The Economic Impact of Cervid Farming in Minnesota

January 2012

Prepared for the Minnesota Elk Breeders Association and the Minnesota Deer Breeders Association by John Keckhaver Government Relations and Analysis, LLC Resources

The author would like to thank the Minnesota Board of Animal Health in St. Paul, Minnesota for their assistance and for pro - viding data regarding the number of cervid herds in Minnesota and their locations. Also utilized for this report is the 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture (available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/ 2007/Full_Report/index.asp) . This cen - sus is conducted every five years and the 2012 census is currently underway. Another valuable resource on cervid farming has been the 2007 national study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University, Economic Impact of the United States Cervid Farming Industry (2007)(available at http://www.nadefa.org/images/stories/cervid-report.pdf). The economic mul - tiplier determined by researchers for that study is used in our analysis of the economic impact of cervid farming in Minnesota. Also, Cornell University ‘s 2001 study titled Agricultural-Based Economic Development: Trends and Prospects for New York is used for its look into the employment impacts of agricultural industries. All other data contained in this report was gleaned from surveys sent to all cervid farming operators in Minnesota during 2011. 582 surveys were delivered and 166 were re - turned for a response rate of 29 percent.

Any questions regarding the methodology or data used Questions for the sponsors of this analysis in this report can be directed to the author at the following: can be directed to the following:

John Keckhaver Government Relations and Analysis, LLC Minnesota Elk Breeders Association Attn: MN Cervid Project Brenda Hartkopf, Executive Secretary 7 N. Pinckney St., Ste. 235 9086 Keats Avenue SW Madison, WI 53703 Howard Lake, MN 55349 608.395.1805 320-543-2686 (oﬃce) [email protected] 320-543-2983 (fax) [email protected] www.mneba.org

Minnesota Deer Breeders Association Susan Van Overbeke, Secretary/Treasurer P.O. Box 63 Russell, MN 56169 507-823-4476 [email protected] www.mndba.com

2 Executive Summary

Cervids, or cervidae, include Elk, Fallow Deer, Mule Deer, Red Deer, Reindeer, Sika Deer and Whitetail Deer. The following are key facts surrounding cervid farming in Minnesota.

Minnesota ‘s Cervid Industry Background

• Minnesota ranked 1st nationally in the number of elk and 3rd in the number of commercial elk farms according to the 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture. • According to the same census, Minnesota ranked 5th in the number of commercial deer farms and 6th in the number of deer at these farms. • The average cervid farm in Minnesota protects 43 acres of land. • As of November, 2011 there were 560 registered cervid herds in Minnesota. • The number of herds has decreased steadily since 2005 when there were 757 herds. • Despite the decline, cervid farming remains widespread throughout Minnesota. Cervid herds are located in 76 of Min - nesota’s 87 counties. 70 counties boast a deer farm and 63 counties an elk farm. • The 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture (the latest agriculture census completed at this time) found 199 commercial elk farms and 274 commercial deer farms in Minnesota (defined as having at least $1,000 in sales that year).

Current Economic Impact

• The cervid industry supports an estimated 1,287 jobs in the state (240 full time and 1,047 part time). • The total estimated annual economic impact of cervid farming in Minnesota is $17.6 million.

Future Prospects for the Industry in Minnesota

• 41 percent of Minnesota cervid farmers expect to increase the number of cervids stocked on their farms in the near future. • 30 percent expect to increase the acreage used to support their cervid operations. • 51 percent of Minnesota ‘s cervid farmers expect to increase their sales in 2011 over 2010. • 45 percent expect to increase their expenditures in 2011 over 2010. • 63 percent consider their cervid operations as part of their long term business/retirement plan or carrying on of the family farm.

3 Cervid farming often serves to protect the environ - ment through improved land use. 64 percent of Min - nesota cervid farmers surveyed for this analysis have converted highly erodable or marginal cropland into pas - ture for their cervid operations. Figure 2 shows the aver - age size of cervid operations in Minnesota.

