Feeder

When Risk in a Crisis Becomes a Turning Point: Lessons from Top Producers

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:51:43 GMT

In a volatile agricultural landscape, risk is a constant. Weather, markets, input costs, succession issues, cyberthreats and pandemics all push farm families into uncomfortable decisions. During the “When Taking Risk in Times of Crisis Pays Off” panel at Top Producer Conference, six producers shared how they’ve navigated those moments — and what they’ve learned when the stakes were highest.

The panel, moderated by Rena Striegel, president of Transition Point Business Advisors in West Des Moines, Iowa, included: Edward and Rebecca Dalton, of Dalton Farms, Wakeman, Ohio; Chris Payne of 3B Hay & Straw, Ontario, Ore.; Wendy Alsum Dykstra and Heidi Alsum Randall of Alsum Farms and Produce, Friesland, Wis.; and Ron Rabou of Rabou Farms, Albin, Wyo.

Their stories spanned family tragedy, ransomware, COVID-19 disruptions, organic transitions and bold expansion moves — offering a candid look at what it really means to take risk in agriculture.

Here are five key takeaways from the conversation:

1. Crisis as a Catalyst, Not a Dead End

For several panelists, a crisis didn’t just test their operations; it forced a complete re-evaluation.

The Daltons describe being emotionally exhausted and financially stuck before a Top Producer event pushed them to question everything.

“We were floundering in agriculture,” Rebecca says. “We were not making any money, really. We were just doing it to do it and to continue that legacy. And we were to the point where, like, ‘why are we doing this?’ You know, we only have so many days here. We only have so much time here.”

After a series of family tragedies and persistent unprofitability, they made a bold move to transition about half their acres to organic production. The shift brought much-needed profitability and renewed purpose.

“The risk was I was going to quit farming,” Edward explains. “We needed something and a spark and to just want to farm again.”

In Wyoming, Rabou’s turning point came after the sudden death of his father and the unraveling of a complex family ranch structure. Walking away from a fifth-generation operation was emotionally painful, but necessary.

“We did a lot of soul searching, and I kind of came to the conclusion that the risk for me for not doing something was much greater than actually doing something,” he says.

Rabou and his wife started essentially from scratch, building an organic grain operation and a hunting enterprise, borrowing heavily despite having grown up in a “never borrow” mindset.

2. Numbers Matter — But They Aren’t Everything

A recurring theme was the importance of knowing your numbers while recognizing data alone cannot drive every decision.

“Knowing our numbers is what really helped us,” Edward explains. “If you know your own data front and back, when you really get into those tight situations that you need to be able to think and move… sometimes you just have to move, whether you want to or not.”

Recently, the Daltons made a bold move back to conventional production. The Daltons’ choice to step out of organic was a conscious decision to go against what the spreadsheet said, in favor of their family and team.

“Right now, when I’m hauling $12 beans instead of $40 beans, like we were for a few years, I’m not really happy with that decision, but it was too much time,” Edward explains. “We were losing time with our boys, and that ultimately is why we went back, even though we were making more money per acre.”

Rabou emphasizes having a clear philosophy about leverage: “I have no problem borrowing money on appreciating assets, but I have to be very careful about borrowing money on assets that depreciate.”

For him, land and infrastructure are long-game investments, and he admits he more often regrets the risks he didn’t take than the ones he did.

“I’ve never looked back and said I shouldn’t have made that investment,” he says. “But I have looked back a multitude of times and said, ‘Wow, I wish I would have made that investment.’”

3. Fear vs. Action: Moving When the Window Opens

Panelists agree that fear is often the biggest barrier to seizing opportunity — especially when decisions must be made quickly.

Oregon onion grower and packer Payne describes how, in the middle of a tense meeting, he and another young partner were essentially challenged to buy out older shareholders in an onion packing facility. They had seconds, not months, to commit.

His broader advice to producers now: “Don’t get caught up in fear. If you let fear dominate your thought processes, you’re never going to succeed.”

Preparation helps in those “15-second” decision moments, Payne adds. Continually learning, attending conferences and thinking through scenarios ahead of time gives you a framework so you’re not starting from zero when opportunity knocks.

Edward adds, “You absolutely know how it’ll go if you don’t try. If you’re not willing to try, it’s not going to work. You can’t move forward if you don’t do something or try.”

4. Cyberattacks, COVID-19 and the Power of Systems

For Alsum Farms & Produce crisis came in very modern forms: a ransomware attack and then the COVID-19 pandemic.

