RCALF’s Trade Story: The previous column on trade was meant to be the last (at least for the immediate future). But then…this RCALF post appeared on “X” highlighting the table above: “…an informative example of how the cattle industry has changed in the Pacific Northwest, which is penetrated by hundreds of thousands of imported cattle each year. Read the full Op-ed: Nevil Speer Deserves Our Gratitude here: https://t.co/57m1ROqEAM”.
The table is compelling. But even at first glance, something didn’t sit right with me; I’m initially thinking that trend isn’t unique to the Pacific Northwest (PNW). And now I’m curious. So, let’s go digging and see where we end up.
Cross-Country Comparison: The data is correct (well, mostly correct – there were 1.227M cows in the Pacific Northwest to start 2022 – not 1.16M.) But what if we did the same analysis for three states opposite the PNW? The table below details side-by-side comparison using Alabama, Florida and Georgia, combined.
Whoa, the ’94-to-’22 difference is even bigger in the Southeast! One of two things must be true. Either:
- Imports were even more influential in the southeastern U.S. versus the PNW, or
- Imports don’t impact cow numbers at all (see my previous column on the topic), let alone any specific region.
Behind Door #2: Now, I’m even more curious. What about PNW’s collective portion of the national cowherd over time? Has that changed? It’s detailed in the graph below. Several things to note:
- PNW’s proportion of the national cowherd has largely hovered plus-or-minus ~4.2% over time - reinforcing the fact the PNW has NOT been unduly influenced by “hundreds of thousands of imported cattle each year”.
- Four years into NAFTA the region had actually expanded the cowherd, peaking at 1.502M cows (4.43% of nation’s total) in 1998.
- The pundits will focus on PNW’s portion since ’94; the region’s average being ~4.1% instead of 4.2-to-4.3%. (We’re slicing the onion pretty thin here.) Nevertheless, RCALF’s haste to disparage NAFTA, the group disregards an even bigger, boots-on-the-ground influence on western ranchers during that time: new grazing regulations introduced by the Clinton Administration’s Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt (1995).
Reviewing The Tape: The protectionists will read all this and respond with something like, “Blah, blah, blah…what about the decline in total cow numbers?” (Again, review this column.) That topic leads to exploration of some other changes that have occurred since 1994 (detailed in the table below).
Several things to note here:
- The industry continues to do more with less. That’s a testament to producer productivity and a story that needs to be told over and over to the public (i.e. Beef Checkoff).
- The gains aren’t just quantitative – there’s also been a quality revolution that’s occurred in the past several decades – well documented by the Beef Quality Audits (i.e. Beef Checkoff).
- Last, IF the concern is on imports (either product or cattle) THEN the export story also has to be acknowledged – the biggest change of all! (see Bad Bookkeepers)
Better Answers: Curiosity leads to better answers. RCALF’s “informative example” fails to be exemplary. To that end, one reader shared this thought several weeks ago with me: “Those leading R-CALF surely can’t be that unknowing but I’m more convinced they can be that political.” (see Protectionist Brimstone)
Given the importance of trade to all cattle producers, politicization needs to be avoided. Accordingly, another reader recently sent me as detailed an email as I’ve ever received; he repeatedly included this statement regarding trade’s significance to the business: “The last thing we want to do is stifle USA’s “competitive advantage” in Ag. via trade restrictions!”
Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz.
