Lately we’ve been subjected to mis-leading statistics from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) to justify their wrong-headed policies and continued use of our mandatory checkoff money.

First, NCBA’s Mike John wrote an April article titled “These Numbers Don’t Add Up.” But it is Mr. John’s numbers that don’t add up. He misleadingly claims imports of feeder cattle from Mexico were higher in 2004 than the combined 2002 Mexico and Canada feeder cattle imports.

His point is untrustworthy because 2002 was an abnormally low year for Mexican imports. One reason was that in 2002 the U.S. had the lowest feeder cattle and live cattle prices of the past five years. High 2004 imports from Mexico are most likely caused by our current high prices, a 750 pound steer was worth about $25/cwt more in 2004 than in 2002.

Mr. John’s numbers deceptively imply the Canada border closure thus creates no supply reduction. But he looks at feeder cattle, not total cattle imported. Let’s not forget that cow slaughter generates a huge part of our beef supply. We also can’t forget that we used to import finished cattle out of Canada as well. Feeder cattle are only part of the equation. Total cattle imports from Mexico in 2004 were 1,370,787 head. Compare that to the 2,492,968 total head imported from Canada and Mexico in 2002. The difference is 1.1 million head, basically two weeks of slaughter in the U.S. It seems to me that we have had supply reduction.

A second misleading set of statistical claims comes from Myron Williams, chairman of the Federation of Beef Councils at NCBA, regarding the beef checkoff and its affect on beef demand. Mr. Williams claims that consumer demand for beef has increased by 25% since 1998, adding about $250 per head to the price of fed cattle. This is part of NCBA’s effort to link increased beef demand with high prices, and de-link the Canada border closure.

Mr. Williams fails to tell us per capita beef consumption dropped from 66.7 pounds to 65.6 pounds. Total demand for beef increased, at a higher price, from 26.3 billion pounds (1998) to 27.6 billion pounds (2004). This is less than 5% total increase over 6 years. Population increase drove total demand increases, not per capita consumption. A per capita drop in consumption is not a successful marketing campaign. In Mike John’s own words, “Americans captured their smallest-ever share of the U.S. beef supply.” How is that a success for the beef checkoff?

Mr. Williams’ claimed $250 increase in the value of cattle does not make sense because the year 1998, his price starting point, produced the lowest nominal cattle prices since 1986. If we plug in more realistic figures from a year like 1990, the per head increase in value would have only been about $50 - $60, and that doesn’t even keep up with inflation.

NCBA also claims that U.S. cattlemen have lost $175 per head because of lost export markets. Again there is some truth to the claim, but they do not attribute the price increase to the Canada border closure and the resulting consumer confidence. Additionally, they are against the most effective means to open our export markets, BSE testing and mandatory country of origin labeling. It’s simple math: perform a $30 BSE test and receive $175 more for your cattle. I like that trade. Even the economists from packer-friendly Kansas State have done the research that shows testing would pay dividends. It is amazing that the mainstream is finally catching up to where Creekstone Farms was last year.

NCBA throws out a $175 figure in a dishonest attempt to show other groups are slowing the process of reopening export markets and harming the industry. The fact is, trade would have already resumed with Japan, and Canada too, if we were testing more cattle for BSE in North America and labeling beef as to country of origin. The point of this exercise is to remind OCM members and readers to check the facts before believing the statistics that are floated in the press. The truth is out there, and it is my hope that OCM continues to be a source of truth and will move forcefully towards fair competition in all markets. BC