the dollar value of the beef carcass with the ultimate goal of increasing the return on investment for America’s beef producers. One of BIG’s major roles is Muscle Profiling to examine the undervalued portions of the carcass to determine the maximum value that can be realized for each sub primal. In the first stage of Muscle Profiling research, BIG identified new cuts from the Shoulder Clod. According to CattleFax, these cuts have added $50-60 to the value of the carcass. In addition to Muscle Profiling, technologies and interventions to make the world’s best beef better also are being evaluated. These interventions include new cutting techniques, applied cookery processes, complex manufacturing processes (such as topical and subsurface flavor enhancements), tenderizing and/or moisture enhancing marination through several different methods and mechanical tenderization. New products identified from the chuck roll through the product development process in 2007-2008 include the Denver Steak, Delmonico Steak, Sierra Cut, Boneless Country Style Beef Ribs and America’s Beef Roast and are now available through various manufacturers, retail and foodservice markets. In the near future, new cuts and products from the round will be introduced as value-added items, such as fajita meat or deli roast beef applications. CattleFax projects that the work being done on the round can add $20-30 to the value of the carcass.

Beef Safety/Quality

Seven cattle farming families recognized for excellence
in environmental stewardship

by Jonathan Beitia, Manager, Foundation Programs – National Cattlemen’s Foundation

Summary

Seven families were selected as regional Environmental Stewardship Award winners in July 2009 for conducting exemplary stewardship practices that can serve as models for all cattle producers. The winners actively work to protect and improve the environment and prove that environmental stewardship and good business can go hand-in-hand. The 2010 National Environmental Stewardship Award winner will be announced in January 2010 at the Cattle Industry Annual Convention and Trade Show in San Antonio.

Background

The Environmental Stewardship Award is coordinated by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Cattlemen’s Foundation, with sponsorship from Dow AgroSciences and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The award annually recognizes the outstanding stewardship practices and conservation achievements of U.S. cattle farmers and ranchers. The seven regional winners have made extensive efforts to work closely with their local communities, government agencies and affiliated organizations to care for the land and natural resources on their operations.

The winning Environmental Stewardship Award families are committed to being good stewards of the environment while providing consumers with safe and nutritious beef products. Because each family takes pride in serving their community and protecting the land, the United States is significantly ahead of the world in managing livestock production in an environmentally friendly manner — both in terms of carbon footprint and land use. In fact, most beef producers have followed best practices for maintaining water, soil and air for generations.

Additional information about the Environmental Stewardship Award can be found at EnvironmentalStewardship.org.

Region I: Young’s Cattle Co. in Belmont, Ohio

Rick Young grew up in the cattle industry working at his family’s Moundsville Livestock Auction yard and the family farm. After marrying, Rick continued working for American Electric Power while his wife Jayne became the main herdsman and homemaker. Realizing their true passion for the beef industry, they returned to the Young family farm, where they ran a small herd and rented about 1,500 acres to run stocker cattle.

Further expanding on their dreams, the Youngs in 1995 sold their home farm in West Virginia and bought 283 acres and leased an additional 2,500 acres in Ohio. Today, they maintain 400 cow-calf pairs and pasture 5,000 head of stocker cattle annually on their 3,283 acres of reclaimed strip-mined soil.

The Youngs have implemented a number of practices aimed at protecting and improving the land on which they make a living. The operation is located in an area of southeastern Ohio that has been surface mined for coal, making it particularly important to stop erosion by maintaining a plant cover and mulching. They also installed fencing to keep cattle from heavily wooded areas. The operation provides habitat for Canadian geese, ducks, white-tail deer, and wild turkeys through such practices as delayed clipping and rotational grazing.

Region II: Greenview Polled Hereford Farms Inc., Screven, Ga.

Jonny Harris and his wife Toni are fifth generation farmers, assisted by their son Paul. The Harris family first began farming in 1860 in Wayne County and now operates on 2,800 acres of land divided between pastures, cultivated land and timber. Greenview Farms is a family-run operation that consists of 1,000 head of Hereford and Braford cattle. In addition to livestock, the family raises hay, cotton, corn, peanuts, pecans, soybeans, vegetables, annual forages and timber.

The Harris family has implemented a number of practices aimed at protecting and improving the land. They practice crop rotation to maintain soil quality and plant trees and grass in field borders and riparian zones to reduce soil erosion. In 2005, with the assistance of the NRCS, Jonny Harris designed and installed a winter-feeding facility. The facility feeds cattle in the winter on a concrete pad, reducing soil erosion into adjacent waterways. The facility allows them to recapture nutrients from animal waste and apply that to pastures and fields, improving water quality and reducing the need to purchase commercial fertilizer.

Region III: Eckenfels Farm, Sainte Genevieve, Mo.

Located 60 miles south of St. Louis, the Eckenfels’ family farm has been in operation since 1851. Owned by Bob Eckenfels and his family, the farm is a diversified operation producing corn, wheat, soybeans, hay, straw, firewood and 100 head of Angus-cross cattle. Eckenfels Farm also markets corn-fed and grass-finished beef directly to the consumer.

Eckenfels utilizes no-till farming, increasing his returns and minimizing erosion. He is a progressive adopter of new technologies that benefit and protect soil and water resources and provide wildlife habitat. In addition, Eckenfels was the first farmer in Sainte Genevieve County to install a dry hydrant. The permanently installed, non-pressurized pipe system resides in one of the farm’s ponds, and provides a suction supply of water, usually for a fire department tank truck.

Region IV: Stoney Point AgriCorp, Melissa, Texas

Stoney Point AgriCorp Inc., is a family-owned corporation with diversified companies involved in cattle feeding, dairy heifer development, byproduct utilization, innovative feed processing, environmental waste management, turf grass farming and composting. Owned and operated by Mark Quinn and his family, as well as financial partner Clark Willingham, the family’s “whole-farm” approach to diversified farming has enabled them to grow to include six different operations.

Quinn has implemented a number of practices aimed at protecting and improving natural resources. In 1999, Stoney Point formed Alternative Feeds to actively research and develop sources of alternative feeds that can be utilized in feeder cattle rations and in calf ranches to replace more traditional commodities, pioneering the recycling of unsold dairy products from Schepps, Dannon Yogurt and Daisy Brands for use in calf feed. The products are treated with a patented process, re-pasteurized and blended to assure consistent and high nutritional quality at a 50 percent lower cost than the traditionally-used powdered milk. Stoney Point also partnered with a turf-grass company to use nutrient-rich water from its retention ponds to irrigate 35 acres of turf-grass. A portion of the nutrient-rich manure is also used to improve top soil.

Region V: Pape Ranches Inc, Daniel, Wyo.

Pape Ranches is family-owned and operated by Norman and Barbara Pape, with assistance from their sons Fred and David, and their families. Established in 1917 by Norman’s father, the ranch began as a 160-acre, 800-sheep operation. Today, the family owns 10,475 acres of private rangeland and irrigated grassland and has grazing allotments on federal and state allotments. Norm and his family stock 1,000 mother cows and, at times, have about 2,700 total head when all cattle are on the ranch.