Fig. 2: Acreage Utilized in Average Cervid Operation

43 40

29 30

Cervid Farming in Minnesota 20 14

ervids, or cervidae, include Elk, Fallow Deer, 10 Mule Deer, Red Deer, Reindeer, Sika Deer and C1 Whitetail Deer. Many cervid farms in Minnesota have been around for decades, with many others only re - 0 Cropland Pasture Total Acreage cently started. The average length of time in operation for Minnesota cervid farms is 14 years and 10 months. Figure 1

shows the breakdown by decade. Fig. 3 Year (as of 1/1) Number of Cervid Herds 2005 757 Fig. 1: Percent of MN Cervid Farms Created by Decade 2 006 715 2007 679 50 47 2008 664 2009 648 40 2010 613 36 2011 593

As of November, 2011, there were 560 registered 20 cervid herds in Minnesota. The number of cervid farms in Minnesota has slowly decreased since 2005 as Figure 3 10 7 indicates. 5 4 Despite this decline, Minnesota remains a national 1 0 leade0r in cervid farming. According to the 2007 U.S. Cen - Pre-1970s 1970 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s sus of Agricu l t Croplandure, Min n e s o t a r a Pasturenked 3 r d i n t Totalhe n Acreageation in

4 Fig. 4 Top Ten Minnesota Counties Fig. 5: Percentage of Farmed Cervids in MN, by Species by Number of Deer and Elk Farms

Stearns 41 Whitetail Deer 53% Elk 44% Morrison 36

Wright 21

Todd 19

Wabasha (Tie) 18

Winona (Tie) 18

Otter Tail 16

Olmsted (Tie) 15

Fillmore (Tie) 15

Isanti (Tie) 15

St. Louis 13 Fallow Deer 2% Other 2% Reindeer 1%

the number of commercial elk farms and 1st in the num - ber of elk at these farms. Minnesota also ranked 5th in the Farmed Cervidae Program MN Board of Animal Health number of commercial deer farms and 6th in the number December 21, 2011 of deer at these farms (the U.S. Census of Agriculture de - Kittson Roseau fines a commercial cervid farm as having at least $1,000 7 2 Lake of the in sales during that year). Marshall Woods Koochiching

2 Beltrami Not surprisingly, cervid farms are primarily located in St. Louis Pennington 2 Polk Cook rural areas, but they are also widely distributed thoughout 4 Lake 6 Red Lake the state ‘s counties. Cervid herds are located in 76 of Min - 2 Itasca 13 2

r 10

e nesota ‘s 87 counties. 70 counties boast a deer farm and Norman t Mahnomen a

a Hubbard Cass

63 counties an elk farm. Figure 4 above lists the ten coun - 2 C Clay Becker 10 10 ties in Minnesota with the most deer and elk farms. The 1 7 Aitkin state map to the right shows the total number of cervid Wadena Crow Wing Otter Tail Carlton Wilkin 5 6 farm operations per county in Minnesota. 10 2 16 Pine The vast majority of cervid farms in Minnesota in - Todd 7

Grant Douglas Morrison 10 c

19 e clude elk and whitetail deer, with fewer farms including b

36 a s n

c 9 5 a

a K

L 1 Benton

Traverse l small numbers of red deer, fallow deer, and others. The av - Pope Stearns l Stevens i Isanti

M 562 Big Stone 7 6 o 2 g 2 Sherburne a

41 15 s Total Premises erage deer farm in Minnesota includes 35 whitetail deer, i Swift h 2 10 Anoka C

2 i Meeker

h Wright

o 7

y 4 and range from 1 animal to 200 among survey respon - i 9

Chippewa o

t n Hennepin Ram 21 g 4 a 5

i K 2 Lac Qui Parle h

5 Mc Leod s dents. The average elk farm consists of 38 elk, and farms Carver 4 a

Yellow Medicine Renville W 8 5 Dakota range from 1 to 320 elk among survey respondents. Figure 6 Scott 6 Lincoln Lyon Sibley 2 3 Redwood Le Sueur Nicollet Rice Goodhue 5 above shows the breakdown of farmed cervids in Min - 4 2 5 4 Wabasha Brown 7 2 8 8

n Murray 18

d o Cottonwood Dodge

t Watonwan Blue Earth c Steele

s t nesota by species (“Other” includes Red, Sika, Mule, and e

s o

p 2 a

i 3 m

P 15 8 W 10 7

1 W 3 1 O 18

Muntjac). Rock Nobles Jackson Martin Faribault Freeborn Mower Fillmore Houston 5 4 5 6 15 12