“At 3 a.m. one morning in October, I got a call from our IT manager that we had been hit with ransomware,” Wendy explains.

She explains recovery from the attack required all hands on deck, multiple external experts and months of work to protect traceability and keep product moving. The aftermath included layered backups, new server and email security, user training and an ongoing relationship with cybersecurity and insurance professionals.

Just months later, COVID-19 hit. With 90% to 95% of their business retail-focused, the Alsum team quickly formed a COVID-19 response group, redesigning workflows to keep employees safe and shelves stocked.

The sisters say one key result from COVID-19 was when another supplier faltered, the Alsums were ready to step up for a major retailer — turning crisis into opportunity.

5. Relationships as a Strategic Asset

Beyond capital and land, the panel underscores the value of relationships — with peers, competitors and buyers.

Edward, Payne and Rabou maintain a group text, often used when one of them is wrestling with a big decision.

“Have people in an industry that you can trust and communicate with,” Edward stresses. “There’s been days they’ve literally had to walk me off a ledge when I’m trying to figure out how to make a decision.”

In the potato and produce world, Heidi says, competitors often become collaborators when the chips are down.

“The nice thing about the potato industry and the produce industry in general that we’ve experienced is that it’s been very collaborative,” she explains.
Rabou adds he sometimes sells grain below top price to maintain long-term relationships and outlet security.

“Those relationships to me are more important than making the dollar in the moment,” he explains.

His broader warning to producers is to stop comparing your operation to your neighbors’.

“You really have to determine what works good for you as an individual, you as a couple, you as a business,” he stresses. “Stop paying attention to what everyone else is doing.”

The Bottom Line from Top Producers

Across all their stories, the panelists echoed a few core principles:

Know your numbers but also know your values.
Act in crisis — don’t let fear make the choice for you.
Be willing to pivot, even away from something profitable, if it no longer fits your life or strategy.
Invest in appreciating assets and in relationships, both of which can pay off long after the crisis has passed.

In short, risk in times of crisis isn’t just something to endure; handled intentionally, it can be the turning point that reshapes a farm for the better.

Rollins Rolls Out 5-Point Plan to Contain New World Screwworm

Wed, 18 Jun 2025 19:01:29 GMT

Today Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced a five-pronged plan to combat New World screwworm (NWS) – a pest that would devastate ranchers if it made its way across the border.

Rollins made her announcement at the Moore Air Base facility near Edinburg, Texas. Moore was instrumental as a sterile fly production lab to rid the U.S. of NWS in the 1960s and 1970s. Hundreds of millions of flies were reared, sterilized with radiation and dropped from aircraft to eliminate the parasitic pest that preyed upon wildlife and livestock. According to a USDA spokesperson it will cost an estimated $8.5 million to get the base up and running as a distribution facility.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins this morning launched an $8.5 million sterile New World screwworm (NWS) fly dispersal facility in South Texas and announced a plan to enhance USDA’s already robust ability to detect, control, and eliminate this pest.

(U.S. Department of Agriculture)

According to the Texas Wildlife Association , there are currently more than 1,800 cases of livestock infestation in southern Mexico. The flies are moving north and are currently 600 miles from the south Texas border.

“We have defeated the screwworm before, and we will do it again,” Rollins says.

Here in McAllen, TX to announce a BOLD 5-pronged plan to combat the deadly parasite called New World Screwworm – which would devastate ranchers if it made its way across the border.

We are protecting producers, strengthening biosecurity, and ALWAYS standing up for American… pic.twitter.com/VHOlqZyZ9a
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) June 18, 2025

Her five-pronged plan to combat NWS includes:

Stop the pest from spreading in Mexico.
Rollins plans to continue partnering with her Mexican counterparts and using sterile insect technology to stop the spread. This includes investing $21 million to produce up to 100 million additional sterile flies weekly.

“We are first enhancing the international sterile fly production and investing $21 million in renovation of an existing fly facility in southern Mexico, which will provide up to 100 million additional sterile flies every week to stop the spread,” Rollins says.

Currently, the only sterile fly facility is located in Panama. It’s jointly run by the Panamanian government and the U.S. government. USDA had previously announced its plan to invest in the retrofiting of a fruit fly facility in Chiapas, Mexico, to produce additional sterile flies.