Since the ranch first began, the family has concentrated on five ideals: keep the ranch as a working cattle ranch; provide a place for family to live and work; preserve open spaces; continue to provide resources for wildlife; and provide public access so that everyone can enjoy the beauty. The Papes have implemented a number of practices toward preserving those ideals, including work to maintain the wildlife on their private land including moose, elk, pronghorn, deer, waterfowl, sage grouse and others. Pape also fabricated a water control structure that uses water from one field by creating a large storage reservoir that allows further control over application of water, timing of water, provides waterfowl habitat and is a winter source of water that doesn’t freeze.

Region VI: Leavitt Lake Ranches, Vina and Susanville, Calif.

Owned and operated by Darrell Wood, his wife Callie, son Ramsey and daughter Dallice, Leavitt Lake Ranches has family ranching ties dating back to the 1860s. When Darrell and Callie wed in 1981, they were working in segments of the agriculture industry and didn’t own any cattle or land. With a goal to acquire ranches that had been owned by Darrell’s family, they began buying cattle, leasing property and gradually purchased the former family property.

Today, they own about 3,670 acres of private land, manage 25,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management permits and lease another 11,000 acres, for a total of 39,670 acres. Together, they run 600 mother cows, 400 yearlings and farm 600 acres of alfalfa and 900 acres of irrigated pasture. The cattle herd is made up of spring and fall calving herds of registered and commercial Angus cattle.

Leavitt Lake Ranches provides habitat for an abundance of wildlife including waterfowl, mule deer, pronghorn deer, aquatic species, upland game birds and sage grouse. The Woods worked with The Nature Conservancy on a restoration plan on the vernal pools project. The vernal pools are home to several threatened, endangered or at risk plant and animal species.

Region VII: Daybreak Ranch, Highmore, S.D.

Daybreak Ranch is a commercial cow-calf operation that manages about 350 cow-calf pairs utilizing 5,027 acres. The ranch is owned by Jim and Carol Faulstich and their daughter and son-in-law Jacquie and Adam Roth. They also farm no-till corn, sunflowers, oats, wheat and run a commercial hunting enterprise and custom graze yearling heifers.

Since purchasing the operation in 1973, the family’s focus has been on improving water quality, increasing the biodiversity of the range, controlling erosion and planting trees to develop wildlife habitat, and establishing farmstead shelterbelts and field windbreaks. Daybreak Ranch has made these improvements while sustaining profitability in their livestock, even through severe drought by developing a drought management plan.

To protect and improve the natural resources on their ranch, the family established over 60 acres of food plots for wildlife that are left standing over the winter to provide cover. The family manages wetlands on the ranch for wildlife habitat and for additional forage during extremely dry periods. They also planted thousands of trees in farmstead shelterbelts and field windbreaks to provide wildlife habitat.

Key Points Seven families were selected as regional Environmental Stewardship Award winners in July 2009 for successfully conducting stewardship practices that can serve as exemplary models for all cattle producers. The winners work closely with local community, conservation organizations and government agencies to implement stewardship and conservation programs in their cattle operations. The 2009 regional Environmental Stewardship Award winners were Young’s Cattle Co. in Belmont, Ohio; Greenview Polled Hereford Farms Inc. in Screven, Ga.; Eckenfels Farm in Sainte Genevieve, Mo.; Stoney Point AgriCorp in Melissa , Texas; Pape Ranches Inc. in Daniel, Wyo.; Leavitt Lake Ranches in Vina & Susanville, Calif.; and Daybreak Ranch in Highmore, S.D. Additional information about the Environmental Stewardship Award can be found at EnvironmentalStewardship.org.

Middle Meat Mania increases beef sales
through summer and beyond

by Trevor Amen, Manager, Channel Marketing Western Region – NCBA

Summary

Wholesale prices of middle meat cuts from the rib, loin and sirloin are currently lower than 2005-2006 levels. This was caused by an increase in supply, which was sparked by economic conditions that led to a decrease in demand at foodservice. As consumers fire up their grills, retailers have a great opportunity to aggressively feature these favorite grilling cuts and build long-term customer loyalty. To help spur sales, the beef checkoff developed Middle Meat Mania, a marketing campaign that encourages retailers to capitalize on the opportunity to sell more middle meats.

Background

According to CattleFax, wholesale prices for beef middle meat cuts have declined to less than the 2005-2006 levels. Many retailers responded to this opportunity and capitalized on this trend. According to FreshLook Marketing, in the 13-weeks ending May 24, retailers featured more middle meats as the retail price of rib and loin cuts were down an average of more than 3 percent. Consumer response has been very positive. Cuts from the rib experienced a pound sales increase of 4.8 percent, while loin cuts experienced an increase of 5.1 percent. The pound movement increases of both rib and loin cuts were above the 4 percent pound sales growth for total primals. The current outlook suggests there will be continued opportunities for featuring beef middle meat cuts throughout the grilling season.

The beef checkoff encourages retailers to utilize a variety of demand building programs when promoting middle meats to their customers.

The Retail Pricing Matrix (RPM): The RPM is a tool to aid retailers in determining price points for middle meats. The RPM assists retailers in quickly determining retail prices while accurately predicting “going in gross” on selected middle meats. The gross margins reflected in the matrix are based on commonly used cutting techniques. Cutting test yield information is also included on each matrix as a reference. This tool can help retailers in making pricing decisions in order to increase sales.

Easy Fresh Cooking®: The Easy Fresh Cooking program is an on-pack labeling program applied to beef packages. The easily peeled label gives customers a recipe idea for the specific beef cut purchased along with a photo of the plated meal and cooking instructions. The program has experienced positive results as it provides fast and convenient meal solutions to time-starved customers. Retailers can easily find delicious recipes and photos for cuts from the rib, loin and sirloin in a special “Middle Meats Mania” section.

Beef Alternative Merchandising (BAM): The BAM program brings together new merchandising methods for the ribeye, top loin and top sirloin. The program addresses price sensitivities and provides consumers with appealing portion sizes as well as leaner-looking and more affordable cuts. BAM product information, cutting guide videos and point-of-sale materials are available for retailer use.

Slice ’n Save: The Slice ’n Save program offers cost savings to consumers who buy beef in sub-primal form and then cut and wrap it themselves. The program includes on-pack labels, signage, do-it-yourself videos and consumer brochures.

Promotional Partnerships: Building on the success of 2008 Summer Grilling promotions, the beef checkoff compiled an exciting promotional calendar for 2009. This year’s promotional partnerships offer customer savings through a distribution of more than 60 million coupons.

Additional information on all the beef checkoff-funded programs associated with Middle Meat Mania is available on the BeefRetail.org Web site.

Key Points Wholesale prices of middle meat cuts from the rib, loin and sirloin are currently lower than 2005-2006 levels. This was caused by an increase in supply, which was sparked by economic conditions that led to a decrease in demand at foodservice. Steaks are the ultimate choice for retail promotions this grilling season due to middle meat prices and grilling merchandising opportunities. The beef checkoff encourages retailers to utilize a variety of demand building programs like Beef Alternative Merchandising, Slice ‘n Save, Retail Pricing Matrix, Easy Fresh Cooking and Promotional Partnerships when promoting middle meats to their customers this grilling season.

