• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A rational response to Tomi Lahrens COOL video

Help Support Ranchers.net:

F

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
30,238
Reaction score
1,422
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Not to start a controversy again, but this was posted on facebook in reply to Tomi Lahren's video that many may have seen.

This is written by Cassi Jo Schriefer, Sr Account Executive for Elanco Animal Health:


There is something that is bothering me and after careful consideration I wanted to speak out about it....
Tomi Lahren posted a video yesterday that many of you shared and commented on. I believe that all intentions are good on this and that everyone wants to support America's ranchers (yay beef!). However I don't believe that video properly shared all the facts and information, and instead, it had negative repercussions to the US beef industry.
This post is not about whether or not COOL (country of origin labeling) is right or not (not here to argue politics and I get people want to know where their food comes from but I understand other side as well) but instead to point out that I believe Tomi discouraged people from buying beef in US supermarkets because of that video.
The fact is, ALL beef bought in the US is gone through a rigorous inspection process and deemed safe to eat.
The majority of beef that is imported comes from Australia and New Zealand, and we need it for it's leanness. That beef is much leaner than our US beef and the trimmings from that beef balance well with our beef to make fast food burgers and other ground beef products. We are not hurting US ranchers by importing these products. In fact, it is important for our trade to import and export beef. We as Americans don't like variety cuts such as tongues and livers, and our producers can get a premium for selling those to places like Mexico and Egypt. Instead we consume a lot more ground beef than other countries, so we need good quality product from other places to supplement the stuff we already produce.
Not every country is approved to send beef here (and live cattle are not crammed into crates to be sent here either). It is a very hard process, as one would know how long it took to allow Brazil to just recently start exporting fresh beef (product not cows) to us.
That video started many negative comments about conventionally raised beef, and I think that is negative for our industry. It is just not possible for everyone to go buy their meat from a farmer down the road. And that's ok. Our beef ranchers and feedlot owners work very hard to make sure all beef (whether one owns 20 cows or 50,000 cows) is produced humanely and safely.
I really appreciate everyone speaking up and sharing a video that they believe helps US ranchers. I care deeply about this industry as it has been my entire life. Which is why I want people to keep eating beef they buy in the US because it is safe. It is affordable. And it is healthy. Yes, I understand you want it labeled, and I choose American made products over others as well because I love my country. But the main thing is making sure people choose beef as a source of protein and don't give it up completely because 5% of their ground beef patty may come from Australia or another country that has been deemed safe and humane to export product to us.
Keep supporting America's ranchers and encouraging folks to eat beef! We don't want to send mixed signals smile emoticon:)
#eatbeef
#cattletales
 
Veterinary Feed Directive.

It regulates the use of feed-through antibiotics. There is no science to support it, just emotion. Two legislatures brought it to Congress and by golly, they got it passed. Pain in the butt for all livestock producers. The government thinks it will help
with antibiotic resistance in people :? . Again, there is no scientific research to support it. It went into effect Jan. 1, 2015 and will be a nightmare for feed stores. As a dealer I have to comply with what the government wants to know about my customers anti-biotic use. The only way a livestock producer can get feed-through antibiotics is from a licensed veterinarian. He writes a script that has to be used within a certain amount of time. The ONLY way (as I understand it) to get antibiotics for a longer period of time is in an area where there is anaplasmosis.

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ucm071807.htm
 
We have the "VFD"

There are many products used on livestock in the USA that we can't use in Canada.

The playing field is tilted in the USA's favor in that respect to Canada.
 
My problem with the vfd is we can no longer feed rumensin with chlorotetracycline even with a prescription. We will have to discontinue our liquid supplement that has the rumensin before we can feed any ctc.

I wonder who got paid off on this deal? Looks really fishy to me. For those who don't know rumensin is manufactured by Elanco and bavatec is made by Zoetis.
 
Not sure who got paid off....... veterinarians that I know don't like it........but it was done purely on emotion. Very frustrating to say the least. Plus think of the cattle/livestock that will need treated, that was prevented from getting sick in the past.

If a veterinarian doesn't abide by the rules, he/she could lose their license.

I have heard of instances where the feds are going around checking. As if they don't have enough to do. :?
One place they went, only the hired man was home and he wouldn't let them into any of the buildings, saying
he didn't have the authority to do so.

Maybe this can be fixed under Trump administration. He hasn't choses an Sec of Agriculture, that I am aware of.
When that happens, maybe we can all howl. Maybe.
 
I am not replying to pick a fight. The statement, that we have to import meat for leanness, I strongly disagree. Our cow market isn't exactly stellar. Wouldn't our cow and bull mkt be positively impacted if we wouldn't import. I know there are a lot of politics involved, but saying importing doesn't hurt us, this old guy just doesn't buy it.
 
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/news/industry/missing-facts-r-calf-tomi-lahren-videos

Social media is buzzing with a handful of videos featuring a popular, conservative news host interviewing the spokesman of a cattle organization in an effort to "make the American ranch community great again."

Tomi Lahren, a television host for the cable network TheBlaze, hosted Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) CEO Bill Bullard on her program to discuss issues important to American beef producers. An initial 15-minute interview netted more than a half million views, while a shorter wrap up called "Final Thoughts with Tomi" has almost 2.6 million views.

The two talked about the increasing market consolidation within the beef industry in the first segment.

