Give us a Break

[GLA]

If animals are fed antibiotics to keep them from getting sick, are they healthy?

This is what we call "prevention medicine". Research has shown the use of "some" antibiotics prevent calves from getting deathly sick at weaning time. Not so much different as giving your child a dose of Vitamin C or children's Tylenol at the first signs of a cold. We have a big investment in the calves....why not do everything ethically possible to give them the best chance for survival!

If animals have to be given hormones, is the genetic selection correct?

Once again research gives the naturally occuring hormones a boost to help the animal's genetics produce what the market desires. Beef cattle genetics are changing on a daily basis as the market demands!

If we fail to address consumer concerns, are we helping ourselves as an industry?

Where in the world do you think "All-Natural", "Age & Source Verified", CAB programs came from.......the customer desired a difference in their selection at the meat counter.....and the Beef Industry responded!

 

[RobertMac]

If animals are fed antibiotics to keep them from getting sick, are they healthy?

This is what we call "prevention medicine". Research has shown the use of "some" antibiotics prevent calves from getting deathly sick at weaning time. Not so much different as giving your child a dose of Vitamin C or children's Tylenol at the first signs of a cold. We have a big investment in the calves....why not do everything ethically possible to give them the best chance for survival!

RM:Common sense(as well as science) tells us that confining animals in close proximity to themselves and their feces/urine, they tend to get sick and die. Ethically, we can use antibiotics or look at different management practices to minimize sickness. I know there are people on this site that raise "natural beef" in a feeding environment without using subtherapeutical antibiotics. More importantly, the massive use of antibiotics has become a black-eye for the industry and hurts beef demand.

If animals have to be given hormones, is the genetic selection correct?

Once again research gives the naturally occuring hormones a boost to help the animal's genetics produce what the market desires. Beef cattle genetics are changing on a daily basis as the market demands!

RM:Medically/scientifically, I don't have a lot of problems with the use of hormones...as long as its not over-done. Hormones control all bodily function, so beef is full of hormones...even "organic beef". My biggest problem with added hormone use is that it hurts demand...as in banned from the EU market and consumer concerns. When we grow more beef(larger carcasses) without increasing demand, we need less animals and fewer producers to raise them. Talk about shooting yourself in the a$$!!!

If we fail to address consumer concerns, are we helping ourselves as an industry?

Where in the world do you think "All-Natural", "Age & Source Verified", CAB programs came from.......the customer desired a difference in their selection at the meat counter.....and the Beef Industry responded!

RM:CAB was started by AAA to sell more cattle...brilliant marketing, but didn't come from the Beef Industry.
All-Natural was started by producers...the Beef Industry are Johnny-come-lately's. I don't think most consumers trust "big-packer all-natural".
Age & Source Verified did come from the Beef Industry, but largely because of the Beef Industry inflicted BSE problem.

The food industry is full of flawed research that has been bought and paid for by industry players to help them sell products.


The number one consumer concern that is hurting beef sales is their fear that beef is not a healthy food. This lie has been promoted for over 50 years and is now believed by most consumers without question...scientific facts don't support it. If the Beef Industry wants to do something to help demand, disprove the lies that fat and animal meats are harmful to humans!

 

[mrj]

RM, who, or what, specifically, do you believe is "The Beef Industry"?

Isn't the AAA comprised of beef producers who want to sell more cattle?

Re. feeding low level antibiotics to calves at times of stress, weaning, hauling to salebarn, co-mingling calves for first time, whether they are mine, but raised in different pastures and placed together for weaning or just fresh pasture, introducing purchased calves to my home raised group, for instance would all be stressful to some or all of the calves. Add in dramatic changes in weather, and it might be wise to feed something to keep from having a wreck with what would otherwise be minor 'colds' or some such thing, except for the increased stress levels.

How many acres per head is required to keep animals healthy when they are anywhere near one anothers "feces/urine" if one breaks with an illness? Isn't it logical that calves on an intensive grazing paddock situation are in rather close proximity to one another, and 'proximity' gets close enough to spread diseases when cattle gather at water sources, which is quite un-avaoidable?

Are the real problems with antibiotics from use in animals, or from abuse by humans demanding to be treated unnecessarily or over-treated with human antibiotics???? How do we know how much of this stuff is exagerrated and manipulated to turn people away from animal food sources? Investigations seem to be finding that factor in many 'news' stories these days.

Isn't the EU hormone ban mostly a marketing ploy intended to keep US beef out? How much of our non-implanted beef do they allow in?

Catering to perceptions which have no real basis in fact is damaging to the cattle business.

mrj

 

[GLA]

MRJ, Was studying how to respond to RM's statements and then I read your reply.....right on!