Veal retail campaign encourages consumers
to prepare gourmet meals at home

by Dean H. Conklin, Executive Director, Veal Marketing – NCBA

Summary

In today’s challenging economy, consumers are looking for ways to save money by serving healthy meals at home. A recent beef checkoff-funded veal marketing campaign was implemented to drive sales of veal at retail by showing consumers how easy it is to prepare a gourmet meal in their own kitchens. The summer grilling campaign, which built on the success of the “Free Groceries for a Year” campaign completed this spring, included a sweepstakes offering a grand prize of $5,000 worth of free groceries for a year.

Background

In early 2009, the beef checkoff launched its first “Free Groceries for a Year” consumer sweepstakes. The winner received $5,000 in Kroger gift cards. During the three-month promotion, more than 350,000 entries were received at the new consumer Web site, VealMadeEasy.com. The promotion — part of the shopper marketing program that focuses on selling the dish, not the cut — was one of several marketing efforts launched in 2009 to entice home cooks to prepare veal in their kitchens. The Free Groceries for a Year sweepstakes was also promoted through a partnership with Colavita Olive Oil and featured a recipe sticker program at 1,000 retail stores and at VealMadeEasy.com.

Building on the success of the first Free Groceries for a Year consumer sweepstakes, a similar summer grilling consumer sweepstakes was implemented through partnership with The Mushroom Council. The “Veal Summer Grilling Grocery Giveaway” highlighted easy summer grilling recipes featuring veal and mushrooms at VealMadeEasy.com, where consumers could also enter a contest for $5,000 in free groceries. Working with more than 10 retail chains and 800 stores, the Veal Summer Grilling Grocery Giveaway received more than 100,000 entries. The winner will be chosen on or around Sept. 15.

The shopper marketing program also features a colorful new logo with the tagline “Delicious Nutritious Veal” both online and on in-store materials. Updated copy, graphics and recipes communicate how “veal is an affordable, delicious, healthy and easy meal to cook at home.” Other nutritional information educates consumers about how veal is low in fat and calories as well as high in protein. With the launch of VealMadeEasy.com Web site in late January, consumers are now able to access delicious, nutritious recipes that are easy to prepare and surprisingly affordable too.

Key Points Building on the success of the first “Free Groceries for a Year” consumer sweepstakes, the “Veal Summer Grilling Grocery Giveaway” sweepstakes is currently underway through partnership with The Mushroom Council. The giveaway already has received more than 100,000 entries for grand prize of $5,000 worth of free groceries that will be awarded in September. Part of an ongoing shopper marketing program, the Veal Summer Grilling Grocery Giveaway shows consumers how easy it is to prepare a gourmet meal in their own kitchens, capitalizing on consumers’ desire to save money by serving healthy, delicious meals at home. The shopper marketing program also features a colorful new logo with the tagline “Delicious Nutritious Veal” both online and on in-store materials. Additional materials share nutritional information about how veal is low in fat and calories as well as high in protein.

Imports up as sellers chase dollars

by Gregg Doud, Chief Economist – NCBA

Summary

Through the first seven months of 2009 the key factors affecting U.S. beef imports have been the strong value of the U.S. dollar against most major currencies in the world and a contraction in beef imports by many of the world’s largest beef importing nations. For the United States this combination had boosted imports through May by 13 percent, led by the Australians and Uruguay. Imports from Canada are essentially flat except that imports of Canadian veal are down about 30 percent.

Imports of Mexican feeder cattle are up 22 percent, but still are below the five-year average pace. It will be interesting to see if the discounts for Mexican feeder cattle (around $60 per head last fall and $40 per head currently) continue to decline during the balance of 2009. Imports of Canadian feeder cattle are down precipitously as costs-of-gain would appear to be lower in Canada.

Background/Key Points

Strong demand for lean grinding beef this summer combined with a slight 0.8 percent increase in U.S. non-fed beef production doesn’t appear to be driving imports as much as a decline in global buyers, which has tipped Australia and Uruguay toward the U.S. market.

Through May, U.S. imports from Australia were up 49 percent and through July are expected to be up about 56 percent compared to 2008. Imports from Uruguay were up 42 percent through May and appear to be nearly double the 2008 pace through July 2009. Due to the value of the dollar, the United States seems to be the home of choice for major exporters’ non-fed beef production. In fact, with the exception of the “other” category, which was down 21 percent through May, and Canada, whose non-fed beef production is down about 22 percent on the year, exports from every traditional beef exporter to the United States are up.

This trend could moderate during the balance of 2009, however, since the same trends that set this import pace in motion are likely to shift. It is quite possible the dollar will fall during the balance of the year for a variety of macroeconomic reasons. A boost in Asian and Russian demand for beef combined with a declining dollar will likely send the Australians in search of better returns to their Australian dollar. Another round of dairy cow slaughter via the Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) program is also likely, which should maintain domestic non-fed beef production despite what should continue to be a much slower pace for culling beef cows for the balance of 2009.

One of reasons this trend isn’t steady regarding trade with Canada is that about half of Canadian beef exports to the United States are one item: 50 percent lean trimmings. Imports of “50’s” from Canada comprise about 48 percent of total beef imports from Canada, which is almost exactly the same ratio as was the case at this point a year ago.

Total beef imports from Canada through July are projected to be about 5 percent behind the pace in 2008 compared to the official -2.7 percent pace through May. The types of cuts imported are dramatically different from a year ago, except for veal. U.S. imports of Canadian veal through the end of July appear to be down 30 percent from a year ago, at an unofficial 4,695 metric tons (mt.) versus 6,770 mt. during the same period in 2008. U.S. veal production through July is down about 3.5 percent.

Mexican feeders return to near-normal levels

While the uncertainty surrounding country-of-origin labeling resulted in dramatically lower imports of Mexican feeder cattle from mid-July until late 2008, Mexican feeders seemed to have returned closer to their normal levels thus far in 2009. Through the end of July, the United States had imported 468,167 head of Mexican feeder cattle, up 22 percent from the 383,862 head imported during the same period in 2008. However, the five-year average for January-July imports is about 613,000 head so the 2009 pace is still well off the historic norm. It will be interesting to see if the discounts for Mexican feeder cattle (around $60 per head last fall and currently discounted around $40 per head) continue to decline during the balance of 2009, and particularly since a tighter supply of feeder cattle is expected.

Canadian Barley Is Cheaper

Canadian barley was cheaper prior to U.S. corn futures plummeting following the June 30 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) planted acreage report, which prompted a more than $1 per bushel sell off in Chicago corn futures during July. Imports of Canadian feeder cattle were down precipitously through mid-July at 586,806 head compared to 850,808 head during 2008. These figures speak to a huge shift in the economics of feeding cattle between the United States and Canada in the past year.