"We're down to about 729,000 producers. Those hundreds of thousands of producers, however, market into one of the most highly concentrated marketing systems in our economy," Bullard says.

He points out that the "meat cartel" – JBS, Tyson Foods, Cargill and National Beef – controls 85% of the market place.

"Those packers are working to suppress free competition in the industry which is lowering prices below what a competitive market would dictate," Bullard says.

Bullard alleges this has forced beef producers out of business and those still in the industry lost 60% of the income they were making two years ago.

Lahren jumps on this by saying the meat packers are keeping the little guy down.

"The American cowboy and cattlemen have never had it easy, but these last two years have been brutal. The cost to operate has gone up while the cost of cattle has gone down, a lot," Lahren says in her "Final Thoughts" video.

Missing from those talking points was a more complete analysis of the full story of what caused the drop in prices for cattle raisers the past two years. In 2014, cattle were bringing record prices almost week after week. It was fueled by an undersupply of finished cattle after drought throughout the country forced herds to cull cows and hold back fewer replacements. There was also less competition from pork and poultry as those industries dealt with disease outbreaks. Those markets reversed in 2015 and prices are coming back to more realistic levels seen in 2013.

The topic then shifts to trade and country of origin labeling (COOL).

Bullard says without COOL meat packers can source live cattle and beef from 20 different countries then sell it with a U.S. inspection sticker. This claim is partially true in regards to the sticker. However, according to USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulations, consumer ready packaging "must still bear the foreign country of origin." It just can't have the breakdown of where the animal was born, raised and harvested as originally mandated.

Bullard believes consumers are being deceived. "The meat packers don't want consumers to know they are able to source the beef far cheaper in these foreign countries, bring it into the United States and sell it as if it was a domestic product."

Economic studies determined COOL would have cost cattle raisers money, rather than generating more profit. An economic analysis from Kansas State University and the University of Missouri estimated that 2009's COOL rule would cost the U.S. beef industry $405 million in the first year. In a long-term 10 year outlook the beef industry stood to lose $8.07 billion.

Lahren addresses COOL in her "Final Thoughts" asking viewers for help because Congress repealed the rule in 2015.

COOL was found to be out of compliance by the World Trade Organization opening up the U.S. to billions of dollars in retaliatory tariffs from Mexico and Canada. Both Canada and Mexico annually rank as top five destinations for U.S. beef exports, so COOL would have negatively impacted beef trade.

Beef can still be voluntarily labeled with a country of origin; it just can't be mandated by the government.

"Where is your meat coming from? Do you know?," she asks.

Lahren answers saying consumer beef is coming from cattle, "transported in crates for God only knows how long. Animal lovers, that means live cattle are smashed into shipping containers, and shipped into this country to be slaughtered for a discount rate."

This is a major inaccuracy and it appears Lahren doesn't understand the nuances of the global beef market after speaking with Bullard.

Cattle transported in shipping containers as Lahren incorrectly describes, happens only with U.S. breeding stock leaving for other countries, or weaned 400-500 lb. calves leaving Hawaii for the Mainland U.S. The overwhelming majority of cattle imported into the U.S. arrive from Mexico and Canada via a truck and trailer.

According to USDA's latest data, from Jan.-Oct. 2016, approximately 1.35 million cattle were imported to the U.S. from Canada and Mexico. More than 476,000 of those cattle were between 400-700 lb. and will be fed to finish in U.S. feedlots. Canada sent 452,030 slaughter ready cattle, while Mexico sent just 2,016 head destined directly to packers.

Compared to the same time period in 2015 live cattle imports are down 19% overall.

Beef imports are also down in the U.S., while exports went up. From Jan.-Oct. 2016 slightly more than 2.6 billion lb. of beef came into the country, a drop of 13% since the same period in 2015. Exports rose 9% in that time to more than 2 billion lb.

Much of the beef imported into the U.S. is grinding meat used in hamburger. Beef exported from the U.S. tends to be well-marbled middle meats that demand a higher price, and offal cuts domestic consumers don't eat. According to CattleFax, exports account for $300 in beef cutout value.

These were just a few of the facts and figures that were missed in this discussion on the beef industry. Other claims like the safety of imported beef, the impact of the Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) and industry lobbying are just a few areas that could have used additional voices from the industry.
Bullard Talks R-CALF Issues:
 
More than 476,000 of those cattle were between 400-700 lb. and will be fed to finish in U.S. feedlots. Canada sent 452,030 slaughter ready cattle, while Mexico sent just 2,016 head destined directly to packers.

That would make less then 1 days kill off fat cattle and less then 1 days kill of cattle that have value added in the USA.
The slaughter ready cattle would be a mix of fat steers and hfrs and cull cows and bulls. That would be less then 1/250th on US production
 
This whole thing is going to be a pain. However I feel too many people lean on ctc as the magic prevent all thing to throw into any ration or mineral to any age critter. I have used it before but if it's a dry summer with no standing water do we really need ctc in all the mineral for foot rot? Some think they do.
 
For me its a non issue as I don't use it very often. Only on the weaned bulls for two weeks in the pellet ration and my feed guys will either figure it out by next fall or I will just skip it all together. Quit using CTC in mineral 4 or 5 years ago figured I could afford mineral year round or fancy mineral 1/2 the time went with the less expensive route and offered it at all times.
 
I couldn't finish watching the Lahren clip. The inaccuracies were driving me nuts.
 

Latest posts

Top