“You cannot manage what you cannot measure.” Early in my career, this statement was drilled into my head. Over the years, this statement has become more and more clear. It applies to almost everything. Without data, how are we to forecast, make timely decisions, adjust our operations and position ourselves? It’s a statement that when you think about it, applies across a broad spectrum. Water, cattle, finances, even down to your fuel gauge in your pickup. If you measure something, you can manage it.
Last week, USDA pulled the plug on its July Cattle inventory report. The industry was only given two each year—one in January and one in July. The lack of frequency alone made these reports very important. They gave insight into the current year and gave the industry the ability to forecast heifer retention numbers, which in the current market situation, is one of the most important figures everyone is looking at. It’s how the industry has been able to compare and forecast culling by supplying data that backs up claims with measured data. Over the last few years, countless headlines around the shrinking cow herd have been published, but it was with the data supplied in these reports that helped spur those comments. It helped us manage our operations more knowledgeably because we had data supporting decisions.
Now, with this decision, analysts have one arm tied behind their backs with a single annual report. These reports always included a wide margin of error to begin with, but the data represented trends. Less data provides less opportunity to make informed decisions.
“It is disingenuous for the same agency which touts its commitment to transparency in livestock markets to arbitrarily cease publication of reports which provide just that. While it may be politically expedient to blame appropriators in Congress for today’s decision, cattle producers know better than to believe discontinuing a handful of reports will result in substantive cost savings for the Department,” said Ethan Lane, NCBA vice president of government affairs. “NCBA calls on USDA-NASS to immediately reverse this decision and continue delivering on its stated mission of providing timely, accurate, and useful statistics in service to U.S. agriculture.”
Please keep in mind the Cattle on Feed reports are still scheduled for each month, which are still a very useful tool.
For me, the blame that this is a budgetary issue gives me a headache with the most sarcastic eye roll I can possibly give. We don’t have enough room in this publication for me to go into detail on the current administration’s spending and use of funds. This column isn’t going down the path of democrat versus republican or your president versus mine. D.C. has plenty of guilt on both sides of the aisle.
To me, it’s the lack of workmanship to blame and both parties are extremely guilty. Party line politics at play with the population they claim to represent are the ones getting hurt on all issues, not just a single cattle inventory report. Connecting these two issues together is laughable. This report falling out of production has nothing to do with any budgetary issues. It’s just an easy cop-out.
For me, the bigger issue is this data gave answers to every level of production. From an analytic viewpoint, forecasting heifer retention is very important, especially in today’s marketplace. But more importantly, for the consumer, it explains why beef cattle prices and shelf costs have gone the way they have over the last few years. By starting with this point, we have data backing up our claim. By taking this data away, we resort to general speaking terms, which never bodes well for an informed conversation with the masses. With more timely information, we can accurately describe trends and back that claim up with facts and figures.
In a recent article published in WLJ, contributing editor Charles Wallace noted the Power of Meat survey which showed that 80% of U.S. households are meat eaters and 98% have remained consistent in their meat consumption since last year. The easiest explained data point was that 73% of survey takers claimed they had adjusted their meat purchases to save money. If you’ve been to a grocery store lately and are in the sector where you buy your own meat, you understand this point deeply.
With less data, it’s that much harder to explain why and gives an easier target to point at the cattle producers. More measured data leads to better management at all levels—period. — LOGAN IPSEN