A year ago, high feed grains prices globally combined with a Canadian dollar that was at par with the U.S. dollar (C$1:U.S.$1), thus feeding cattle in Canada was unprofitable by a wide margin and ranchers sent their feeders south. In 2009, however, the Canadian dollar has returned to its preferable (C$1.08:U.S.$1) status for the Canadian cattle industry, which along with ample Canadian barley stocks strongly suggests that costs-of-gain would appear to be lower in Canada for the foreseeable future. In fact, before USDA added 2 million more acres of corn in its June 30 report, it was even thought that there might be interest in Montana feeder cattle by Alberta cattle feeders.

Canadian exports of steers and heifers direct for slaughter into the United States are well off last year’s pace at 290,253 head through mid-July, which is down 23 percent from the same period in 2008. The global economic uncertainty of demand and exchange rates during the first quarter of 2009 greatly reduced this trade from 2008 levels but since that time, it has paralleled previous years. Canadian fed cattle slaughter is up 2.7 percent, which also accounts for some of the difference.

Finally, it appears as though the importation of Canadian cull cows and bulls direct for slaughter in the United States has re-established its historic consistency at 101,075 head imported through mid-July, a figure that is almost exactly the same as the 101,112 head during the same period one year earlier.

Trade/Marketing/Economics

2009-2008 U.S. Beef and Veal Tariff Rate Quota Summary YTD Week Ending July 27
	2009			2008
	Quota Level	Tonnes Entered	% Filled	Tonnes Entered	% Filled	2008 vs 2007
Australia	378,214	160,474	42.4	103,031	27.2	55.8
New Zealand	213,402	120,435	56.4	111,184	52.1	8.3
Argentina	20,000	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	-
Uruguay	20,000	10,748	53.7	5,428	27.1	98.0
Japan	200	32	16.0	71	35.5	-54.9
Other	64,805	19,088	29.5	23,740	36.6	-19.6
Total TRQ	696,621	310,777	44.6	243,454	34.9	27.7
TRQ (Australia, New Zealand)	591616	280,909	47.5	214,215	36.2	31.1

U.S. Fresh and Processed Beef Imports
YTD September	2009	2008	% chg
Canada	126,714	130,261	-2.7
New Zealand	90,971	87,722	3.7
Argentina	5,398	4,883	10.5
Mexico	9,908	7,925	25.0
Uruguay	13,227	9,301	42.2
Brazil	24,184	21,523	12.4
Australia	128,300	86,023	49.1
Other	13,550	17,193	-21.2
Total	412,252	364,831	13.0

Exports remain depressed as economy struggles

by Gregg Doud, Chief Economist – NCBA

Summary

The global economic malaise continues to have a significant impact on trade in nearly every commodity worldwide. Despite the competition from pork and poultry, and the fact that the value of the U.S. dollar remains high against most major currencies in the world, U.S. beef exports to several destinations such as the Caribbean, Central and South America and Hong Kong through the first five months of 2009 have outperformed the same period in 2008.

Background/Key Points

At first glance, the U.S. beef and beef variety meat export pace of 358,100 metric tons (mt.) through May — up just slightly from the same period in 2008 — is fairly impressive given the state of the global economy and exchange rates. One of the reasons exports are improving is due to slow export numbers to South Korea. In fact, the big story of 2009 so far has been the mere $84 million in January-May beef trade to what was once our No. 3 customer.

Back during the first five months of 2003, the United States had exported 91,000 mt. and $278 million in beef to the South Koreans. When that market finally reopened in June 2008, there were solid expectations that trade in 2009 would quickly rebound to 2003 levels, especially after $92 million in beef and beef variety meats were sold in September 2008 alone. The reason exports haven’t rebounded as expected are tied to the mid-October global economic meltdown, which included a complete stall in the Russian economy.

U.S. beef competes with Australian product in Asia

Russian meat and retail food markets expanded at a rapid pace in 2008 as personal incomes exploded based upon the country’s burgeoning income from exports of oil and other commodities. In 2008, Russia became a top customer for Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. In fact, through the first nine months of 2008, Russia actually may have bumped the United States out of the top spot as the world’s largest beef importer for the first time in many decades — until crude oil prices collapsed.

The speed at which the Russian beef market turned from boom to bust for global meat exporters in mid-October was shocking. Particularly hard hit by this sudden shift was Australia, which had a very large export program with Russia but was suddenly turned away with beef already on the water to its destination. These rerouted supplies soon found themselves at South Korean ports which, within days, had a ripple-effect on U.S. cattle prices.

This ripple ended up creating a tsunami of high-priced inventory of imported beef that nine months later has ended up bankrupting a few prominent South Korean beef-importing firms, seriously curtailing U.S. exports and even resulting in a 24 percent decline in January-May Korean imports of Australian beef. With Australian exports to Russia down by 81 percent compared to the same period in 2008, the fact that Meat & Livestock Australia reportedly is outspending the U.S. in promotions by a 3:1 ratio in addition to the huge exchange rate advantage for the Australians, it is unsurprising U.S. beef is struggling.

Despite softer U.S. beef prices for key Asian cuts such as bone-in short ribs, a much stronger U.S. dollar against the Korean won will continue to hurt U.S. beef exports to South Korea and globally. The year-to-date average is 1,341 won:$1U.S. versus 993 during the same period in 2008. By comparison, the Australian dollar averaged 924 won during this same Jan-July period in 2008 and is up only modestly to an average of 967:1$Australian so far in 2009. Additionally, there is some speculation Korea’s country-of-origin labeling requirements are influencing both retail and restaurant beef purchases by Korean consumers.

NAFTA’s triple threat: exchange rates, slow economies and swine flu

A decades old economic idiom in Mexico has been that when the United States gets an economic cold, Mexico’s economy comes down with pneumonia. With January-May beef exports down 19 percent in both volume and value, this old comment has a clear ring of truth to it. However, even more telling is a 23 percent tonnage decline (32% in value) in U.S. beef variety meat exports to Mexico during the same period. The data clearly demonstrate that the global economic meltdown has had a bigger impact on Mexico’s poorest and most price sensitive consumers. It also shows that the exchange rate has dramatically dampened Mexican demand for U.S. beef.

During most of 2008, it took 10 Mexican pesos to buy one U.S. dollar. This led to a significant increase in the buying power of Mexican consumers and spurred strong U.S. beef sales until the mid-October turmoil quickly pushed the exchange rate first to 13:1, and later the current 15:1. It is certainly no coincidence that the peak in sales to Mexico occurred during a record-setting August 2008 when the exchange rate was Peso 10.1:U.S.$1 and the U.S. exported an average of $5 million per day in beef to our North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) neighbor to the south. Undoubtedly, U.S. beef exports to Mexico will be lower as they have to hurdle a dramatically larger year-to-date average exchange rate of Peso 13.8:U.S.$1.

However, the exchange rate has by no means been the only influence on U.S. beef exports to Mexico in 2009. The challenges facing the domestic pork industry have resulted in booming U.S. pork exports to Mexico – although they were markedly slower in April and May as the H1N1 virus took hold. Mexican consumers have been drawn to cheap U.S. pork during this economic downturn.

The exchange rate is also strongly affecting trade with Canada. Through May, sales to Canada were down 21 percent in volume and 24 percent in value. The obvious reason is a January-May 2008 average exchange rate of Canadian$1.01:U.S.$1 in 2008, compared to C$1.22:U.S.$1 for the same period in 2009.

