On the growth implant issue...

[katrina]

There are a multitude of things to worry about, but ironically it will probably be something a person forgot to worry about that will kill them in the end. The world is a wacky place.

Truer words were never spoken Soap.

When we look at things from the perspective of population control, I think just like you stated, "Why worry about food safety?". Then from the perpsective of quality of life I think, "We're only here for a little while, so why in heck do I wanna raise products for a corporate-controlled system that doesn't care one bit about my quality of life?". So many questions, so few answers, however I can say this - I truly believe that we will not have to worry about population control in the near future. Change is coming, the likes of which no one has seen since WW II. With that in mind, this profit driven control of our food systems seems so short-sighted to me, as does the fight, that I sometimes take up, to see that system changed "for the better".

I believe my efforts are better spent growing food on my own land, securing a safe supply of water on my own land, and being prepared for whatever the future may hold. If we can feed some other families along the way and put a little cash in our pockets, what else can we want for?

Believe it or not, Pure Country, I am not so worried about the profits of the big bad evil corporations as I am staying afloat myself. For the past thirty years, I have given all of our calves (both steers and heifers) a growth implant at branding time. The one we have always used is Synovex-C, which is cleared for replacement heifers as well. With all the hoopla, I decided this year to impant only the steers and not do the heifers. This was a poor decision because our heifers were shy at least fifteen pounds of pay weight, on a year when prices are not very great at best. I will gladly not implant my calves if everyone else will also refrain. The way it is, even if I don't implant, the buyer will do so anyway. What incentive is there for me to sacrifice these extra pounds if the hormones will end up in the cattle I produce, regardless?

Soap did you inform the crowd that there was no implants??
Now remember that we are no body and a very small operators.........
But when we feed fats we want calves with no implants and we don't implant and when we sell fats we stress there is no implants.... And we do better price wise... Our experiance is that they don't yield and grade as well...... But just because we do this..... Doesn't make it where everyone else should do it.....JUst food for thought... :cowboy:

 

[Grassfarmer]

Number One: Does the European Union actually "fear" the beef, or are they merely using it as a trade barrier to protect their own beef suppliers? Number Two: Why did Grassfarmer leave a wonderful country like Scotland, which does everything right, to come and live in North America, where we seem to do everything wrong?

Number one: The European consumer absolutely fears hormone treated beef, as they do GMO food. This is something the North Americans find hard to understand and claim it is just protectionism. It isn't - if you were allowed to ship hormone treated beef into Europe and it was labeled as hormone treated consumers would not buy it.

Number two: There were a number of reasons I left Scotland both personal and business. Canada offered greater opportunities than Europe due to the lack of Government restriction and a huge landbase. I was also fooled to an extent by the notion that North America was a place where "free enterprise" flourished. That is not the case in the Canadian beef industry where we have Government backing private corporations against producers. So many people left Europe for the new world to leave the shackles of the old order behind - yet it seems to me many Canadian and American producers have become complacent to the corporate shackles that bind in North America just as tight as anything in Europe ever did.

 

[Justin]

There are a multitude of things to worry about, but ironically it will probably be something a person forgot to worry about that will kill them in the end. The world is a wacky place.

Truer words were never spoken Soap.

When we look at things from the perspective of population control, I think just like you stated, "Why worry about food safety?". Then from the perpsective of quality of life I think, "We're only here for a little while, so why in heck do I wanna raise products for a corporate-controlled system that doesn't care one bit about my quality of life?". So many questions, so few answers, however I can say this - I truly believe that we will not have to worry about population control in the near future. Change is coming, the likes of which no one has seen since WW II. With that in mind, this profit driven control of our food systems seems so short-sighted to me, as does the fight, that I sometimes take up, to see that system changed "for the better".

I believe my efforts are better spent growing food on my own land, securing a safe supply of water on my own land, and being prepared for whatever the future may hold. If we can feed some other families along the way and put a little cash in our pockets, what else can we want for?

