 |
|
|
|||||
In a period when retail beef prices are at an all-time high and consumers are still willing to pay, South Dakota rancher Calli Williams would love to cash in. But it’s not so simple. Williams and her husband, Tate, raise about 70 cow-calf pairs near Letcher in southeastern South Dakota, roughly 18 miles (29 kilometers) north of Mitchell. They own about 80 acres (32 hectares) and rent additional pasture. Between the drought that hit cattle country hard over the last few years, still being maxed out on the grass available to feed their animals, and with land prices rising, she said, they simply cant yet make the financial investments that theyd need to raise production. It is a goal of ours to expand, she said. Im just not sure if that will be in the 10-year plan or even longer. Biology is a barrier to expansion Farmers and ranchers across the U.S. would love to take greater advantage of the high prices, but with the U.S. herd at record lows, they cant meet the demand quickly. It’s basic biology. It takes three years to get more cowsbetween making a decision, having that gestation period, having the calf born, raising the calf until it, too, can have a calf,” said Michael Swanson, chief agricultural economist for the Wells Fargo Agri-Food Institute in Minneapolis. Drought has eased, but the impacts persist The Williamses’ county was hard hit by drought over the previous few seasons. Because of the lack of grass and uneconomically high hay prices, they had to sell all their young females last year that could have produced more calves for them this year, she said. Their area has caught some rain lately, though. It has improved to just abnormally dry in recent U.S. Drought Monitor reports. But Williams said theyre simply playing catch-up. Swanson said some of the main cattle areas in North Americafrom Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Canada down to Texas in the U.S.are just naturally prone to drought. It’s often boom or bust. Colin Woodall, CEO of the National Cattlemens Beef Association (NCBA), said a lot of cattle country has had good rain this summer, but it’s a cyclical business. Sometimes we have good times, and sometimes we dont, Woodall said. And we are just coming off what was a pretty significant negative hit to the cattle industry in 19, 20, and 21, with the height of the pandemic. So we have a lot of producers who are still trying to pay off bills from those times.” Fear of future drought is also a factor And Woodall said NCBA members are still leery. They’re asking how long the better weather will last. Were getting some good moisture now. But will it be that way in the fall? Will it be that way next year? he said. Because the last thing you want to do is pay to rebuild your herd and then just have to liquidate them again in six months to a year. Although its difficult to attribute any single weather event, such as a drought, directly to climate change, scientists say that rising temperatures stoked by climate change are increasing the odds of both severe droughts and heavier precipitation, which wreak havoc on people and the environment. When extreme weather collides with tight margins, farmers and ranchers feel the squeeze. The economics: Prices have soared to record highs Retail beef prices have hit record highs, with no relief for consumers in sight. Ground beef rose to an average of $6.12 per pound in June, up nearly 12% from 2024. The average price of all steaks rose 8%, to $11.49 per pound. And the average prices that producers receive for cattle and calves have increased from $1.51 per pound in May 2020 to $4.05 in May of this year. But herds have still shrunk The total U.S. cattle herd is the smallest it has been at midyear since the government began keeping those figures in 1973, and probably since the 1950s. There were few signs in the U.S. Department of Agriculture data released last Friday that producers have begun rebuilding herds. As of July 1, the U.S. had 94.2 million cattle and calves, down from the last midyear peak in 2019 of nearly 103 million. Critical for the future supply, 2025 calf production is projected at 33.1 million head, down 1% from last year. Derrell Peel, a livestock marketing specialist at Oklahoma State University, said if producers were planning to grow their herds, the USDA reports would have shown them keeping heifersfemale cows that havent given birth yet. Yet consumer demand remains high While retail prices are high, consumers so far have been willing to pay them. Glynn Tonsor, who leads the Meat Demand Monitor at Kansas State University, said taste is the most important consideration when shoppers choose proteinsand beef remains the favorite. The late June report found that consumers were willing to fork out $17.62 a pound for rib-eye steaks and $8.82 a pound for ground beef. Thats more than the $7.13 theyd pay for pork chops, $6.19 for bacon, or $8.55 for chicken breasts. A major reason, Woodall offered, is that the beef industry has focused on the eating experience. The kind of beef that we are producing today is some of the highest quality, best tasting beef that weve ever produced in history here in the United States,” he said. So, things such as USDA prime graded steaks that at one point in time you could only get in a restaurant, you can now get that in a grocery store. For consumers who balk at costs, maketing specialist Peel said that pork and poultry are abundant and quite favorably priced.” Meanwhile, back at the ranch The Williamses, who are both 34, built their TW Angus business from scratch. Tate Williams started buying cattle when he was in high school, and they bought their land in 2015. They sell bulls in the spring and keep heifers when they can. They also raise steers in their own feedlot and sell the meat directly to consumers. We would really like to expand our operation,” Calli Williams said. “We have a goal of being able to pass this on to the next generation, she added, meaning their sons Jack, 7, and Tommy, nearly 4. But recalling a friends words, she said ranchers are a resilient bunch. Were optimistic that if Mother Natureshe wreaked havoc on us, whether that was a drought or a floodthat next year shell be kinder to us, she said. Or if the markets werent on our side, were optimistic that the markets will be on our side next time. By Steve Karnowski, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
A history teacher recently turned her sixth grade classroom into a museum for millennial paraphernalia and posted the results on TikTok. Judging by the comment section, millennials arent sure whether to be thrilled or horrified.