No movement in Japan or China

The only significant market still completely closed to U.S. beef is China, and the “20 month and under” limitation still drastically affects U.S. beef trade into Japan. China’s closure is tied to U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s (D-Conn.) refusal to allow Chinese exports of cooked poultry to the United States. The Aug. 30 Japanese election looms large in the ability for the United States to expand access to that market and there are serious concerns that a victory by the Democratic Party of Japan could derail efforts to normalize U.S. beef exports to Japan for many years. Prior to this potentially historic election, there is no sense trying to speculate when the 20-month age restriction on U.S. beef exports to Japan might be expanded.

Slow progress for U.S. beef in South Korea

by Erin Daley, Economist – U.S. Meat Export Federation

Summary

While U.S. beef regained access to the South Korean market for beef from cattle less than 30 months of age in July 2008, the industry is still awaiting the expected recovery in exports to what was once its No. 3 market. U.S. exporters have had to contend with a huge backlog of U.S. beef in cold storage following a surge in exports after the market opened. This was created by the impact of the global recession on consumer demand, the high value of the U.S. dollar versus the Korean won, stiff competition from Australian beef and lingering anti-American sentiment. All of the major international beef producers are experiencing declining sales to this key export destination. However, longer-term prospects for the market remain encouraging due to the fundamentals of the market.

Background

The celebration of the long-awaited return of U.S. beef to South Korea was fairly short-lived in the summer of 2008 as the trade negotiation completed between the two nations led to street protests and an extremely challenging marketing environment for those retailers and foodservice operators who decided to promote U.S. beef.

Although the public acrimony has largely disappeared, exports of U.S. beef to South Korea have not fully recovered to anticipated levels or even the levels seen last fall. There is no single reason for the continued lag in sales, but at the heart of the matter are the global economic slowdown and the diminished purchasing power of the Korean currency, which have combined to drive down overall beef consumption in the Asian nation.

An estimated 40,000 metric tons (mt.) or 88 million pounds of U.S. beef, were consumed by South Koreans from July 2008 through July of this year. However, exports of U.S. beef to Korea through mid-July 2009 total more than 75,000 mt. (166 million pounds), leaving approximately 35,000 mt. (78 million pounds) in bonded warehouses. While some product has been re-exported to other destinations, the majority of the stocks, mainly frozen bone-in cuts like short ribs, remain in cold storage.

Despite historically high inventories, South Korea continues to import about 3,000 mt. (6.6 million pounds) of U.S. beef per month. While one might assume that current imports would consist primarily of boneless, chilled cuts that are not available in cold storage, Korean import data show that frozen bone-in cuts still account for more than 50 percent of monthly import volumes despite the large volume of frozen U.S. beef in cold storage. Chilled beef accounts for less than 10 percent of South Korea’s imports from the United States, but this was also the case in 2003 due to large utilization of U.S. beef, mainly frozen, by the foodservice industry. Chilled cuts account for about 20 percent of South Korea’s imports from Australia. Chilled Australian beef imports have been steadily increasing, reflecting strong demand for Australian beef at retail.

There are a number of challenges that the U.S. beef industry must overcome before it can approach the success it enjoyed in South Korea in 2003, including beef prices, the economy, political discontent in Korea and quality perceptions.

Price: The U.S. beef that remains in cold storage has been difficult to move because much of it was purchased last summer when the Korean won averaged 998 per U.S. dollar. The won declined sharply in value soon thereafter as the global economic crunch set in, averaging 1,354 won per dollar from September 2008 through March 2009, hitting a low of 1,558 won per dollar in early March. The won has since strengthened to around 1,250 per dollar (mid-July). Even at that rate the U.S. beef in cold storage is around 26 percent more expensive for Korean consumers than it was when it was purchased last year. Additional complications result from lower prices for U.S. beef this year, with wholesale short rib prices down nearly 30 percent compared to prices in the summer of 2008 and early last fall. Although lower U.S. beef prices should offset the weaker Korean won and result in greater export demand, sales have not been stimulated due partially to the weak financial position of many importers, especially as they continue to hold U.S. beef which they purchased at much higher prices than the current market.

Product from Australia has fared better in the uncertain economic conditions of the past nine months since the won has remained relatively stable against the Australian dollar. From the beginning of 2008 through the first quarter of 2009, the won has averaged between 922.5 and 927.5 per Australian dollar, only recently hitting 1,020 per dollar as the won has declined in value.

Although the price gap is narrowing, U.S. wholesale beef prices are generally still higher than prices for Australian product. Wholesale prices for U.S. short ribs are around 18 percent higher than prices reported for Australian short ribs, making it difficult to increase the number of end users, especially at the important foodservice level, as restaurant owners struggle in the challenging economic climate. Wholesale prices for Australian rump and chuck rolls are higher than a year ago while prices for short ribs are 30 percent lower than last year. However, prices for Australian short ribs have increased from the low of 5,800 won/kg in February to 7,200 won/kg in mid-July. This still is below 10,500 won/kg seen last year before the resumption of U.S. beef imports. The increasing prices for Australian product correspond with demand for gift boxes and increased consumption around the autumn Chuseok holiday. At some point, higher prices for Australian product should motivate end users to resume or increase purchases of U.S. beef.

The economy: South Korean meat importers have been severely hurt by the combined effects of the loss of value of the U.S. beef that they purchased while the Korean won was at a much higher value, the continued reluctance of consumers to resume purchases of U.S. beef, and reluctance of end users to resume featuring U.S. beef, especially at the foodservice level. The difficult economic environment, in addition to country-of-origin labeling requirements, makes it challenging for foodservice operators to resume sales of U.S. beef, especially at a price premium to Australian and New Zealand product. As the economic situation returns to normal and the value of the Korean won stabilizes versus the U.S. dollar, the beef market is expected to regain positive momentum. In the meantime, many importers are taking a “wait and see” approach to expanding purchases of U.S. beef.

According to a consumer survey conducted recently by the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 64 percent of people surveyed in and around Seoul said they plan to keep spending over the next six months at first-half levels due to lingering concerns about the pace of economic recovery. The poll, which surveyed 500 people, showed 24 percent plan to cut back on spending for the rest of the year, with only 12 percent considering boosting their expenditures.

The U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) is maintaining a steady marketing push aimed at both the meat trade and consumers to ensure that U.S. beef is visible and positively positioned when the country’s economy turns around. Elements of that campaign in include beef tasting promotions at the major retail chains, beef promotions at a number of four-star hotels, outdoor barbecues at two of the largest retailers in the nation, a breakfast seminar for beef traders, a marketing campaign utilizing the country’s influential food bloggers and participation in the Pusan International Food Exhibition, the second-largest trade show in South Korea. Annual participation in this show has helped USMEF-Korea build strong relationships with traders, distributors, retailers and foodservice representatives in the Pusan/Kyungnam region, and provided consumers with an opportunity to become more familiar with U.S. beef. The trade show also was an ideal venue for USMEF-Korea’s “U.S. Beef Production at a Glance” exhibit.