You are right in determining that the problem with the "percevied problem" with antibiotics being fed to beef animals is not the real problem. The real problem is the abuse of all drugs which have caused some kind of reaction in humans and it is easier to blame the beef producer for preventive medicine than to think humans could be the culprit!

Yeah, I thought the AAA was the beef industry too.

What people don't realize, that cattle on pasture may not always receive the same kind of nutrition as do their cousins in a feedlot. Most normally a nutritionists and a vet are involved very closely for cattle there. They are fed everything they need to cover body maintenance and growth and the balance of the ration is for gain. Those same cattle on pasture are there to utilize the standing forage with as little supplement as necessary. I have seen cattle on pasture suffer more from inadequate nutrition than I ever have for cattle in the feedlot!

Both avenues have their place so don't get caught condeming one over the other.

 

[RobertMac]

RM, who, or what, specifically, do you believe is "The Beef Industry"?

RM: Five packers process close to 90% of fed cattle...they are the Beef Industry.

Isn't the AAA comprised of beef producers who want to sell more cattle?

RM:Isn't that what I said? Where would CAB be if AAA producers wanted to be the ones selling the meat instead of a license agreement with the 5 packers? A typical CAB carcass should gross over $2000.00 at retail.

Re. feeding low level antibiotics to calves at times of stress, weaning, hauling to salebarn, co-mingling calves for first time, whether they are mine, but raised in different pastures and placed together for weaning or just fresh pasture, introducing purchased calves to my home raised group, for instance would all be stressful to some or all of the calves. Add in dramatic changes in weather, and it might be wise to feed something to keep from having a wreck with what would otherwise be minor 'colds' or some such thing, except for the increased stress levels.

RM: mrj, you make a good point here...stress is the main cause for the use of antibiotics. Antibiotics treat the symptoms, not the problem. Solving the problem would be to work on reducing stress and raising cattle with stronger immune systems. Temple Grandin....

How many acres per head is required to keep animals healthy when they are anywhere near one anothers "feces/urine" if one breaks with an illness? Isn't it logical that calves on an intensive grazing paddock situation are in rather close proximity to one another, and 'proximity' gets close enough to spread diseases when cattle gather at water sources, which is quite un-avaoidable?

RM: But in intensive grazing, cattle are put on a 'fresh, clean' paddock every day or every few days.

Are the real problems with antibiotics from use in animals, or from abuse by humans demanding to be treated unnecessarily or over-treated with human antibiotics???? How do we know how much of this stuff is exagerrated and manipulated to turn people away from animal food sources? Investigations seem to be finding that factor in many 'news' stories these days.

RM:The fact is that the majority of antibiotics used in this country are used on animals raised for meat. As long as we supply this club to our opponents, they will continue to beat use over the head with it and drive consumers away from consuming beef.

Isn't the EU hormone ban mostly a marketing ploy intended to keep US beef out? How much of our non-implanted beef do they allow in?

RM:That's my point...added-hormone use increases the supply of beef while being detrimental to beef demand...not only the EU market, but domestic consumption. The bad economy is also putting pressure on beef consumption. We need to be doing things to increase consumption...using a product that increases supply while decreasing demand is not very smart...at least for producers.

Catering to perceptions which have no real basis in fact is damaging to the cattle business.

RM:Economics 101...ALL DOLLARS IN THE BEEF INDUSTRY COMES FROM CONSUMERS AND CONSUMERS DON'T HAVE TO BUY BEEF! If consumer perceptions are keeping them from buying beef, THAT IS MOST DAMAGING TO THE CATTLE BUSINESS!!!

mrj

GLA, I'm not meaning to condemn the feedlot industry, but when consumer perceptions of certain practices are hurting beef demand, they need to be addressed. Henry Ford said consumers can have any color car they want, as long as it is black...Ford offers cars in all colors because a producer/seller can't dictate to consumers. This is the same attitude we take as an industry...this is the way we produce beef and it is safe, trust us. Well, BSE and E.coli recalls have wiped away that trust. There is a growing number of consumers that will never trust large food processors again. Are we willing to go down with a sinking ship because we believe out 'facts' to be correct?

 

[mrj]

Just a quick start on RM's counterpoints: Why do you not consider everyone who is involved in raising beef, from farm gate to the consumer plate, to be part of the Beef Industry???? If everyone is concerned ONLY with themselves, there are going to continue to be the glitches that harm us all. From the producer who says "it isn't going to be me that gets the blame, so why does it matter if I do or don't do this properly" (I know a few of them, and I'll bet you do, too!), right up the line through stocker, feeder, packer, and all those involved, including the retailer. As long as too many of us continue to blame 'others' for problems in surviving, let alone thriving, we are not working adequately to solve problems. Production practices on my semi-desert, extreme climate ranch necessarily vary greatly from your well watered, sometimes hot, humid farm. Paddock grazing systems have not been a stellar success in my area, and the fencing required is horribly costly, given the required acres per cow, even in intensive systems. However, I believe there is significant study to see how those systems could be adapted effectively here.

