APR on NPR

[mtmuley]

Wish I had a crystal ball....... mtmuley

 

[SAJ-99]

Cattle price and input price trends dictate that ranchers need scale to be successful. To gain scale ranchers need to acquire more land/feed. The land prices have gone up more than cattle prices, so when a rancher wants to buy more land the math tends to look bad (because it is) so they can't get a loan from the bank. The APR buys the land at fair market value, which isn't viewed as "fair" to the rancher, hence the claim of driving up land prices. Of course, this isn't true in isolation, but could be justified as true depending on your narrative.
Back to the claim in the first sentence, in my view, the real problem is consolidation in the processing industry. Beef producers/ranchers remain largely a small to mid sized collective of entrepreneurs selling a commoditized product. Even in a co-op, they have little pricing power given the size and power of processors. Consequently, we see that retail prices have gone up adequately, but wholesale prices haven't. The processors set the price and the profits tend to stay at that level rather than flowing through the supply chain. I have often wondered why more ranchers don't try to raise bison, or the bison/cattle hybrid, because they can get 3x the $pp. It is happening slowly, though.

 

[Hunting Wife]

One of the big arguments is that by buying these properties, APR is inflating property values and pushing young families out, which in turn is damaging small local communities. Schools are shrinking, populations are shrinking, economies are shrinking. As explained above, those things are happening but it isn’t a result of APR, and it isn’t unique to NE Montana. But people are upset and want someone to blame.

I would way rather see APR buying these places than Wilkes Bro’s or someone like them. Given the realities of land prices and rural economies, those are the people who are buying today, not family operators like in the past. They are absentee landowners either looking to exploit the wildlife resources, or conserve them. I understand the emotional connection folks have to the rural communities that allowed them to make a living and raise a family. But whether it’s Wilkes or APR buying these properties, there are not going to be more young families taking the places of the folks selling out. Just a fact of life today.

Having lost plenty of access to places bought by the former already, I’m willing to take my chances with the latter at this point I guess. APR has yet to shut me out of land I previously had access to. That is a better result than I’ve experienced nearly every time another piece of private I used to hunt has sold (though my sample size is admittedly small). I’ll reserve the right to change my opinion of them if at some point their actions warrant it.

 

[npaden]

Cattle price and input price trends dictate that ranchers need scale to be successful. To gain scale ranchers need to acquire more land/feed. The land prices have gone up more than cattle prices, so when a rancher wants to buy more land the math tends to look bad (because it is) so they can't get a loan from the bank. The APR buys the land at fair market value, which isn't viewed as "fair" to the rancher, hence the claim of driving up land prices. Of course, this isn't true in isolation, but could be justified as true depending on your narrative.
Back to the claim in the first sentence, in my view, the real problem is consolidation in the processing industry. Beef producers/ranchers remain largely a small to mid sized collective of entrepreneurs selling a commoditized product. Even in a co-op, they have little pricing power given the size and power of processors. Consequently, we see that retail prices have gone up adequately, but wholesale prices haven't. The processors set the price and the profits tend to stay at that level rather than flowing through the supply chain. I have often wondered why more ranchers don't try to raise bison, or the bison/cattle hybrid, because they can get 3x the $pp. It is happening slowly, though.

One thing that some of these ranchers could also get into is the organic grass fed beef market. We have a local place doing the grass fed beef and they are getting about 2X retail prices with a direct to consumer model. With the way things are setup with online ordering and shipping I would think you could do something similar with shipping and still make a go at it. The marketing is all about the natural settings and you could do a decent job on that aspect just having Montana in your online marketing materials.

 

[SAJ-99]

One thing that some of these ranchers could also get into is the organic grass fed beef market. We have a local place doing the grass fed beef and they are getting about 2X retail prices with a direct to consumer model. With the way things are setup with online ordering and shipping I would think you could do something similar with shipping and still make a go at it. The marketing is all about the natural settings and you could do a decent job on that aspect just having Montana in your online marketing materials.

I don't know anything about the requirements to put that "grass fed" claim on the package, but I did joke to someone that I didn't know a cow in the state of Montana that wasn't fed grass. All of that seems like marketing spin, but your point is taken. If people in CA are willing to pay 2x for having Grass Fed written on the label, ranchers should look into it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

One thing that some of these ranchers could also get into is the organic grass fed beef market. We have a local place doing the grass fed beef and they are getting about 2X retail prices with a direct to consumer model. With the way things are setup with online ordering and shipping I would think you could do something similar with shipping and still make a go at it. The marketing is all about the natural settings and you could do a decent job on that aspect just having Montana in your online marketing materials.

Yes, you would think it much more productive to spend their time, energy, and resources on such positive ranching endeavors than on signs and conspiracy worries.

 

[Irrelevant]

I don't know anything about the requirements to put that "grass fed" claim on the package, but I did joke to someone that I didn't know a cow in the state of Montana that wasn't fed grass. All of that seems like marketing spin, but your point is taken. If people in CA are willing to pay 2x for having Grass Fed written on the label, ranchers should look into it.