5 Fig. 6: Percentage of Cervid Operations Which Provide Certain Products/Services

60 56 54 53 50 46

29 30 23 20 20 14 12 10 10 6 2 0 Preserve Meat Hard Breeding Velvet Crafts/ Hides/ Agri- Semen Pet Urine Preserve Bucks/Bulls Antler Stock Antler Hobby Ivories Tourism Products Operator Products

F The Eco nomi cs of C ervid Farming in Minnesota Fig: 8: Marketing Methods Used by MN Cervid Farmers, % 39 40 7 The impact of cervid farming on local rural communities 35 can be significant. According to a national study con -

ducted in 2007 by researchers at Texas A&M University, 30 cervid farming was at that time one of the fastest growing 25 industries in rural America. Niche agricultural industry 22 contributors such as cervid farming can also help sustain 20 17 16 small farming operations during diﬃcult economic times. 15 15 11 10 Fig: 7: Sales Methods Used by MN Cervid Farmers, % 5 80 70 0 70 Internet Conventions MN Newspapers Magazines Direct Grown Mail 60 Directory

40 34 30 26

20 16 15 10

0 Direct Sales Internet Brokers Shows/ Distributors Conventions MN Newspapers Magazines Direct Auctions Grown Mail Directory

6 Sales Jobs and Overall Economic Impact

Cervid farmers provide a wide range of products and serv - The economic and employment impacts of any business ices to consumers. Preserve bucks/bulls, meat, hard antler spreads beyond those actually engaged in that industry. and breeding stock top the list in sales followed by velvet A portion of a farm ‘s revenue is used to support and sup - antler. Velvet antler produced in Minnesota is used for ply that business and those expenditures in turn support medicinal purposes all throughout Asia. A high percent - other businesses and jobs at other businesses. The eco - age of cervid farmers also market byproducts such as nomic and employment impacts are therefore described hides, ivories and urine, which is widely used by hunters and computed as direct and indirect. to attract deer. Average 2010 per farm sales from those As noted above, average sales reported by survey re - farms reporting sales figures for this analysis was $11,607. spondents totalled $11,607. This results in a state-wide es - Figure 6 shows the various products and services timate of $6.9 million in direct economic impact in 2010 available at the state ‘s cervid farms along with the per - from all cervid farming operations in Minnesota. centage of farms which oﬀer each. Using the cervid farming economic multiplier of 2.55 Cervid farmers utilize a number of sales and market - determined by researchers at Texas A&M produces an es - ing methods as seen in Figures 7 and 8. timated total economic impact of $17.6 million statewide. Cervid farming provides jobs around the state. Based on Expenditures survey responses, 894 jobs are directly supported by cervid farming in Minnesota. Using the established em - Cervid farmers spend funds—largely in their local com - ployment multiplier for cervid operations of 1.44 results munities—on a variety of items, including: feed, livestock, in an estimated total jobs supported by cervid farming of labor, veterinary work, and many other goods and serv - 1,287 (1,047 part time and 240 full time). ices. . Figure 9 shows the average expense level for a num - ber of diﬀerent expenses reported by survey respondents who incurred that expense in the past year (not all respon - dents incurred all of the expenses listed).

Fig. 9: Average Annual Expenditures ($) per Farm by Type

5,855 6000

5000

3,820 4000

3000 2,384

2000 1,362 1,256 1,050 1,020 987 1000 598 379

0 Feed Livestock Labor Customwork & Veterinary Gasoline Fertilizers & Rent Advertising All Other Custom Hauling Services Fuels & Oils Chemicals & Marketing Production & Supplies Expenses

7 Conclusion

Minnesota is clearly a national leader in the cervid indus - Estimated total annual try, one which can reap big rewards for rural economies and farmers alike. Although there has been a decade long economic impact from decline in the number of registered herds in the state, public demand for meat and antlers are steadily increas - cervid farming in ing. Over 40 percent of Minnesota cervid farmers expect to increase the number of animals they raise. Over 50 per - Minnesota is $17 million. cent expect 2011 sales to top 2010 sales and 30 percent look to expand their acreage. This industry is clearly And the total estimated poised to reverse this downward trend into a future of number of jobs supported growth. Most cervid farms are small agricultural busi - nesses which are very important to Minnesota ‘s rural by the industry are 1,287. economy. As survey respondents clearly pointed out, for many of them cervid farming is a way to further protect their family farm and they look forward to continuing that tradition in the years to come. Ⅲ