BS: South Dakota cattle deaths

Subject: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Oct 13 - 05:50 PM

This looks horrific:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/south-dakota-cattle-rancher-losses

http://www.newsdaily.com/article/dac4314aa12120327db192777bc338f3/livestock-pits-for-dead-cattle-open-in-western-sd

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 13 - 06:01 PM

Not as horrific as the dead people.

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 Oct 13 - 07:35 PM

And on top of summer droughts across much of the cattle country that already put ranchers on the edge from the high price of feed - if they could find any, cost of transporting cattle to were there was any feed, and/or hauling hay across the country.

Not a good year.

John

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Oct 13 - 08:24 PM

Not the first time cattle were lost as a result of storms. One such storm in the 1880s is mentioned in western histories, I believe Montana was the center.

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Oct 13 - 08:51 PM

Prices of beef and other foods will be going up, no doubt of it. First the drought and now this.

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 16 Oct 13 - 07:03 AM

Jeez, and we complain about the weather in England...

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 16 Oct 13 - 07:18 AM

At least, the weather in England is predictable...RAIN
I understand the rain coat was invented in Scotland? The McIntosh? same guy invented the apple.

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Oct 13 - 08:37 AM

Curiously, in local markets I've watched, the necessary reductions in herd sizes due to the lack of food to feed them resulted in large numbers of cattle being sold off to processors, many of them before they were really in good condition to be marketable.

The processors, seing the opportunity to profit from a "shortage" immediately reduced what they'd pay the ranchers and increased their prices on processed beef.

There was apparently sufficient backlash from the increased prices that many people just stopped buying beef, and prices then fell to somewhat below they had been, with producers having more processed beef on hand than they could sell.

The losses from the snow storms likely will reduce supply enough for prices to rise again, quite probably to even higher prices than ever; but it's very difficult to predict the real effect of a shortage of the supply to the processing plants, which is a little different than a glut of subprime animals coupled with declining demand, and likely will mean an actual shortage of meat to pack.

(I've also noted that beef recently for sale, that previously was offered for sale a week before the "expiration date," now is frequently put on display less than a couple of days before you're told to freeze it or toss it, indicating it's already been "on hold" for some time. That almost certainly will change - hopefully - but I won't make predictions at this point.)

Of course my comments are based on a single local market area ... .

John

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: sciencegeek
Date: 16 Oct 13 - 09:07 AM

this is a tragic loss for the involved ranchers... but will only serve to fuel the insanity known as the "futures market" and be an excuse to raise prices at the consumer level.

the high cost of feed is usually borne by the producer, because the buyers can play one seller against the other and sending to auction involves added costs as well. As long as there's plenty of cattle in the surrounding states & Canada, there will be an adequate supply of beef.

Farming & ranching are risky... nature, banking practices and politics can really work against you. The breeds of cattle in the US have been breed to fit market demands, not nature's. One of my pasture raised Scottish Highland cows calved in 15 degree weather with no problems to her or her calf. Around the same time my dairy farmer neighbors lost three calves, in spite of being kept in the barn.

The other question I have is how did the local wildlife fare? That is a better indicator of how stressed the overall environment was. sounds a bit cruel, but that's the way nature & natural selction work.

footnote: the major reason for the increase of goods over the past few years is the cost of fuel to ship them.

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 13 - 07:30 PM

True. However, people know they can do without meat for long periods of time. When the prices become too high they eat vegetables, dairy and grains. "They don't have a hold on you until you embrace them."

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Oct 13 - 09:11 PM

For once, a Guest with no name speaks sense.    I suppose it's the broken clock syndrome.

Nobody "has" to eat beef--especially in the "First 'World".    There are all sorts of health reasons not to, no compelling reason to do so, and plenty of alternatives.

Jan has been working on me for years (she's a vegetarian lurching towards veganism--I'll never get there), but I eat virtually no red meat anymore, haven't for years.   No loss.

If (actually when) the price goes up due to this-- or anything else-- just consider it as incentive to drop red meat. You will be healthier.

And remember the Skipper's song about the $5 fine.

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Oct 13 - 10:48 PM

Gratuitous snottiness, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: South Dakota cattle deaths
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 17 Oct 13 - 12:03 PM

as a biologist with background in ecology and evolution, it drives me batty when I encounter the ideological assertions associated with vegetarian and/or vegan diets. The only way that the planet will benefit by the entire human race adopting either of those diets is the fact that a significant part of the population will die from malnutrition and/or starvation... hopefully before a nuclear war is started by desperate nations.

There is a very good reason why our planet currently has the animal kingdom divided into carnivore, herbivore and omnivore - because it works! Time tested and the result of a very long chain of events - that's the way nature and natural selection work to exploit the chemical and solar energy available. heck, even some plants have adopted carnivorous traits to survive.

What these folks don't seem to grasp is the basic fact that there is only so much arable land on the planet. And it is arable land that produces the vegetation that humans can consume. People can not survive eating most of the vegetation that grows on the planet. But there is usally some other animal that can... so we raise those animals that are amenable to domestication and then use them for a food source. This is not rocket science and something I understood back in 1963 while still in grade school - the green revolution had its limits.

I just found this website and it should be must reading for anyone who really wants to understand the carrying capacity of our planet. Not do the pick & choose method of selecting facts that would do any fundamentalist proud.

http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm

And before anyone uses the ... but India is mostly vegetarian argument - dig a little ( or a lot) deeper and see just how many cows, goats & poultry live there as well and then check out what edible vegetation is produced and how their culture still has issues feeding its population. Then contrast that with Africa and the Middle East or large parts of Asia and the Americas that have vast areas unsuitable for cultivation.

We have problems feeding the current population, which is showing no signs of decreasing... so let's face it... mass starvation is going to be a very real issue in the not so distant future unless we figure out a way to curb the population growth of humans.