Believe it or not, Pure Country, I am not so worried about the profits of the big bad evil corporations as I am staying afloat myself. For the past thirty years, I have given all of our calves (both steers and heifers) a growth implant at branding time. The one we have always used is Synovex-C, which is cleared for replacement heifers as well. With all the hoopla, I decided this year to impant only the steers and not do the heifers. This was a poor decision because our heifers were shy at least fifteen pounds of pay weight, on a year when prices are not very great at best. I will gladly not implant my calves if everyone else will also refrain. The way it is, even if I don't implant, the buyer will do so anyway. What incentive is there for me to sacrifice these extra pounds if the hormones will end up in the cattle I produce, regardless?

you know this for a fact?

 

[Andy]

Truer words were never spoken Soap.

When we look at things from the perspective of population control, I think just like you stated, "Why worry about food safety?". Then from the perpsective of quality of life I think, "We're only here for a little while, so why in heck do I wanna raise products for a corporate-controlled system that doesn't care one bit about my quality of life?". So many questions, so few answers, however I can say this - I truly believe that we will not have to worry about population control in the near future. Change is coming, the likes of which no one has seen since WW II. With that in mind, this profit driven control of our food systems seems so short-sighted to me, as does the fight, that I sometimes take up, to see that system changed "for the better".

I believe my efforts are better spent growing food on my own land, securing a safe supply of water on my own land, and being prepared for whatever the future may hold. If we can feed some other families along the way and put a little cash in our pockets, what else can we want for?

Believe it or not, Pure Country, I am not so worried about the profits of the big bad evil corporations as I am staying afloat myself. For the past thirty years, I have given all of our calves (both steers and heifers) a growth implant at branding time. The one we have always used is Synovex-C, which is cleared for replacement heifers as well. With all the hoopla, I decided this year to impant only the steers and not do the heifers. This was a poor decision because our heifers were shy at least fifteen pounds of pay weight, on a year when prices are not very great at best. I will gladly not implant my calves if everyone else will also refrain. The way it is, even if I don't implant, the buyer will do so anyway. What incentive is there for me to sacrifice these extra pounds if the hormones will end up in the cattle I produce, regardless?

Soap did you inform the crowd that there was no implants??
Now remember that we are no body and a very small operators.........
But when we feed fats we want calves with no implants and we don't implant and when we sell fats we stress there is no implants.... And we do better price wise... Our experiance is that they don't yield and grade as well...... But just because we do this..... Doesn't make it where everyone else should do it.....JUst food for thought... :cowboy:

Katrina have you recieved carcass data back on your calves? Most cattle that aren't implanted will grade better than implanted cattle. I believe that implants help yeild but have never seen data that shows implants help grade.

 

[Ben H]

...I truly believe that we will not have to worry about population control in the near future. Change is coming, the likes of which no one has seen since WW II. With that in mind, this profit driven control of our food systems seems so short-sighted to me, as does the fight, that I sometimes take up, to see that system changed "for the better".

I'm pretty sure I know where you're going with that one, can't say that I disagree.

What the future may hold, Gerald Celete YouTube Channel. President of the Trends Forecast Institute.
http://www.youtube.com/user/GeraldCelenteChannel
No sunshine and lollipops with Celente.

 

[Anonymous]

Truer words were never spoken Soap.

When we look at things from the perspective of population control, I think just like you stated, "Why worry about food safety?". Then from the perpsective of quality of life I think, "We're only here for a little while, so why in heck do I wanna raise products for a corporate-controlled system that doesn't care one bit about my quality of life?". So many questions, so few answers, however I can say this - I truly believe that we will not have to worry about population control in the near future. Change is coming, the likes of which no one has seen since WW II. With that in mind, this profit driven control of our food systems seems so short-sighted to me, as does the fight, that I sometimes take up, to see that system changed "for the better".

I believe my efforts are better spent growing food on my own land, securing a safe supply of water on my own land, and being prepared for whatever the future may hold. If we can feed some other families along the way and put a little cash in our pockets, what else can we want for?