I'm impressed with Temple Grandin's work and we use many of her practices, including low stress weaning, for one, however co-mingling calves is a necessity for many people, and sometimes those from whom calves are purchased are not honest about immunizations, and conditions their calves have endured. That can be a problem difficult to find out about till it is too late! Been there, done that, won't buy there again!!!

Again, re "close proximity" issues, we have very few problems with such diseases due to the large number of acres per cow....which leads to another problem making profitability difficult....high taxes and high land prices per cow/calf unit.

Out of time! Going to hear Troy Haddrick speak at Wall tonight.

mrj

 

[Anonymous]

Just like with BSE, instead of catering to public "perceptions" we should follow the science and inform the public of what legitimate research has taught us. If we are adhering to withdrawl times on antibiotics and using them according to the recommendations, the only danger is "perceptual". I know someone will say, "perception is reality" and for some consumers that may be the case. With that said, when we change what we are doing for the sake of "perception" the results can be catastrophic. If someone wants to cater to this perception by selling "drug free" and "hormone free" beef, that's fine but they should not cater to the image that antibiotics and growth hormones are bad for the sake of their own financial gain when the research shows otherwise. This "drug / hormone" free beef image can be a slippery slope. Worst case situation, if everyone believes antibiotics and hormones are bad, we wouldn't be able to sell the beef from treated calves.

~SH~

 

[GLA]

SH, For probably the first time I have to agree 100% with your response.

Let me offer a response to those who criticize what we are doing in the beef industry to protect our investment and try to be good stewards of the land and livestock.

The very same product we sell, is the very same product consumed by our own families. For that reason, why would we, as producers not follow all directions for the proper use and administration of all the products we administer to our animals?

I think those of us in the business of producing beef, at all phases, should not cave in to those perceptions.....that is if we are without blame for what we do.........but rather we should stand up for our ethical production practices and not wavier from those beliefs. I guess you could call us the "first line of defense".

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I got to agree here as well. I just shake my head when some "Natural" beef producer says they pull the treated ones out and sell in the conventional market. :roll:

If they aren't safe they aren't safe.

 

[GLA]

Just because one is treated does not mean that animal is "unsafe", it just means that the "All Natural" label will not fit. About the only way a person could suffer from consuming an animal that has been treated with antibiotics or hormones, would be to eat the whole animal at once!!!

What a great thing it is when there are animals within a herd that have the genetics to remain healthy.....and there are a great many herds with that distinction!!

 

[burnt]

One of the most mind-numbing, discussion paralyzing phrases ever coined is " . . .if everyone . . ."

Well just forget the "if everyone", because never will never be a time when "everyone" moves on the same initiative, such as going "drug free" or "grass finished", for example.

Another mistake we often make is to see the consumer as a generic, nonspecific, non-individualized human that is identical to the next consumer.

Each person that eats the stuff we produce has this or her own unique characteristics, sensitivities and capacities.

That is what makes it possible for producers to provide differing consumables for individual needs and desires.

To say "if everyone" looses sight of that fact that we are serving individual consumers and is thus a useless term.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Just because one is treated does not mean that animal is "unsafe", it just means that the "All Natural" label will not fit. About the only way a person could suffer from consuming an animal that has been treated with antibiotics or hormones, would be to eat the whole animal at once!!!

What a great thing it is when there are animals within a herd that have the genetics to remain healthy.....and there are a great many herds with that distinction!!

I agree with what your saying. I also think that an animal that has been treated and had proper withdrawal times observed is safe.

 

[RobertMac]

GLA and BMr, y'all have killed the "unsafe" straw man...so how about getting back to the topic of "consumer perception" of beef. Try googling "antibiotic use in livestock" to see what we are up against. Is antibiotic use in livestock 8 times greater than use in humans? Even FDA is calling for reduced use in livestock...we certainly don't have many friends in this administration!!

SH, you say bring on the research...what research? Research from universities that had grant money furnished by pharmaceutical companies? I don't think that would convince many consumers.

The use of antibiotics for growth promotion and the use of hormones for growth promotion are adding to beef supplies when beef consumption is under pressure already from the economy. The only sure winners are the pharmaceutical companies. Can't you see that this only hurts producers in the long run? The packing/processing industry will adjust production capacity to fit consumer demand. Producers need increased consumer demand/consumption to grow and prosper.

Next we can talk about the lie that saturated animals fats are harmful! :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

They're falling back on the same arguements used to block private BSE testing. They're trying to win the science fair, even if costs them sales.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "They're falling back on the same arguements used to block private BSE testing. They're trying to win the science fair, even if costs them sales."