According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association , “The Chiapas facility produces about 117 million flies per week, but to form an effective barrier along the U.S. southern border, we need upward of 300 million sterile flies per week.”
Protect the U.S. at all costs.
Rollins temporarily closed the southern border to live animal imports and intercepting illegally introduced livestock. USDA is working closely with Mexico to improve surveillance.

“I do believe we have met and moved into a new era of productive partnership —perhaps better than ever before — with our Mexican counterparts,” Rollins says.
Maximize our readiness.
This will be achieved by partnering with state animal health officials to update emergency management plans and stockpile therapeutics for ranchers.
Take the fight to the screwworm.
The domestic fight includes establishing a sterile fly dispersal facility at Moore Air Base. Rollins says they are exploring options for building a domestic production facility at Moore that could produce up to 300 million sterile flies per week.

“We can’t get a brand new facility up and running probably before two or three years. So, that’s why we’ve got to really focus on the today,” Rollins explains.

She also announced USDA will be hosting listening sessions in affected areas starting next week.
Innovate Our Way to Eradication.
Leverage the sound science including USDA’s Agriculture Research Service (ARS) to continue to quickly develop novel treatments, preventatives and response strategies. Rollins says this includes working with land grant universities in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. She listed these key strategies during the press conference:
- Develop better fly traps and lures
- Provide local training
- Improve surveillance methods
- Create new response strategies

Nearly 80 lawmakers led by House Ag Committee Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.) sent a bipartisan letter on Tuesday to Rollins urging immediate action and promising congressional support for the significant funding required.

The letter included this message, “When looking solely at the historical impact of NWS in Texas, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) estimates a contemporary outbreak would cost producers $732 million per year and the Texas economy a loss of $1.8 billion. Extrapolating those results to the states within the historic range of NWS pre-eradication, a contemporary outbreak of NWS could cost producers $4.3 billion per year and cause a total economic loss of more than $10.6 billion. This does not account for the possible expansion of NWS beyond the historic range.”

U.S. Congresswoman Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) was at the announcement and recently shared in a letter to Rollins these key advantages of the Moore Air Base location:

Border proximity: The proximity to the border with Mexico is crucial for effective monitoring and control of potential incursions of invasive fly species. A facility in this region would allow for rapid response and containment, minimizing the spread of infestations into the U.S.
Existing agricultural infrastructure: The region boasts a robust agricultural sector with established infrastructure and expertise in livestock management. This existing framework would facilitate efficient integration of the sterile fly facility and streamline its operations. Additionally, Moore Air Base has operations runways equipped to distribute sterile flies.
Strategic location: Moore Air Base offers a central location for distribution of sterile flies to other areas in the southern U.S., if such a need arises. Additionally, this base was the site of a facility used in the 1960s to successfully combat NWS.
Economic impact: The establishment of such a facility would provide valuable economic opportunities for the region by generating jobs and stimulating local economies.

U.S. Congressman Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) summarized at the announcement, “This is important to the whole country. We are going to be aggressive about this, and we are going to make sure that we don’t get screwed by the screwworm.”

Your Next Read: Urgency in Action: We Must Eradicate New World Screwworm

A Repeating Cycle: Sell Off, Recovery and Volatility in the Livestock Markets

Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:08:49 GMT

Every cattle cycle looks a little bit different, but they all have peaks and troughs related to inventories and prices — and all the volatility that goes along with it, according to Lee Schulz, ag economist with Ever.Ag.

Schulz recently joined “AgriTalk” to discuss current trends in the cattle and hog markets with host Chip Flory. He says the supply side of the cattle equation is essentially unchanged.

“We’ve continued to put off expansion and to really continue to contract,” says Schulz, who thinks some supply reductions have been mitigated by higher carcass weights.

He also argues profitability drives, and the level of risk producers have faced over the last several years has pushed off that expansion.

“We’ve needed higher profitability levels to incentivize that expansion,” Schulz explains. “That is on the short-term horizon here. But if you would have asked me a couple of years ago what this expansion cycle would have looked like, I would have said it would have been a little bit smoother.”

One factor contributing to contraction in the market is that heifers are still worth more in the feedlot than on pasture. Record wholesale cattle values continue to incentivize the industry to market more beef.

“It’s really the short-term versus the long-term play here,” says Schulz, who is starting to see a transition.

Analyzing USDA’s long-term forecast from October 2024, Schulz notes the prediction for an increase in the beef cow herd Jan. 1, 2027.

