|
Let me tell you a storyWhat is a story worth? We seem to be living the era of selling a story about our food. Natural or organic foods continue to be the big buzz. Even at the recent Global Pet Expo the big news was about the brand of Lassie's Naturals Way all natural dog food. Don't get me wrong I am in favor of every producer capturing as much of the consumer's dollar as possible, but that is my point. If we as producers are going to provide the story we need to increase the revenue we receive. Just last week South Dakota State University Extension Beef Feedlot Specialist Erik Loe reported that because cattle being raised on natural programs can't be given implants, ionophores, or antibiotics more of a premium will need to be attained than most producers realize. "Those things--implants, ionophores, antibiotics--can be used by cattle feeders to improve cattle performance. So when they are not used, there will be a 10 to 15 percent decrease in feed conversions. What that equates to for premiums needed would be $90 to $100 per head when selling fat cattle in a natural program." Organic labeling can be a wonderful thing. Any time consumers can stand in a grocery store comparing two different gallons of milk and find it in themselves to pay $5.80 per gallon instead of $2.89, which is what I paid this week, we should be thanking them and not complaining. It doesn't seem to be a secret that the demand for organic food is growing at a rate of about 20 percent each year. USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) indicates that during the period from 2000 to 2004, farm gate prices to produce growers were 75 percent to 133 percent higher for organic than for conventionally grown produce. They went on to say that the law of supply and demand makes it unlikely that enough consumers will be willing to pay the premium necessary to maintain the margins in organic production that we have today. The ERS report indicates that it is unlikely that the demand for organic will exceed 2 to 3 percent of total food purchases. Clearly my message is that if the consumers are willing to pay more for farm products, that is a good thing. However, I am very concerned about some of the reasons consumers believe organic products are more valuable. I do like the fact people care about the food they consume. One day I may develop a breed of cattle that only graze facing north because those artic winds contain less harmful bacteria and that "story" might worth more in the eyes of my consumer. Yes, that is all we are marketing is the story and that is good for the storytellers, as long as they are telling the whole truth. Now it is one thing for organic enthusiasts to tell stories to sell their product but this week I learned something that I should have known four years ago. I did not know that the 2002 farm bill contained a provision that gave organic producers who produce only 100 percent organic products a check-off exemption. Final regulations for producers and handlers of organic commodities, as determined in the 2002 farm bill, were published in January 2005 and went into effect in February 2005. I am very concerned about this. All 41 check-off programs currently in effect are administered to promote and conduct research on the commodities themselves and do not discriminate against the method of production or the story accompanied to market the product. Apparently I am not the only one concerned about this exemption. The Wyoming Beef Council has submitted a letter to the USDA stating that this particular exemption sets a dangerous precedent for all check-offs in the country. The Iowa Soybean Association has taken a different approach and makes it very clear on their website: Organic producers and marketers that qualify for this national exemption are still subject to the state checkoff. According to Chapter 185 of the Iowa Code, 1 cent per bushel must be assessed from the sale of any Iowa soybeans. While I am typically not a person who supports government mandates. I certainly am one who wholeheartedly supports check-offs. The trend is definitely away from using government dollars to generate research in the area of food production and consumption. The dollars in the future must continue to come from those of us that are directly affected by the production and marketing of the product. Producer check-off dollars have kept each commodity ahead in the fight against the "anti's" who want to mislead consumers. I would hate to think that the organic lobby has pulled this off because they fear that if enough check-off funded research were conducted, science might tell us that the only story we really have to offer with organic or natural products is that they are just another safe, healthy choice. Editor's note: Trent Loos is a sixth generation United States farmer, host of the daily radio show, Loos Tales, and founder of Faces of Agriculture, a non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com, or e-mail Trent at trent@loostales.com. B 5 3/26/07 1 Star WK Date: 3/22/07
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2008. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