Politics: The hesitation of some Korean consumers to resume purchasing and consuming U.S. beef remains a challenge. In the minds of many consumers, U.S. beef is still linked to the broader negative political situation of the summer of 2008 and continued dissatisfaction with the ruling party. While the beef protests of 2008 were an outgrowth of political discontent in South Korea, unfortunately the U.S./Korea beef negotiations were concluded in that context and the negative relationship persists. U.S. beef continues to make front-page news in Korea, recently related to a scandal involving a prominent investigative reporting series on Korean television where it was revealed that false information about U.S. beef was aired due to political motivations. There also were false articles about a department store stopping sales of U.S. beef. Continuous press coverage makes it difficult to overcome negative consumer sentiment and makes some retailers and foodservice operators leery of resuming U.S. beef sales.

To help counter the misleading information about U.S. beef, USMEF-Korea has developed a public relations strategy focusing on the hard-working American rancher and the high quality and safety of U.S. beef. In addition to the message about quality and safety, this campaign will help convey that the beef the United States exports to Korea is the same beef that we feed our own families.

Quality perception: Historically, the price difference between U.S. and Australian beef has been supported by the preference of Korean consumers for grain-fed U.S. beef. However, in recent months, some Korean retail and foodservice personnel surveyed said that the quality advantages of U.S. beef are not sufficient to justify the traditional price difference, especially given consumer concerns and the challenge of convincing consumers to try U.S. beef again. Some Korean retailers also maintain that the quality of Australian beef has improved, further narrowing the perceived quality gap between the two. This should not be surprising, since an estimated 28 percent of Australian beef exports to Korea are now grain-fed.

Although progress in rebuilding U.S. beef’s presence in South Korea has been much more gradual than anticipated, there are signs for optimism:

• U.S. beef has established a significant presence at the major retail outlets, including Lotte Mart, E-Mart and Home Plus, as well as more than 800 supermarkets;
• Those foodservice establishments that have resumed U.S. beef sales generally report steady sales and consumer acceptance; and
• U.S. beef has returned to the menus of most of South Korea’s five-star hotel chains.

Key points South Korea has remained a challenging market since U.S. beef regained improved access one year ago. The diminished purchasing power of the Korean won has made it impossible for Korean importers to sell at a profit the large quantities of U.S. beef they bought last summer when the market opened. While the economic recovery in Korea has been slow and consumers remain cautious, U.S. beef has returned to most major retailers, and foodservice outlets that feature U.S. beef report good sales.

Trade/Marketing/Economics

South Korea’s Beef Imports July 2008-May 2009
	U.S.	Australia	New Zealand	U.S. share	Share of U.S. by cut	Cut Share of Total
Rib	42,214	29,287	12,839	49%	56%	41%	85,453
Loin	10,077	21,338	2,147	30%	13%	16%	33,665
Neck Meat	13,596	4,145	182	75%	18%	9%	18,067
Shoulder Clod	994	15,337	3,090	5%	1%	9%	19,479
Brisket	7,981	7,706	2,665	43%	11%	9%	18,577
Inside Round	42	6,171	2,622	0%	0%	4%	8,878
Other	479	18,859	2733	2%	1%	11%	22,252
Total	75,383	102,843	26,278	37%	100%	100%	206,371

South Korea’s Beef Imports May 2009
	U.S.	Australia	New Zealand	U.S. share of total	Share of U.S. by cut	Cut Share of Total
Rib	1,608	1,727	1,479	33%	83%	41%	4,875
Loin	23	1,595	174	1%	1%	15%	1,798
Neck Meat	226	389	49	34%	12%	6%	666
Shoulder Clod	19	977	326	1%	1%	11%	1,325
Brisket	56	579	253	6%	3%	8%	901
Inside Round	3	592	219	0%	0%	7%	814
Other	10	1305	211	1%	1%	13%	1526
Total	1,945	7,164	2,711	16%	100%	100%	11,905

Recession hasn’t cooled America’s grills

by Rick McCarty, Vice President, Issue Analysis and Strategy – NCBA

Summary

A checkoff-funded consumer survey found that beef is still the hot item for backyard barbecues this summer even in the face of a recession that has changed consumers’ food purchasing behaviors.

Background

An independent, national survey conducted in May found that three out of four (74%) of U.S. beef lovers say their family plans to cook out more on the grill this summer than in previous years.

Grilling competence

Americans are quite confident of their grilling abilities. Fifty-nine percent said they have the skills to recreate steakhouse quality steaks when grilling at home. However, only 11 percent said they considered themselves masters of the grill and, not surprisingly, about 90 percent of that group was men.

American backyard chefs also like to use marinades and rubs on their steaks with 64 percent saying they preferred marinades, rubs and other seasonings to steak “au naturale.” An overwhelming majority of consumers (86%) say they prefer to cook steak outdoors on the grill compared to 54 percent who prefer to grill ground beef (36% prefer to cook ground beef inside in a skillet). Fries, corn on the cob and grilled vegetables were the top three sides named by consumers as the best accompaniment for a grilled steak or burger.

Committed to beef

Despite the recession, nearly half (47%) of consumers said there were certain foods they wouldn’t give up regardless of price. Sixty-four percent of these committed consumers said beef was the food they wouldn’t give up at their backyard barbecue with 49 percent specifically saying they wouldn’t give up steak.

Creative grilling and new recipes

American consumers also are interested in creative cooking. When asked what kind of information would help them with grilling, 64 percent mentioned creative ways to use the grill to prepare food followed by new recipes (59%) and ideas about new foods to grill (56%).

American beef grillers tend to rely on tried and true favorites when grilling but 42 percent say they’re always looking for new recipes. And most (83%) turn to friends and relatives to find new recipes followed by cookbooks, mentioned by 75 percent and the Internet (71%).

The official food of summer

Finally, despite all the grilling going on this summer, Americans say the official food of summer — the food that makes them most think of summer — is … watermelon. A steak on the grill captured second place followed by burgers.

Key Points Three out of four (74%) U.S. beef lovers say their family plans to cook out more on the grill this summer than in previous years. Americans are competent grillers — 59 percent said they have the skills to recreate steakhouse quality steaks when grilling at home. However, only 11 percent said they considered themselves masters of the grill and, not surprisingly, about 90 percent of that group was men. American backyard chefs also like to use marinades and rubs on their steaks with 64 percent saying they preferred marinades, rubs and other seasonings to steak “au naturale.” Despite the recession, nearly half (47%) of consumers said there were certain foods they wouldn’t give up regardless of price and 64 percent of these committed consumers said beef was the food they wouldn’t give up at their backyard barbecue. Forty-nine percent specifically said they wouldn’t give up steak.

Key Points Fries, corn on the cob and grilled vegetables are the top three sides American consumers think goes best with a grilled steak or burger. People they know are the most used source for new grilling recipes with 83 percent of consumers saying they seek recipes from friends and relatives. Cookbooks scored lower (75%) but beat out the Internet (71%) as a grilling recipe source. The official food of summer is watermelon with more than a third (34%) of consumers picking it as the food that most makes them think it’s summer. Steak on the grill was runner-up (named by 20% of consumers) followed by burgers at 12 percent.

