- Author: Ria DeBiase, Giannini Foundation
California's farm animal welfare act, approved in 2018, fully implemented in January 2024 after delays
Since being passed by California voters in 2018, Proposition 12, a farm animal welfare law, has faced a series of legal challenges that have led to uncertainty and delays in the implementation and enforcement of its requirements for the treatment of breeding pigs. A new Special Issue of ARE Update sheds light on its contentious path to eventual full implementation on Jan. 1, 2024, and analyzes how these delays have affected the retail and wholesale pork market.
Preliminary data suggest that Prop 12, and the uncertainty surrounding it, have led to an average retail price increase of 20% for covered pork products (i.e., those included under the regulation, mainly uncooked cuts of pork), as well as significantly higher prices for wholesale pork products during the implementation period and as hog farms nationally continue to adjust to the law.
Prop 12, officially known as the “Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act,” was approved by 63% of California voters. The law requires housing standards for egg-laying hens, veal calves and breeding pigs for the eggs or meat of these animals or their offspring to be sold in California.
While these standards first went into effect for egg-laying hens and veal calves as early as Jan. 1, 2020, many farms and businesses were hesitant to make large investments in the sow housing and traceability requirements until legal issues were settled for Prop 12-compliant pork.
On May 11, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Prop 12. As a result, and consistent with rulings of the Sacramento Superior Court in California, California began requiring Prop 12-compliant pork on July 1, 2023, while allowing remaining non-compliant pork already in the supply chain to be sold until Jan. 1, 2024. Although full enforcement began almost eight months after the Supreme Court ruling, hog farms, almost all of which are outside California, continue to expand the supply of pork from hogs born of mother pigs that meet California housing and treatment standards.
“A long complicated process is not uncommon for major regulations,” said Daniel A. Sumner, a study co-author and distinguished professor in the UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Economists Hannah Hawkins, Shawn Arita and Seth Meyer with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of the Chief Economist have been documenting prices and quantities of hogs and pork as the industry has adjusted to Prop 12. Using Circana retail scanner data, they found that in the past nine months covered pork products sold in California increased in price compared to the rest of the United States. While there was significant price fluctuation between the partial and full implementation dates, the initial price impacts were higher than would be expected after full adjustment, with price increases of 16% for bacon and 41% for pork loin.
Based on USDA Agricultural Marketing Service data, the authors found that wholesale prices for compliant pork cuts also increased substantially during the adjustment period, with an average price premium of 22%. Due to the many delays in implementation, Prop 12-compliant pork volumes are not yet sufficient to meet quantities that would have been demanded without these significant price increases. As the industry catches up to supply sufficient quantities of compliant pork meat to meet the California demand and a new market equilibrium is reached, both retail and wholesale prices may settle at lower price premiums. However, we may still be several months away from understanding the full impact of Prop 12 on meat and egg producers and consumers.
To learn more about the implementation of Prop 12 and its impact on the retail and wholesale pork market, read the full Special Issue of ARE Update 27(3), UC Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, online at https://giannini.ucop.edu/filer/file/1710543749/20936/.
ARE Update is a bimonthly magazine published by the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics to educate policymakers and agribusiness professionals about new research or analysis of important topics in agricultural and resource economics. Articles are written by Giannini Foundation members, including University of California faculty and Cooperative Extension specialists in agricultural and resource economics, and university graduate students. Learn more about the Giannini Foundation and its publications at https://giannini.ucop.edu/.
/h3>- Author: Ria DeBiase, Communications Director, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics
The Prop. 12 pork panic is overblown, say UC agricultural economists, but so are the new law's benefits to hogs
California's Proposition 12 will soon require farms to add space for certain farm animals, including breeding pigs, or mother sows. As the January 2022 date for full implementation of Prop. 12 approaches, some pundits warn of upcoming bacon shortages and up to 60% higher pork prices, while others downplay any negative effects on Californians.
What are the real impacts of Prop. 12, which was approved by California voters in 2018?
UC Davis economists estimate that California pork consumers will lose $320 million per year (roughly $8 per person) from the market impacts of Prop. 12. California consumers will pay about 8% more for pork regulated under Prop. 12 and will consume around 6% less of that pork per year.
Co-author Richard Sexton, UC Davis distinguished professor of agricultural and resource economics, noted, “The roughly 9% of North American sows affected will each get about 20% more housing space. But, the additional space will be for those sows that already have more space, not those confined in small individual stalls.”
California's Prop. 12 is now set to be implemented as planned following the 9th Circuit Court's recent rejection of legal challenges. Republican senators from Iowa have proposed federal legislation to stop implementation of Prop. 12, fearing economic damage to their hog farmers, but federal action is unlikely. Meanwhile, Prop. 12 supporters claim that the new regulations will give more space to sows confined to stalls so small that they can't turn around.