Category:
E-Commerce
Offshore wind power could provide far more electricity than the U.S. uses for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes. But the federal government has recently stopped approving offshore projects in the ocean. Another option is available, though: the Great Lakes, where we are based as water policy researchers, and where state agencies rather than federal officials are the trustees of the lakes. A January 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump attempts to stop all federal permits for offshore and onshore wind power pending a review of federal wind leasing and permitting practices. But the states, not the federal government, handle leases and permits for wind power on the Great Lakes, though federal agencies are involved in the overall process. It is unclear how this executive order might impede efforts to move forward with offshore wind in the lakes, but at the very least, states could lay the groundwork now to be prepared to act when the next shift in federal priorities arrives. A 2023 analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that the Great Lakes states have enough offshore wind power potential to provide three times as much electricity as all eight Great Lakes states use currently, which would mean plenty left over to meet increasing demand or send power elsewhere in the country. States are looking for opportunities States have been forging their own paths separate from federal clean energy policy for decades. All eight Great Lakes states have state clean energy goals, and five of themIllinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsinhave a goal to achieve 100% clean or renewable energy by 2040 or 2050. The challenge is not just to transform the current energy supply. As transportation and other sectors electrify, that increases electricity demand. As artificial intelligence proliferates, tech companies need more and more electricity and water for their data centers. By 2028, data centers are projected to consume nearly 12% of the countrys total usage, which requires massive increases in production in the Great Lakes and other key locations. Companies and states are looking high and low to find enough electricity to meet the rising demand. They are extending the lives of coal-fired power plants and building new gas-fired power plants. Elon Musks xAI company has even been powering an artificial intelligence data center in Tennessee with massive generators that add air pollution without permits. Government and industry are also looking to other sources, such as investing in nuclear fusion advancement and building geothermal plants. A brief history In the 2000s and 2010s, the Great Lakes Commission Wind Collaborative, Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the Michigan Great Lakes Wind Council began to sketch out regulations for offshore wind in the Great Lakes and to identify locations that might be suitable for the turbines. In 2012, the Obama administration agreed to collaborate with five Great Lakes statesIllinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvaniato streamline a permitting process for offshore wind development. Multiple projects were proposed off the shores of Michigan, Ohio and Ontario, Canada, though Ontario banned offshore wind projects in 2011. Since then, momentum has stalled. One effort, the Icebreaker project off Cleveland, was approved and survived various legal challenges, but the project backers paused it indefinitely in 2023 due to the economic impacts of the legal delays. Community activists are split, with some embracing offshore wind in the Great Lakes as part of a clean energy future and others vocally opposing it, citing environmental, health and economic concerns. As of mid-2025, the Great Lakes were home to no offshore wind turbines. Wind speeds at the altitude of 460 feet (140 meters) above the surface of the Great Lakes are high enough to drive turbines that generate wind power. [Image: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Departent of Energy] Big potential, big unknowns States continue to explore the possibility of offshore wind power in the Great Lakes. In early 2025, Illinois legislators again introduced a bill to create a pilot wind project off Chicago in Lake Michigan. Also in 2025, Pennsylvania legislators introduced a bill to facilitate offshore wind power in Lake Erie. If adopted, the law would map which areas are fit to be leased for development by avoiding nearshore areas, shipping lanes and migration pathways. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance is pushing the province to lift its moratorium and reconsider offshore wind in Canadian waters. A lot of details remain unknown. New York state supports offshore wind in the ocean but says Great Lakes Wind does not provide the same electric and reliability benefits by comparison. Ocean wind tends to be closer to areas where electricity demand is high, which can make those projects more cost-effective. New York also concluded in 2022 that despite the combined 144.5 terawatt-hours of annual technical potential in state waters in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, numerous practical considerations . . . would need to be addressed before such projects can be successfully commercialized. To further explore the concerns New Yorks report and others have raised, in 2024, with National Science Foundation funding, we collaborated with a team of researchers looking at a wide range of issues, including engineering, environmental effects and law. That effort resulted in articulating research questions whose answers would clarify how realistic different aspects of offshore wind could be in the Great Lakes, such as: How does ice that forms in freshwater affect the structural integrity of turbines? Are floating turbines a better fit than traditional fixed-bottom turbines to reach the higher wind speeds in the deeper parts of the lakes and out of view from shore? If turbine components and installation vessels cant fit through the St. Lawrence Seaway, could they be built in the region and drive economic development? Can turbines be located in places that improve fisheries and avoid migratory paths of birds and bats? How can states establish leasing and permitting programs that maximize environmental, social and economic benefits? State jurisdiction is an opportunity In the oceans, U.S. states have jurisdiction from shore out three miles, with the federal governments jurisdiction continuing out for hundreds of miles beyond that. So offshore project sites in the oceans are leased by the federal government. The Great Lakes are different. The state governments hold the lakes waters and submerged lands in trust for the public. And state jurisdiction extends from shore all the way out to the boundary of a neighboring states jurisdiction or the international boundary with Canada. Regulation of planning, site selection, leasing and other elements of offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes are the responsibility of one or another U.S. state. The federal governments role is secondary, conducting environmental reviews and protecting navigation, but could still result in slowing state-led projects. In research we published in 2024 and 2025, we explain that states could evaluate and select offshore wind projects based on a range of social and environmental benefits, in addition to financial considerations. For instance, they could look for designs that provide fish habitat or seek corporate partners that agree to train local workers, manufacture turbines and ships near the lakes, and provide cheaper electricity to local consumers. Despite all the unknowns, we encourage greater support for research to harness the potential of offshore wind energy in the Great Lakes to be a renewable resource for states, the region and the nation as a whole. Cora Sutherland is an interim assistant director at the Center for Water Policy at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Melissa Scanlan is a professor and director of the Center for Water Policy, School of Freshwater Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||