“That would give us our highs in prices in 2026 with beef production finally increasing in 2028,” he says. “So far, that’s how it’s playing out. As we look at some of the fundamentals, obviously things could change. But that gives you a bit of a timeline for where things are at.”

With previous forecasts, there was the expectation to start expansion in 2024. The industry has continued to push that off.

“With cattle, you have the biologics of the industry,” Schulz says. “It takes a very long time to turn this ship. I think we can make some adjustments, but ultimately, once that expansion is dictated, it’s going to take a while.”

Demand has remained high in 2025 as consumers continue to eat more beef at higher prices. But is there a limit?

“As supplies are going to tighten, we’re going to eat less beef — but it’s at what price that beef is going to be at,” Schulz says. “Will you continue to see higher prices offset some of that reduction in quantity? So far, consumers have been willing and able to pay those higher prices. But that’s why we monitor things like consumer income and consumer sentiment. That’s going to drive beef demand here going forward.”

When it comes to the futures market and feeder cattle, Schulz thinks tight supplies are still in front of us and demand has to hold — so we may not have seen the highs yet. While he’s confident we’re not going at an increasing rate, he thinks the markets will plateau.

“As we get into summer and fall, that’s really going to dictate if have we put in the highs,” he says.

With cattle prices where they are, every animal in a feedlot, in transit or on pasture is at risk. Schulz recommends cattle producers go on the offense and look at ways to manage risk.

“You have to look at how do we manage the downside to this market potentially just due to the sheer cost of those placements,” he says. “Interest costs are three times as high as they used to be if you look back at the last decade. It’s not just feed costs either. It’s a lot of those costs we need to look at how to manage.”

Pork Markets Remain Steady
When it comes to the pork industry, Schulz sees the hog market dialed in. Supplies are similar to a year ago.

“When you look at it from a production standpoint, yes, slaughter’s down a little bit. But as we adjust for weights, we’re seeing a bit higher production,” Schulz explains. “Historically, we’re still pretty strong for demand, but I think we need to see further strength in demand if we continue to push these higher prices. The export situation remains critical for the hog market as we think about the ability to send our products to the highest valued market — and that continues to be a real crux for this industry.”

Listen to the entire conversation:

Your next read: 7 Health Insurance Solutions for the Self-Employed

Profit Tracker: Margins Lower On Soft Cash

Fri, 07 Jul 2023 19:16:19 GMT

Cattle feeding margins declined $37 to total an average of $24 per head for the week ending August 9, 2019. The decline was the result of a $2 retreat in average cash cattle prices which traded at $113. Packer margins improved $27 per head to $192, according to the Sterling Beef Profit Tracker .

(Note: The Beef and Pork Profit Trackers are intended only as a benchmark for the average cash costs of feeding cattle and hogs.)

A year ago cattle feeders were losing an average of $32 per head on cash prices of $112. Feeder cattle represent 72% of the cost of finishing a steer compared to 72% a year ago. The Beef and Pork Profit Trackers are calculated by Sterling Marketing Inc., Vale, Ore.

Farrow-to-finish pork producers saw their margins decline $7 per head with profits of $36. Lean carcass prices traded at $77.03 per cwt., $3.35 per cwt. lower than the previous week. A year ago pork producer margins were negative $27 per head. Pork packers saw average profits of $15 per head, $11 better than the previous week.

Sterling Marketing president John Nalivka projects cash profit margins for cow-calf producers in 2019 will average $138 per cow. That would be 14% lower compared to the $161 estimated average profit for 2018. Estimated average cow-calf margins were $164 in 2017, $176 in 2016, and $438 per cow in 2015.

For feedyards, Nalivka projects an average profit of $62 per head in 2019, which would be $38 better than the average of $24 per head in 2018. Nalivka expects packer margins to average about $155 per head in 2019, about $11 less than in 2018.

For farrow-to-finish pork producers, Nalivka projects an average profit of $13 per head in 2019, as compared with an average profit of $1.35 per head in 2018. Pork packers are projected to earn $16 per head in 2019, about $4 less than the $20 per head profits of 2018.

Profit Tracker: Packer Margins Went Up How Much?!

Fri, 07 Jul 2023 19:16:17 GMT

As expected, beef packer margins jumped wildly higher the week ending Aug. 17, while cattle feeding margins slipped into the red. According to the Sterling Beef Profit Tracker , packer margins topped $358 per head last week, or $167 higher than the previous week.