Prop. 12 requires each sow whose piglets are raised for uncooked cuts of pork sold in California – about 9% of North American sows – to have a minimum of 24 square feet of space. Because Prop. 12 applies only to sows, not to their offspring who are raised for meat, it will apply to well less than 1% of the 90 million North American hogs.
Around 30% of North American sows are already in group housing with 20 square feet each, rather than confined in stalls. The high cost of converting stalls means that the California pork supply will come from sows already in group housing. “Thus,” said Sexton, “the California Prop. 12 regulations will not help those sows confined in stalls to gain more space and mobility.”
The added costs of 20% more space for group-housed sows that are transitioned to comply with Prop. 12 – plus the costs of segregation, product tracing and new labeling – will cause the cost of regulated pork products in California to rise by about $0.25 per pound. The UC Davis research also indicates almost no change in the prices of pork products sold outside of California.
To learn more about the coming impact of Prop. 12 on California consumers and the North American pork supply chain, read the full article by Ph.D. candidateHanbin Lee, Sexton and distinguished professor Daniel A. Sumner, all in the UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics: “Voter-Approved Proposition to Raise California Pork Prices.” ARE Update 24(6): 5–8. UC Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics: https://giannini.ucop.edu/filer/file/1629132628/20134.
ARE Update is a bimonthly magazine published by the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics to educate policymakers and agribusiness professionals about new research or analysis of important topics in agricultural and resource economics. Articles are written by Giannini Foundation members, including University of California faculty and Cooperative Extension specialists in agricultural and resource economics, and university graduate students. Learn more about the Giannini Foundation and its publications at https://giannini.ucop.edu.
- Author: Ben Faber
Food safety:
Dung beetles and soil bacteria reduce risk of human pathogens
Food safety regulations increasingly pressure growers to remove hedgerows, ponds and other natural habitats from farms to keep out pathogen-carrying wildlife and livestock. Yet, this could come at the cost of biodiversity.
New research published today in the Journal of Applied Ecology encourages the presence of dung beetles and soil bacteria at farms as they naturally suppress E. coli and other harmful pathogens before spreading to humans.
Wild and domesticated pig faeces have been known to contaminate produce in the field, leading to foodborne illnesses. Wild, or feral, pigs especially pose a risk of moving around pathogens as farmers cannot control where or when these large animals might show up.
Matthew Jones, who led the research as part of his PhD project at Washington State University, said: "Farmers are more and more concerned with food safety. If someone gets sick from produce traced back to a particular farm it can be devastating for them."
"As a result, many remove natural habitats from their farm fields to discourage visits by livestock or wildlife, making the farmland less hospitable to pollinators and other beneficial insects or birds", he added.
Dung beetles bury faeces below ground and make it difficult for pathogens to survive. To study how this may aid food safety, the entomologist drove a van full of pig faeces along the US West Coast to follow the planting of broccoli at 70 farm fields during the growing season. Broccoli, much like leafy greens, is susceptible to faecal contamination due to its proximity to the ground and the likelihood of humans consuming it without cooking.
The pig faeces were used to attract dung beetles and see how quickly they would clean up. The experiment was carried out at conventional and organic farms, and farms with or without livestock.
The organic farms seemed to attract a diverse range of dung beetle species that were most effective at keeping foodborne pathogens at bay. At conventional fields or those surrounded by pastureland, a less effective and accidentally introduced species (Onthophagus nuchicornis) outweighed the number of native dung beetles.
"We found that organic farms generally fostered dung beetle species that removed the faeces more rapidly than was seen on conventional farms", said Professor William Snyder of Washington State University.
Dung beetles likely kill harmful bacteria when they consume and bury the faeces. Previous research also suggested that these beetles have antibiotic-like compounds on their body.
To validate these findings, the researchers exposed the three most common species found in the field survey to pig faeces contaminated with E. coli. A 7-day laboratory experiment revealed that Onthophagus taurus and Onthophagus nuchicornis, both of which bury faeces as part of their breeding behaviour, reduced E. coli numbers by > 90% and < 50% respectively.
They also found that organic farming encouraged higher biodiversity among soil bacteria, which decreased the survival of pathogens.
"Bacteria are known to poison and otherwise fight among themselves and the same may be happening here", said Snyder.
These results suggest dung beetles and soil bacteria may improve the natural suppression of human pathogens on farms, making a case for reduced insecticide use and the promotion of greater plant and insect diversity.