I believe it's all in the finishing process. If you send your calves off to be fatten at the feedlot it's not grass fed. All the organic grass fed beef around here are slaughtered in the field. Never eat a drop of grain, and no antibiotics (which actually isn't true, they typically do treat them, but then sell those specific ones into the regular markets).

 

[npaden]

I don't know anything about the requirements to put that "grass fed" claim on the package, but I did joke to someone that I didn't know a cow in the state of Montana that wasn't fed grass. All of that seems like marketing spin, but your point is taken. If people in CA are willing to pay 2x for having Grass Fed written on the label, ranchers should look into it.

Here is the website of the place I am talking about - https://www.holycowbeef.com/ Current price for 1 pound of hamburger is $6.80/lb. That's not quite 2X the national average of $3.81/lb but fairly close. https://beef2live.com/story-retail-ground-beef-prices-month-89-114059

The demand is generally higher than they can supply so people actually preorder.

It's not the normal "cow/calf" operation that most of those ranches are running in Northeast Montana for sure but it would be interesting to see if they could pull it off. The harsh winters in Montana don't exactly lend themselves for fattening up calves to peak market weight for sure. I know the way it normally works is that they just keep the momma cows over the winter and sell or send the calves to feedlots down south to fatten up over the winter.

I have been surprised at the number of newborn calves I have seen just in the last few weeks at the cow/calf operation that I drive by on my way to work every day. Not sure if it is an intentional thing for them or not (I would assume it is) but I guess they feed the mommas during the winter and they feed the calves and then on spring green up both the momma and the calf can hit the green stuff. The winters are mild enough here that they can get away with it I guess.

I'm not a cattle person by any means, but it seems that you could pull off something like that if you wanted to.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

One of the big arguments is that by buying these properties, APR is inflating property values and pushing young families out, which in turn is damaging small local communities. Schools are shrinking, populations are shrinking, economies are shrinking. As explained above, those things are happening but it isn’t a result of APR, and it isn’t unique to NE Montana. But people are upset and want someone to blame.

I would way rather see APR buying these places than Wilkes Bro’s or someone like them. Given the realities of land prices and rural economies, those are the people who are buying today, not family operators like in the past. They are absentee landowners either looking to exploit the wildlife resources, or conserve them. I understand the emotional connection folks have to the rural communities that allowed them to make a living and raise a family. But whether it’s Wilkes or APR buying these properties, there are not going to be more young families taking the places of the folks selling out. Just a fact of life today.

Having lost plenty of access to places bought by the former already, I’m willing to take my chances with the latter at this point I guess. APR has yet to shut me out of land I previously had access to. That is a better result than I’ve experienced nearly every time another piece of private I used to hunt has sold (though my sample size is admittedly small). I’ll reserve the right to change my opinion of them if at some point their actions warrant it.

So in effect in the opposite of what's happening in my neck of the woods?

NE Montana people are consolidating ranches and pushing out families?

Here in CO developers are buying up ranches cutting them up into .1 acre lots and towns are exploding in population.

I think both scenarios are equally tough for people who grew up in the area.

Change is hard, but inevitable.

 

[----]

Here is the website of the place I am talking about - https://www.holycowbeef.com/ Current price for 1 pound of hamburger is $6.80/lb. That's not quite 2X the national average of $3.81/lb but fairly close. https://beef2live.com/story-retail-ground-beef-prices-month-89-114059

The demand is generally higher than they can supply so people actually preorder.

It's not the normal "cow/calf" operation that most of those ranches are running in Northeast Montana for sure but it would be interesting to see if they could pull it off. The harsh winters in Montana don't exactly lend themselves for fattening up calves to peak market weight for sure. I know the way it normally works is that they just keep the momma cows over the winter and sell or send the calves to feedlots down south to fatten up over the winter.

I have been surprised at the number of newborn calves I have seen just in the last few weeks at the cow/calf operation that I drive by on my way to work every day. Not sure if it is an intentional thing for them or not (I would assume it is) but I guess they feed the mommas during the winter and they feed the calves and then on spring green up both the momma and the calf can hit the green stuff. The winters are mild enough here that they can get away with it I guess.

I'm not a cattle person by any means, but it seems that you could pull off something like that if you wanted to.

Same model works in MT it seems, at least for this ranch- https://www.mannixbeef.com/

 

[npaden]

Same model works in MT it seems, at least for this ranch- https://www.mannixbeef.com/

I think they may be using the same webpage host. The layout is almost identical. The Montana prices are a little lower than what they are getting here ($5.00/lb for hamburger vs. $6.80/lb) but that could be market size or supply being higher. Even at $5/lb for burger or $4.15/lb for a half a beef it is still a lot better than $1.45 live weight you are going to be getting at auction.

 

[----]

I think they may be using the same webpage host. The layout is almost identical. The Montana prices are a little lower than what they are getting here ($5.00/lb for hamburger vs. $6.80/lb) but that could be market size or supply being higher. Even at $5/lb for burger or $4.15/lb for a half a beef it is still a lot better than $1.45 live weight you are going to be getting at auction.