Cattle feeders saw their margins decline from an average of $24 per head profit to a $28 per head loss.

Those swings in profitability were driven by a cash fed cattle market at $5 per cwt. lower and a Choice beef cutout that was $14 per cwt. higher, both the result of market volatility following the Tyson fire incident at its Holcomb, Kan., plant.

A year ago cattle feeders were losing an average of $60 per head on cash prices of $110. Feeder cattle represent 71% of the cost of finishing a steer compared to 73% a year ago. The Beef and Pork Profit Trackers are calculated by Sterling Marketing Inc., Vale, Ore.

Farrow-to-finish pork producers saw their margins decline $8 per head with profits of $28. Lean carcass prices traded at $73.04 per cwt., $4 per cwt. lower than the previous week. A year ago pork producer margins were negative $40 per head. Pork packers saw average profits of $23 per head, $8 better than the previous week.

Sterling Marketing president John Nalivka projects cash profit margins for cow-calf producers in 2019 will average $138 per cow. That would be 14% lower compared to the $161 estimated average profit for 2018. Estimated average cow-calf margins were $164 in 2017, $176 in 2016, and $438 per cow in 2015.

For feedyards, Nalivka projects an average profit of $62 per head in 2019, which would be $38 better than the average of $24 per head in 2018. Nalivka expects packer margins to average about $155 per head in 2019, about $11 less than in 2018.

For farrow-to-finish pork producers, Nalivka projects an average profit of $13 per head in 2019, as compared with an average profit of $1.35 per head in 2018. Pork packers are projected to earn $16 per head in 2019, about $4 less than the $20 per head profits of 2018.

Related stories:

Cattle Slaughter Up 9,000, Prices Down 5%, Choice Beef Up 9%

The Role Of Markets In A Disaster

Spread Grows Between Packer and Feeder Margins

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 04:55:33 GMT

Beef packers continued with a stranglehold on cattle markets, buying a few cattle for their needs at an industry-average $102 per cwt. That left cattle feeders losing an average of $118 on every animal sold, and packers cashing in at a hefty $430 per head. That put the spread between feeder losses and packer profits at $548 per head.

Cattle feeding margins added $63 to the previous week’s losses of $55 for total per head losses of $118, according to the Sterling Beef Profit Tracker.

(Note: The Beef and Pork Profit Trackers are intended only as a benchmark for the average cash costs of feeding cattle and hogs.)

A year ago cattle feeders were losing an average of $1 per head on cash prices of $108. Feeder cattle represent 72% of the cost of finishing a steer compared to 71% a year ago.

The Beef and Pork Profit Trackers are calculated by Sterling Marketing Inc., Vale, Ore.

Farrow-to-finish pork producers saw their margins decline $13 per head with average losses now at $7 per head. Lean carcass prices traded at $56.71 per cwt., $5.40 per cwt. lower than the previous week. A year ago pork producer margins were negative $49 per head. Pork packers saw average profits of $25 per head, $10 more than the previous week.

Sterling Marketing president John Nalivka projects cash profit margins for cow-calf producers in 2019 will average $124 per cow. That would be 24% lower compared to the $161 estimated average profit for 2018. Estimated average cow-calf margins were $164 in 2017, $176 in 2016, and $438 per cow in 2015.

For feedyards, Nalivka projects an average profit of $46 per head in 2019, which would be $22 better than the average of $24 per head in 2018. Nalivka expects packer margins to average about $192 per head in 2019, about $22 higher than in 2018.

For farrow-to-finish pork producers, Nalivka projects an average profit of $6 per head in 2019, as compared with an average profit of $1.35 per head in 2018. Pork packers are projected to earn $16 per head in 2019, about $4 less than the $20 per head profits of 2018.

Related stories:

After The fire: Cattle Slaughter And Beef Prices

Sierra Club Sues To Stop Iowa Feedlot

Thu, 07 Oct 2021 18:57:54 GMT

The Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club is suing the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) over Supreme Beef LLC’s plan to build a 11,600-head cattle feedlot in Claton County in northeast Iowa.

The Iowa DNR approved the facility’s nutrient management plan in April after years of opposition from citizens and environmental groups. The feedlot’s plan estimated 35.4 million gallons of manure annually, but the Sierra Club’s lawsuit alleges Supreme Beef underestimated the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that will be produced and applied to 45 farm fields.

Specifically, the Sierra Club is concerned that runoff from the feedlot and spreading manure on farms would jeopardize Bloody Run Creek, which is a nearby cold-water trout stream.