"Wildlife and livestock are often seen as something that endanger food safety, but our research shows that reducing on-farm biodiversity might be totally counterproductive", Jones concluded.
"Nature has a 'clean-up crew' of dung beetles and bacteria that quickly remove faeces and the pathogens within them, it appears. So, it might be better to encourage these beneficial insects and microbes."
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-food-safety-dung-beetles-soil.html#jCp
Jones MS, Fu Z, Reganold JP, et al. Organic farming promotes biotic resistance to foodborne human pathogens. J Appl Ecol. 2019;00:1-11.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-food-safety-dung-beetles-soil.html#jCp
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-food-safety-dung-beetles-soil.html#jCp
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-food-safety-dung-beetles-soil.html#jCp
- Author: Dan Macon
Modern electric fencing systems can be incredibly useful in a variety of settings. Single-wire portable systems can help producers manage grazing on irrigated pastures or crop stubble. Multiple-wire fences and electro-net systems are used to control sheep and goats in targeted grazing situations or on properties without permanent fencing. Multiple-wire systems can also be used to temporarily fence riparian areas and other key sites in rangeland settings. Finally, these systems can also help protect livestock from predators.
Unlike the physical barrier of a barbed wire or woven wire fence, electric fence is a psychological barrier. As such, animals need to be trained to respect electric fence - and we humans have to be trained to install, maintain, and use it correctly! And as with any management tool, efficiency is critical to making portable electric fencing systems work from a labor and cost perspective. At one time or another, we've used electric fencing in our own operation to contain sheep, goats, cattle, horses, mules, chickens and hogs.
On Thursday, November 9, we will be holding our first Electric Fencing Field Day at Robinson Ranch in Penn Valley, California, beginning at 8:30. You'll learn about the principles of electric fencing, get hands-on experience with a variety of fencing systems, and learn how to troubleshoot problems. Thanks to our co-sponsor, LiveWire Products, you'll have a chance to learn about the latest fencing technology!
For more information, or to register for this free workshop, click here! Or email me at dmacon@ucanr.edu for more information!
- Author: John M Harper
After almost two years, the Mendocino County Meat Plant (MCMP) Study is completed and the 92-page report is available for download as a pdf from either the UCCE Mendocino County web site (http://cemendocino.ucanr.edu/files/171140.pdf) or the Mendocino County Economic Development and Financing Corporation (EDFC) web site (http://www.edfc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/MCMP-Final-Report-2013-08.pdf).
The report was prepared under an Award from the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration for the Mendocino County EDFC. The study authors were Shermain Hardesty, Cooperative Extension Specialist, UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and John Harper, UCCE Livestock & Natural Resources Advisor for Mendocino & Lake Counties.
The study examined a proposed project for a small-scale multi-species USDA-inspected meat plant that would primarily serve ranchers in Mendocino and Lake Counties. The plant would handle cattle, hogs, sheep, goats and bison. It is different from most niche meat plants because most of the ranchers interested in using the facility already have established markets, primarily in the North and East Bay. Those ranchers would be shifting their harvest and/or processing from one or more existing facilities (none are located in Mendocino or Lake Counties) to the proposed meat plant.
The study and report included an Analysis of Demand for USDA-Inspected Slaughter & Processing Services; Alternative Organizational Models; Alternative Sources of Financing; Plant Requirements, Options and Siting; and Financial Analysis of Three Options.
The three plant options analyzed were: Option A - provides only cut-and-wrap services using a modular processing unit and a trailer office located in an industrial park with a total cost of $430,500; Option B - includes the same processing facility and trailer office described for Option A, plus a modular slaughter unit and adjacent holding pens located at a leased site on an unspecified ranch with a total cost of $821,100; and Option C - a built-in-place 2,400 square foot harvest and processing facility located on purchased property with a total cost of $1,425,516. All options have a capacity to handle 1,500 equivalent animal units (1 steer = 2 hogs = 2 lambs or goats) per year or 30 equivalent animal units per week. The plant would operate in a 50-week year with a single 8-hour per day shift.
All three options proved to be financially viable. Option B has the highest Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 11.1%. Option C's IRR is 6.6% and is impacted significantly by the purchase of 3.7 acres for $483,516. Option A's IRR is 3.9% but since it is cut-and-wrap only, it does not meet the needs of the ranchers doing direct marketing. Ten-year cash flow for Option C is included in the report.
A public meeting will be held on September 5, 2013 at 5 pm in Ukiah to present the report and answer questions. The meeting will be held at the Sun House Public Meeting Room. The room is on the west side of the Grace Hudson Museum, located at 431 S. Main Street.
Next steps include that authors Hardesty and Harper will prepare a business plan for implementing Option C for the EDFC.