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

Meat Quality

mrj

Well-known member
We have seen several claims and innuendo of poor beef inspection on this site.

I've felt they might not be real accurate.

The story I read in Denver Record Stockman has no attribution of source, but it's interesting.

A condensation of that article:

"Random residue testing is used at USDA inspected plants.
ANY animal originating from a list of producers who are on the residue violators list is tested.

Any "red flag" cattle (those showing inflamed or discolored lungs or other organs, fresh injection sites, unthrifty looking animals) are tested.

Seasoned meat inspectors are so in tune they can anticipate animals that may have been recently treated as needles and product do leave their mark under the skin or in the muscle for a long time.

IF A CARCASS LOOKS SUSPICIOUS, it is side-railed and a test is performed at the pland. If positive, the tissue is tested in-depth to detect residues at finer levels.

Producers caught with positive animals are "punished" economically by the packer, "encouraging" them, and others to better observe the withdrawal times.

One gondola of hamburger may have muscle tissue from over 250 animals, and once ground, a single hamburger will represent the same number of cows IDENTIFIED to that gondola.

A sample from each gondola is tested for e-coli and drug residues. If violations are found, the entire batch must be disposed of.

The gondola is traced back to the plant of harvest, and if the plant kept good records, they can trace it back to the owners of cattle that went into that harvest mix.

Think of the economic loss to all segments of the industry because of one violation!"

Every cattle producer should consider their actions well when they take a short-cut in proper injection site and dosage as well as fudging on withdrawal times to prevent drug residues. Those who fail to act responsibly, IMO, are effectively stealing from the rest of us who are penalized along with them when the hamburger has to be removed from the food supply and disposed of.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Cowpuncher said:
Sounds good, but how come the packers say they can't keep track of foreign and domestic beef?

Did you miss "IF the plant kept good records"? At this point, packers are not required to keep those records. Obviously, some do because they need them for source and age verified beef sales.

Packers cannot get the source verification records if the producer declines to provide them, as I understand it.

That is a reason for them not wanting M-ID which puts the burden for trace-back on packers, with no way for them to verify the source.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Cowpuncher said:
Sounds good, but how come the packers say they can't keep track of foreign and domestic beef?

Did you miss "IF the plant kept good records"? At this point, packers are not required to keep those records. Obviously, some do because they need them for source and age verified beef sales.

Packers cannot get the source verification records if the producer declines to provide them, as I understand it.

That is a reason for them not wanting M-ID which puts the burden for trace-back on packers, with no way for them to verify the source.

MRJ

When will you stop carrying water for the packers, MRJ?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Econ, you got to respect MRJ for one reason...while, I'm sure she's not the only NCBA member reading this board, she is the only one to standup for their policies...and civil debate is always a good thing.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Yes, Robert I do. I also want to hear from producers who are in the NCBA talk about producer concerns instead of packer concerns all the time. I would love to see that from MRJ. Ranchers/farmers have a tendency to try to see the other person's point of view; it is the duopoly of individualism. I would like these tendencies to not be so used by the packers for their own purposes and to see NCBA and their supporters stand up for ranchers/farmers.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Poor Econ, you see only what you want to see.............again!

How can it honestly be called "carrying water for packers" to state the fact that M-COOL requires packers to provide data that they are forbidden to require cattle producers to give them????

RobertMac, thanks for the respectful comment. There are other NCBA members who post, but they have better things to do with their time than spending hours on this site just to challenge the lies and attacks against NCBA.

I see those attacks as attacking we cattle producer members AND our VOLUNTEERS in leadership positions who GIVE freely of their time and talents serving those members who have neither the desire nor the talent to do the leadership jobs.

There is a saying, "cream rises to the top" and we have personally seen it happen time and again when members do a good job on committees for state affiliates, then advance to serve on NCBA committees, and working through several jobs, learning and growing with each advance, to finally come to the top.

The true worth of that system is that after rising to the top, NCBA leaders gracefully bow out after a short time on the board, encouraging and making room for new talent and different gifts of incoming officers.

That, IMO, is what keeps NCBA leadership fresh, innovative, and in tune with the membership rather than becoming an entrenched, clique of a bureaucratically managed, virtually static, generic "Ag Group".

It is one of very few such, and I don't want to see it fail due to unfounded attacks.

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
How can it honestly be called "carrying water for packers" to state the fact that M-COOL requires packers to provide data that they are forbidden to require cattle producers to give them????

A LIE!!!! A DAMNED LIE!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MJR, "How can it honestly be called "carrying water for packers" to state the fact that M-COOL requires packers to provide data that they are forbidden to require cattle producers to give them????"