And certainly being so close to Missoula helps them compared to being in NE Montana.

 

[Hunting Wife]

So in effect in the opposite of what's happening in my neck of the woods?

NW Montana people are consolidating ranches and pushing out families?

Here in CO developers are buying up ranches cutting them up into .1 acre lots and towns are exploding in population.

I think both scenarios are equally tough for people who grew up in the area.

Change is hard, but inevitable.

NE Montana you mean? Somewhat yes. There isn’t enough infrastructure up here to make that type of subdividing attractive or profitable. There are a few that have done this with recreational properties (Was Blue Ridge kind of originally going that route?) but a lot of it just ends up sitting there empty or unsold. A few suckers who don’t know what they’re getting into might buy, but that’s it pretty much. When you’re talking just a few thousand people in a county, very limited job opportunities (other than ag), being an hour plus from pavement, several hours from a town of more than a couple thousand people, on terrible gumbo roads with poor access a lot of the year, limited access to healthcare, groceries, amenities of any kind - very few people are going to pay money for that. So it’s big-land buyers with deep pockets or nothing for the most part.

Western Montana is a different ballgame...a ton of subdividing over there.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

NE Montana you mean? Somewhat yes. There isn’t enough infrastructure up here to make that type of subdividing attractive or profitable. There are a few that have done this with recreational properties (Was Blue Ridge kind of originally going that route?) but a lot of it just ends up sitting there empty or unsold. A few suckers who don’t know what they’re getting into might buy, but that’s it pretty much. When you’re talking just a few thousand people in a county, very limited job opportunities (other than ag), being an hour plus from pavement, several hours from a town of more than a couple thousand people, on terrible gumbo roads with poor access a lot of the year, limited access to healthcare, groceries, amenities of any kind - very few people are going to pay money for that. So it’s big-land buyers with deep pockets or nothing for the most part.

Western Montana is a different ballgame...a ton of subdividing over there.

Yeah NE my bad.

 

[406dn]

This fight goes back at least to the 80's when Frank and Deborah Popper proposed the Buffalo Commons. They rightly noted that the Great Plains were losing population at a significant rate and that the decline would continue. An oil boom might delay this in some areas for a time, but only as long as the oil boom lasts. They also rightly stated that agriculture was not sustainable over the drier part of the Great Plains.

That it is not sustainable smacks you right in the face, if you open your eyes. If it was profitable,,,,young people would see it as a future. Now most of every person coming of age, knows in their core that staying means a life time of hard times. Some stay, many do not. The short grass prairie is a land of extremes. Only in the sweet spot of a climate cycle does the land produce well enough to be profitable. There are too many very dry years, hard winters, hoppers and on and on for the land to produce a profit for a land owner.

While a small number of producers might market a specialty product, that can't save enough of them. There is not enough demand for organic grass fed meat. IF there was,,,more producers would already have filled the void.

It saddens me to see the area slowly die economically, I wish it wasn't so,, but it is. I doubt it can be reversed.

 

[Eric Albus]

406dn, you are correct in that there is not enough demand for organic beef, and not enough difference price wise between "all natural, and organic" to have to jump through the hoops of certification. Sure folks who live close to large population hubs can sell in a niche market, but it is not feasible here in the NE with large scale ranch operations.

All I can tell those of you in favor of the APR is to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. Sure the hunting is sort of open right now, but it will not always be the case, mark my words.

 

[mtmuley]

Sure the hunting is sort of open right now, but it will not always be the case, mark my words.

That's my mindset also. It will be phased out a little at a time. mtmuley

 

[Straight Arrow]

All I can tell those of you in favor of the APR is to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. Sure the hunting is sort of open right now, but it will not always be the case, mark my words.

Having never hunted the APR, likely I never will. It's the broader conservation, open space, wildlife habitat, preservation of grasslands that garners my support.

Why so much negativity is directed at a landowner who is now allowing public access, with the gloomy prediction of some far off future day not allowing public hunting maybe (whos knows; I don't, you don't) baffles me ... when there are so many many ranches bought and never open to the public. Those kind of expressions and attitudes seem a strong whiff of self-entitled ingratitude.

 

[406dn]

I have no idea if hunting will remain open or if it is closed off over time.

However they would have to give it careful consideration, if they decide to close it to hunting. Any significant donor who is pro hunting could cause all kinds of headaches that their donation was solicited under a false premise. They'd be taking it from yet another side, not a smart move when you already have no shortage of backlash with your mission.

 

[shoots-straight]

406dn, you are correct in that there is not enough demand for organic beef, and not enough difference price wise between "all natural, and organic" to have to jump through the hoops of certification. Sure folks who live close to large population hubs can sell in a niche market, but it is not feasible here in the NE with large scale ranch operations.

All I can tell those of you in favor of the APR is to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. Sure the hunting is sort of open right now, but it will not always be the case, mark my words.

So tell me Eric, if the Wilkes were buying this land would you also put up a fuss?