Research Briefs

New online training tool gives platform for industrywide advocacy

by Jennifer Stolp, Manager, Issues Communication, NCBA

“If people chose to do one thing to eat green, it should be reducing their consumption of red meat,” says Kate Gaegan, a dietitian and author of the new book “Go Green, Get Lean.” And according to Michael Pollan, author of such titles as “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and “In Defense of Food,” “[Corn] makes [cattle] sick when they eat it in large quantities… to keep the animals healthy on that corn diet, you have to give them lots of antibiotics, they just wouldn’t survive otherwise.”

Misinformation in comments like these and others that address a broad range of beef industry issues are becoming more prevalent as consumers look for additional information about the foods they eat. Moreover, the number of self-described food experts sharing this information with consumers increases with each new claim. Misinformation about beef production appears in consumer media, on Web sites and even in your favorite television shows.

The new Masters of Beef Advocacy (MBA) program is a self-directed, online educational program designed to counter misinformation about beef. It equips beef industry advocates such as veterinarians, health professionals, university professors and researchers, students, beef producers and beef producer leaders, to respond to misinformation and help spread the word about the benefits of beef production. It enables graduates to become effective spokespersons for the industry.

“Beef producers are the most passionate, vocal and informed spokespeople for this industry, and thanks to the beef checkoff we now have a program that provides the tools needed to help us tell our story more confidently,” says J.D. Alexander, NCBA’s Federation Division chairman and a farmer-feeder from Pilger, Neb. “The response across the country has been overwhelming, which tells me this is the right program at the right time.”

Informing consumers

Trisa Tedrow, a veterinary student and MBA graduate from Carrington, N.D., recently observed that consumers’ opinions about beef production — including things like its perceived impacts on the environment, human health and animal welfare — can affect the choices they make at the meat case.

“Consumers seem to be increasingly concerned with environmental conservation, and there is a lot of false information circulating about the impact of animal agriculture on the environment,” says Tedrow. “Beef producers go to a lot of effort to preserve environmental and pasture resources, and we are raising cattle more efficiently than ever. We need to capitalize on that, and counteract false claims about the industry that may negatively impact consumer perception.”

Troy Murray, a supervisor with Harris Feeding Company in Coalinga, Calif., agrees. “Completing the MBA course gave me insight into many of the issues we face in the beef industry,” says Murray. “I was struck by the important information about how consumers view animal welfare, food safety and the tactics activist groups use against the beef industry.”

Combating activists

Combating those activist groups is one of the many reasons it’s so important for beef producers to become confident spokespeople on behalf of the industry. According to the 2008 Animal People Watchdog Report on 150 Animal Charities, charitable donations to animal rights groups increased 11 percent in 2007. This money provides activist groups with more funds to develop wide-ranging campaigns such as California’s Proposition 2, undercover video operations, and other legislative initiatives and legal actions. In fact, the Humane Society for the United States (HSUS), the largest animal-rights activist group in the United States and the group behind the 2008 Proposition 2 legislative initiative, had in 2007 about $205 million in assets in the bank – and $102 million in revenue.

The activists outnumber industry advocates by more than just dollars. HSUS boasts more than 12 million members and online supporters, while only 3 percent of Americans are involved in food production, with beef cattle accounting for 1 percent of that amount, according to a checkoff-funded survey conducted in June. This means beef producers have to work that much harder to be heard over the voices of activists.

Enrollment options

MBA students have the option of enrolling as part of a “class” with other producer leaders from their state, region or even college agriculture classes, or as an “at-large” candidate, eligible to work at an individually determined pace. Students complete six courses, spending approximately one hour per course in the areas of beef safety, beef nutrition, animal care, environmental stewardship, modern beef production and the beef checkoff. The program provides facts about the beef industry and beef products in terms consumers can easily understand. Producers who participate in the MBA program can then communicate that understanding to fellow producers and consumers.

After completing the essay assignments and an open-book quiz in each issue area, students participate in a full-day “MBA Commencement” training that includes public speaking guidance for presentations to local civic and consumer groups, training for media interviews and instruction in online advocacy. Graduates are eligible to join the MBA Alumni Association social networking site, and earn “continuing education credits” when they apply lessons learned from MBA to real-world response opportunities.

Reaching young people

Chelsea Good, a Kansas State University Beef Cattle Institute graduate assistant who helped organize the “Kansas class,” says this younger generation of beef advocates can share important facts with their peers, using the multitude of communication channels young people frequently use. These tools include blogs, online forums and social networking sites like Facebook.

“There are huge opportunities to reach young consumers who grew up with the Internet by getting the beef message out online. People are posing negative and often misleading information about beef production online every day. We need to make sure our side of the story is there as well,” explains Good, an active member of the MBA Alumni Association.

Recent research emphasizes the importance of communicating with consumers. In fact, one checkoff-funded study found that less than half of consumers are familiar with or consider themselves knowledgeable about the beef industry. Importantly, this same study found that consumers who consider themselves knowledgeable about the industry have “very” or “somewhat favorable” opinions about the industry. Additional research found that farmers and ranchers are credible spokespeople whom consumers expect will provide them with transparent, authentic information about beef. In short, the more beef producers talk to consumers about the people behind the industry, the more confident those consumers are in the food they produce.

Graduates agree MBA helps them feel confident in telling their story. “Completing this course will be important for me in the future,” says Murray, whose family also runs cow-calf pairs in Oakdale, Calif. “Knowing how to tell my story will help support our family-owned business and it will be beneficial to me at Harris. I’m encouraging my staff to enroll in the program as well, because I want them to know about the challenges we face in the beef industry.”

Growing enrollment

With enrollment exceeding 700 students, including nearly 140 graduates, MBA is working to arm beef industry advocates to be self-assured spokespeople.. A full-day MBA Commencement was held at the 2009 Cattle Industry Summer Conference in Denver and is planned for the 2010 Cattle Industry Annual Convention in San Antonio for students who have completed the coursework.

“MBA alumni have quickly mobilized to respond to misinformation about beef production in online news articles related to beef’s impact on the environment, the role of beef in a healthy diet and the release of ’Food, Inc’ a documentary disparaging modern food production,” says Daren Williams, executive director of communications, NCBA and ‘Dean of Students’ for the MBA program. “It’s rewarding to see producers take this essential step toward combating the activist groups, but we need everyone to get involved on a grassroots level and proactively be of service to this industry.”