I hope this statement is not an example of cream rising to the top.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ, you continually express the excuses for the packers backed up with lies. If the packers are so incompetent as to not be able to ascertain the segregation of meat from when they purchase cattle to the consumer, they should not be in the meat business or the food business at all. If they had a few penalties that were actually incurred and enforced, their competency in the issues you bring up would rise fast. It is only with you that these issues of competency hold any weight.

That being said, I have heard Sec. Johanns himself speak for the packer's position on this issue for the packers and their political lackeys, Goodlatte and Bonilla.

If Johanns can not solve this problem in relation to canadian or mexican cattle, let alone meat from other parts of the world, as far as implementation of MCOOL, he does not have the competency to run the USDA and should immediately resign given these inadequacies.

It is funny that the FDA is trying to possibly regulate Hay and Johanns is claiming he can not adequately regulate live cattle. Maybe a more competent Secretary of Agriculture (Johanns is ultimately responsible for the continual frauds being perpetuated on the family farmer/producer through its mismanagement and lies to Congress).

Keep carrying water for the packers. You personify the NCBA.

We are going to have to start calling you water girl. It is a huge fall from where your family was on these issues in recent history. Did something hit you on the head or something?
 

alabama

Well-known member
I am not so sure just what this thread is about but if it is about M-COOL I would like to say a few things. Just my opinion.
1) M-COOL I think can be good for the beef industry in the US. Especially the cow calf producers.
2) V-COOL may force labeling in order to get a good price from the consumer. (V = Voluntary)
3) USDA should define COO. Such as born, raised, fed and packed in the USA. In other words the beef had never been outside the US.
4) This will force buyers, feeders, and packers to buy tagged beef calves with a history.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
MJR, "How can it honestly be called "carrying water for packers" to state the fact that M-COOL requires packers to provide data that they are forbidden to require cattle producers to give them????"

I hope this statement is not an example of cream rising to the top.


I'm one of the people content to be a 'member' recognizing that top leadership is not for me. Too bad there aren't more with those qualities in some organizations I won't name.

Econ, I don't believe I've said that packers cannot "ascertain the segregation of meat from when they purchase cattle".

They can when cattle sold to them are identified.

I also recall that cattle producers supporting M-COOL demanded that they, themselves, must not be burdened with trace-back. That only packers should be responsible for that. HOW can packers provide trace-back when cattle producers do not choose, and are not required, to provide it up the line?????

BTW, specifically what do you mean by "where your family was on these issues recently"?

So far as I know, we have always supported voluntary I-D until the terrorist problems made it possible that M-ID would be necessary.

M-COOL has various flaws which I've mentioned many times. The fact that the powers that be in Congress refused to include poultry in it is another

Your continual "conspiracy of the moment" diatribes are growing sillier by the minute..........you need to get a job or a different hobby! How many hours do you spend each day posting your attacks on common sense?

FDA has been trying to take over more power for years.......now they may succeed thanks to Rosa D' Lauro and other Democrats and people like yourself.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The question is who do we straddle the cost to and under what mechanisms

You would have those costs on the producer by dictate. I would have those costs of ID on packers and the dictate on them, who hold the cards from the feed yard to the store shelf.

Why do you think of always putting the costs and responsibility on the producers rather than the importers and packers? Control at the borders is far more efficient for homeland security and terrorist threats than the alternative you espouse. If you could only think for the producer as much as you do the packer, you might be of some use in changing the NCBA.

Based on your history of posting on this website, I don't see much of a chance for you to change. I for one would welcome it however silly that might sound.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
MRJ Quote;Did you miss "IF the plant kept good records"? At this point, packers are not required to keep those records.
****But after Jan.09/07 they will as FDA requires It.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I was talking to a cattleman the other day that is working with the local butchers about setting up the Montana M-COOL law....They are having no problems with identifying country source on meat- since between FDA and USDA rules all beef imported and all beef from imported cattle fed and/or slaughtered in the US must keep a manifest of origin with them already- thru to retail... So the retailers are saying it will be no problem for them to put the cuts from different countries in differing placarded sections of the cooler--and if, as they hope to even save more effort, they can source all US beef, they don't even need to placard that under the new law...

They said the only place they are running into problems is with the ground beef- because sometimes they will cut up 3 or 4 boxes of beef in a day- all coming from a different country of origin, with all the trim going in one vat to be made into ground beef....This will have to be placarded with the names of ALL the countries of origin, or as origin unknown....

They are contmplating going one step further and trying to save trimmings off just US beef and put out a straight US ground product as they feel it may sell better......
 

PORKER

Well-known member
That Will work as the local Spartin Store is doing this very same thing. Wolverine Meats is finding local animals that are good burger makers and creating their in store grind mix.
 
Top