“In spite of numerous comments from over 100 people and groups, the DNR blatantly violated its own rules and Iowa law when approving the nutrient management plan,” said Wally Taylor, an attorney for the Sierra Club of Iowa, in a statement.

Bloody Run Creek is a six-and-a-half mile, clear-water stream popular as a tourist spot and one of just 34 bodies of water in the entire state labeled as an “Outstanding Iowa Water” for its near-pristine condition.

Now is the Time for Livestock Feed Buyers

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:06:52 GMT

Low grain prices may be frustrating for farmers but it could be a real opportunity for end users according to Brian Basting of Advance Trading .

During a conversation on AgDay with Clinton Griffiths , Basting said now is the time for end users to take advantage of feed prices.

“An end user should be looking at locking in the remainder of spring needs, perhaps the summer and maybe all the way into fall,” says Basting. “You could consider, for example, buying the cash and simultaneously purchasing a put option that would give that user an opportunity to participate if the market continues to go lower.”

Basting says another strategy to consider for an end user would be the straight purchase of a call option which provides unlimited upside but also does not require margin calls if the market continues to grind lower.

“We’ve got a lot of unknowns going here and the growing season has just started from an end user standpoint,” says Basting. “The risk would be higher prices [including] some type of structural problem with crops in the 2019 planting or growing season.”

Secure Food Supply Resources Available to Livestock Producers

In the event of a foreign disease outbreak, livestock producers need to be prepared. Resources have been created by industry experts for those raising food animals, including beef and dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. Knowledge and preparedness can help livestock producers across the U.S. develop and put contingency plans in place for their individual operations. These guidelines can be found at securefoodsupply.org , as well as additional species-specific websites.

“The Secure Beef Supply plan has been developed for cattle producers to prepare them and help them in efforts to protect their livestock against foreign animal disease outbreaks, specifically Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD),” says Meranda Small, Idaho State BQA Coordinator, who presented this information at the Idaho Cattle Association Annual meeting. “Producers have a role to play in helping be prepared for an outbreak.”

“FMD, while harmless to us as human beings, causes blisters and animals with cloven-hooved, which includes cattle, pigs, sheep and goats,” Small says. “It also has the ability to impact and equally affect wildlife species such as deer, elk and bison, giving them the opportunity to move the disease across state lines and from one location to another.”

Sergio Arispe serves as an Oregon State University Extension livestock and rangeland field faculty and associate professor in the College of Agricultural Sciences. He also serves as the lead for the Secure Beef Supply project to mitigate risks of a foreign disease outbreak.

“The purpose of traceability is for transparency, not only within the livestock industry, but with our trade partners as well,” Arispe says, who also presented at the ICA meeting. “Movement permits demonstrate that steps have been taken to safely move animals or products.”

Arispe says it’s important for producers to be knowledgeable and prepared if and when an outbreak might occur. Producers can create a five-step contingency document, which addresses cattle inventory and potential movement, financial planning, enhanced biosecurity, communication and cattle health management.

The Secure Food Supply project helps producers, livestock haulers and processors create contingency plans in case of disease outbreak.

(Secure Beef Supply)

“At any given time there are about 3 million animals on our highways, or in our planes or boats,” Arispe says. “There will be at least a 72-hour national standstill declared by the USDA for all cloven-hoofed animals if foot-and-mouth disease is ever found in the U.S. A lot of producers don’t know that, and that’s only the beginning.”

According to Small, stamping out or depopulation is one control method that is used by animal health officials to stop disease spread. This method was used by the UK during their 2001 outbreak. Additional control methods include stopping both domestic movement of animals and animal products for a period of time. Exports of animals with clinical signs would also stop. Emergency vaccination would be considered, but also has export implications.

“The first goal is always to identify disease as fast as possible, put the controls in place to limit the spread, and stop the virus without having to implement vaccination,” explains Idaho State Veterinarian Scott Leibsle, who was on hand to answer audience questions. “You can still achieve the highest level of trade status, which is free from the disease without having to vaccinate for it. If you have to start vaccinating for it, then that lowers the trade status of any nation. There are countries that are free from FMD, but they’re still having to vaccinate for it and we don’t accept trade from any of those countries that vaccinate for foot and mouth disease.”

Your Next Read: Stabenow Finally Releases Full Text of Senate Farm Bill; Here’s What It Means for Agriculture