Issue Commentary

FACT SHEET: Beef choices

Beef Choices	Cattle farmers and ranchers use resources available in their area to raise cattle in a variety of ways to provide beef choices consumers see in grocery stores and at restaurants. There are more than 1 million beef farmers and ranchers throughout the United States who offer a variety of beef choices to meet the changing lifestyles of consumers, including grain-fed, grass-finished, certified organic and natural beef. While each kind of beef offers specific value to consumers, all beef is safe and nutritious. Beef goes through a rigorous inspection process and is subject to strict government guidelines to ensure the highest levels of safety. Today’s lean beef is one of the most flavorful and efficient ways to meet the daily value for 10 essential nutrients like iron, zinc and B vitamins. There are 29 different steak, roast and ground beef choices that meet U.S. government guidelines for lean.
Grain-Fed Beef	Grain-fed beef is the most widely produced beef in the United States. Grain-fed cattle spend most of their lives grazing pasture before moving to a feedlot for approximately four to six months where they are fed a carefully balanced diet that usually includes grain. Feeding cattle a grain-based ration for a small period of time helps improve meat quality and provide a more tender and juicy product for consumers. While cattle are in feedlots, owners and managers ensure they have a balanced diet; access to clean water; room to grow and roam; and overall, humane treatment. To help improve their productivity, grain-fed cattle may receive growth promotants that have been rigorously tested and proven safe.
Natural Beef and Naturally Raised	By government definition, most beef is natural. According to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), “natural” may be used on a label for meat if it does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient, chemical preservative or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient, and the product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed. This definition only applies to how the meat was processed after the cattle were harvested and does not apply to how the animals were raised. Marketers also have been applying the term “natural” to beef labels based on how the animals were raised. In January 2009, USDA published a voluntary standard for “naturally raised” livestock that allows for third-party verification of these claims (Federal Register: Vol. 74, Num. 12). Beef with a USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)-certified “naturally raised” claim comes from cattle that have never received growth promotants or supplemental hormones, have never been administered antibiotics and were not fed animal by-products.
Grass (Forage) Fed or Grass-Finished Beef	Similar to “naturally raised” beef, grass-finished beef refers to how the cattle were managed prior to harvest and specifically, to the type of diet the cattle consumed. While most cattle spend the majority of their lives in pastures eating grass before moving to a feedlot for grain-finishing, grass-finished beef cattle remain on a pasture and forage diet their entire lives. In October 2007, USDA published standards that give beef farmers and ranchers specific guidelines about the type of diet acceptable for cattle qualifying for the “grass (forage) fed” marketing claim. Grass and forage should make up the animal’s diet for its entire lifetime, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. It is difficult to produce large quantities of grass-finished beef on a year-round basis due to seasonality. For this reason, grass-finished beef can be more expensive, and some grass-finished beef sold in the United States may be imported from countries with more temperate climates. Grass-finished beef may have a slightly different fatty acid profile than grain-fed beef; however, the difference is not significant. Grass-finished beef can contain more conjugated lineoleic acid (CLA) than other kinds of beef, but research has not determined whether this results in a significant health benefit. Research also has shown that a 3.5-ounce serving of grass-finished beef offers 15 milligrams more omega-3 than other kinds of beef; however, beef is not a primary source of omega-3 fatty acids.
Certified Organic Beef	Beef labeled as “certified organic” must be from cattle that meet USDA National Organic Program (NOP) livestock production requirements. Grain-fed beef, naturally raised or grass-finished beef may be eligible for USDA’s NOP certification if the additional requirements are met. The Organic Foods Production Act, effective October 2002, sets the standards for all food labeled organic (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/FactSheets/ProdHandE.html). For beef, this means: Cattle must be fed certified organic feed but may be given certain vitamin and minerals. Organically raised cattle may not be given growth promotants or receive antibiotics. Any animal that is treated with antibiotics to ensure its health must be removed from the NOP. Organically raised cattle must have access to pasture – they may be temporarily confined for specific reasons. However, most cattle in the United States, regardless of how they are raised, meet this criterion.

Updated 8/2009

For more info, contact the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association at info@BeefFromPastureToPlate.org

FACT SHEET: E. coli O157:H7

What is E. coli O157:H7?	E. coli O157:H7 is one of hundreds of strains of the bacterium Escherichia coli. Although most strains of this bacterium are harmless and live in the intestines of healthy humans and animals, this particular strain produces a powerful toxin and can cause illness. The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the bacterium refers to specific genetic markers found on its surface, which distinguishes it from other types of E. coli. Eating food that has not been cooked sufficiently to kill bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7 can cause severe illness in humans.
Incidence of E. coli O157:H7	According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses in the United States declined significantly between 1996 and 2004. Since 2004, illnesses in the U.S. population have leveled off at approximately one case per 100,000 people.
Commitment to Safety Research	Years ago, America’s beef producers set out to reduce and eliminate E. coli O157:H7 and today remain committed to that goal. Beef producers have invested more than $27 million since 1993 in beef safety research, leading to best practices which serve as a road map in reducing E. coli O157:H7. The best practices are in addition to strict oversight by USDA. Greater than 80 percent of the research funded by America’s beef producers is used throughout the beef supply chain on a daily basis to enhance the safety of beef and beef products The beef industry invests approximately $350 million every year in testing, interventions and research to ensure beef safety. Today, because of the research and cooperative efforts with all partners in the beef supply chain, interventions to reduce and eliminate E. coli O157:H7 are in place on farms, in feedlots and in packing plants across the country.
Making Progress Using Best Practices	Individuals representing each segment of the production chain meet yearly to review and update the Beef Industry Food Safety Council (BIFSCo) Best Practices, which serve as a roadmap in reducing E. coli O157:H7. Individuals and companies involved in this process recognize that safety is a non-competitive issue. These Best Practices are ever-changing documents that are updated and reviewed as scientific and technological advances are made. These resources are available free of charge at www.bifsco.org.
Tips for Preventing Foodborne Illnesses	Consumers can take important steps in the kitchen to ensure their food is safe: Always wash hands, cutting boards, utensils and countertops with hot, soapy water before and after handling meat. Don’t cross-contaminate — separate raw meat and poultry from other foods and don’t place cooked food on a plate that previously contained raw meat or poultry. Refrigerate leftovers in shallow containers promptly after eating. Use an instant-read meat thermometer to ensure the proper internal temperature and eliminate any harmful bacteria.
	Recommended Cooking Temperatures
	Poultry	165oF
	Ground Beef	160oF
	Beef Roasts and Steaks	145oF
	Seafood	145oF
Food Safety Questions	USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline: For food safety answers on topics including safe storage and handling of food, safe preparation, product dating, product content and more. The hotline is open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern time on weekdays year round. Call toll-free: 888-MPHotline (888-674-6854) Email: mphotline.fsis@usda.gov Online: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Home/index.asp

Updated 8/2009

For more info, contact the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association at info@BeefFromPastureToPlate.org

Reader Information Form

Yes, I want to receive Issues Update. (please print clearly)

I am a new subscriber.

I am a current subscriber, please update my contact address and/or method of delivery.

Name: ______________________________________________________________

Title: ________________________________________________________________

Organization: __________________________________________________________

Street Address: ________________________________________________________

City: _____________________________ State: __________ Zip Code: ____________

I would like to receive

Through the mail.

Electronically. My e-mail address is ________________________________________

Both through the mail and electronically.

I would no longer like to receive Issues Update.

Please take me off your list.

Please fax or mail this form to Jennifer Stolp

Fax: 303/770-6921

Mail: NCBA, Attn: Jennifer Stolp, P.O. Box 3469,

Englewood, CO 80155-9990