I wouldn't expect you to stand on facts and truth if it meant you might not be able to make an extra buck by caving to "peceptions" or if it meant you might not fall in with the populist packer blaming crowd, you follower you. Anyone can follow. I bet you buy "dolphin safe tuna" don't you?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker: "They're falling back on the same arguements used to block private BSE testing. They're trying to win the science fair, even if costs them sales."

I wouldn't expect you to stand on facts and truth if it meant you might not be able to make an extra buck by caving to "peceptions" or if it meant you might not fall in with the populist packer blaming crowd, you follower you. Anyone can follow. I bet you buy "dolphin safe tuna" don't you?


~SH~

If the fact is they want their beef a certain way and will pay for it, the truth is I will give it to them. That's called free enterprise.

Now, you had better get to bed, this is a school night.

 

[Tex]

Sandhusker: "They're falling back on the same arguements used to block private BSE testing. They're trying to win the science fair, even if costs them sales."

I wouldn't expect you to stand on facts and truth if it meant you might not be able to make an extra buck by caving to "peceptions" or if it meant you might not fall in with the populist packer blaming crowd, you follower you. Anyone can follow. I bet you buy "dolphin safe tuna" don't you?


~SH~

The phony who calls himself Econ 101 actually said, "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down" and "They (packers) pass those lower costs to consumers so they can sell more than their competitors."

SH, what are you talking about here on your little quote at the bottom of the page? These statements can be totally accurate given the right scenario being described. I have actually been told by packer representatives that they were trying to get other competitors to keep supplies low so that prices would go up and stay up. Walmart's model that is advertised all the time is for them to lower costs to consumers so they can sell more. Both statements are not phony at all so I would suggest you take a lesson from this Econ 101.

Where do you come up with your insanity? Did you lick lead paint when you were a kid?

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "If the fact is they want their beef a certain way and will pay for it, the truth is I will give it to them. That's called free enterprise."

It's one thing to sell consumers what they want, it's quite another to cater to the unsubstantiated belief that beef treated with hormones or antibiotics is unsafe when withdrawl times have been adhered to in order to sell more natural beef. In other words, if you are perpetuating the lie that hormone and antibiotic treated beef is unsafe even when proper withdrawl times have been adhered to. I would fully expect you to place money ahead of truth Sandhusker.

Tex: "SH, what are you talking about here on your little quote at the bottom of the page? These statements can be totally accurate given the right scenario being described. I have actually been told by packer representatives that they were trying to get other competitors to keep supplies low so that prices would go up and stay up. Walmart's model that is advertised all the time is for them to lower costs to consumers so they can sell more. Both statements are not phony at all so I would suggest you take a lesson from this Econ 101."

The statement that "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down" is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read at this site. If demand increases and supplies remain the same prices will rise. If you don't know that, you are totally clueless.

The statement that "the packers pass those lower costs to the consumers so they can sell more than their competitors" is just as ignorant because it's an absolute to suggest they do this all the time. First, most packers sell to retailers who sell to consumers. Most packers do not sell directly to consumers. Second, the only reason to lower prices at the retail level is to move product. You can only lower prices so much before it affects your profits as well as the profits of your competitors. Taking this statement to it's ridiculous eternal end, why not just give the beef away so you can sell it lower than your competitors? How stupid would that be?

Lastly, this goes against the entire packer blaming mindset that you believe so strongly in. Why would packers lower prices to the consumers if they didn't have to in order to move product? Generosity?

Can someone check Tex's IP # and see if matches the former Econ 101. It would be just like you to give yourself support. LOL!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "It's one thing to sell consumers what they want, it's quite another to cater to the unsubstantiated belief that beef treated with hormones or antibiotics is unsafe when withdrawl times have been adhered to in order to sell more natural beef. In other words, if you are perpetuating the lie that hormone and antibiotic treated beef is unsafe even when proper withdrawl times have been adhered to. I would fully expect you to place money ahead of truth Sandhusker."

Junior, there's a lot of people that don't believe your "science". They are fully aware that science has been wrong many times before. They don't give a crap what you have to say, they're going to buy what they want, and unless you're Obama, Pelosi or some other whacked out government control freak, they have the right to buy what they want and suppliers have the right to sell it to them.

 

[RobertMac]

SH, it doesn't matter if consumer's belief is substantiated or unsubstantiated...all dollars come from consumers. The unsubstantiated belief that beef treated with hormones or antibiotics is unsafe still reduces the consumer base to sell beef. The purpose of these practices is to increase the supply of beef. Please explain to me why a practice that increases the supply of beef while decreasing the consumer base for beef is helpful to the producer?