Believe it or not, Pure Country, I am not so worried about the profits of the big bad evil corporations as I am staying afloat myself. For the past thirty years, I have given all of our calves (both steers and heifers) a growth implant at branding time. The one we have always used is Synovex-C, which is cleared for replacement heifers as well. With all the hoopla, I decided this year to impant only the steers and not do the heifers. This was a poor decision because our heifers were shy at least fifteen pounds of pay weight, on a year when prices are not very great at best. I will gladly not implant my calves if everyone else will also refrain. The way it is, even if I don't implant, the buyer will do so anyway. What incentive is there for me to sacrifice these extra pounds if the hormones will end up in the cattle I produce, regardless?

you know this for a fact?

I have to agree with you Justin and Purecountry-- because I've seen buyers/feeders back out on a sale-- or stop bidding at a salebarn when they find out the cattle have had either implants or antibiotics...

And at the local salesyard- they usually remind you to sign an "All Natural" affidavit on cattle that qualify- which the buyers give a few more cents for- even cull cows/bulls (Lauras Lean requires it)..

Onetime I hauled in some cull bulls-forgot to sign the affidavit- and the buyer that bought them (who knows I'm anti antibiotic and anti-steroid/implants) called me later and asked if they qualified... When I told him they did- he asked if I would sign an affidavit for him....I did- which probably didn't help me with that sale-( but he's made up for it several times over since by bumping a bid once or twice or buying my calves)-- but it shows it must be worth something or he/these buyers wouldn't be asking for it :???: .....
More and more folks are wanting to eat food and vegatables the way we used to -- not full of pharmaceuticals and chemicals or genetically modified "improvements".....

 

[katrina]

Believe it or not, Pure Country, I am not so worried about the profits of the big bad evil corporations as I am staying afloat myself. For the past thirty years, I have given all of our calves (both steers and heifers) a growth implant at branding time. The one we have always used is Synovex-C, which is cleared for replacement heifers as well. With all the hoopla, I decided this year to impant only the steers and not do the heifers. This was a poor decision because our heifers were shy at least fifteen pounds of pay weight, on a year when prices are not very great at best. I will gladly not implant my calves if everyone else will also refrain. The way it is, even if I don't implant, the buyer will do so anyway. What incentive is there for me to sacrifice these extra pounds if the hormones will end up in the cattle I produce, regardless?

Soap did you inform the crowd that there was no implants??
Now remember that we are no body and a very small operators.........
But when we feed fats we want calves with no implants and we don't implant and when we sell fats we stress there is no implants.... And we do better price wise... Our experiance is that they don't yield and grade as well...... But just because we do this..... Doesn't make it where everyone else should do it.....JUst food for thought... :cowboy:

Katrina have you recieved carcass data back on your calves? Most cattle that aren't implanted will grade better than implanted cattle. I believe that implants help yeild but have never seen data that shows implants help grade.

No data... Just sold vary well... We sell or sold at Yankton at the salebarn at the fats sale... Each order buyer from Cimples to Laura's Lean you name it would be there... I think those buyers know the score. But there are other markets too for other types of cattle... It's not a one size fits all..

 

[Andy]

Katrina I think that your cattle are most likely grading better than you think. That is the reason the buyers are after them. Seeing the type of cattle you have and the fact that you don't implant, I would be willing to bet that they would do very well on a quality grade based grid.

 

[perfecho]

To me, our Creator gave us a great, well rounded food source, but many of us like to screw it up. I believe we were not given these gifts to raise in 100,000 head feedlots, or small square cages that don't allow movement in fear of losing production.

There will come a day, when the cumulitive total of these products will be found to cause illness....lets face it, there certainly seems to be many more cancer victims now than in my grandparents days. There is an ethical perception that many consumers "think" we food producers follow and they would be very surprised in knowing what gets put on and into there meat and vegetables. Roundup was once used sparingly, but now is used on the bread we eat, peas, potaotes....on and on. Even cattle do not like to eat straw from a desicated feild....what do they know that we don't?

As for improved margins, the first people in usually improve margins for 1-2 years and then when everyone is in, the benchmark is where it was at the beginning. I am amazed when an sdvertisement comes out for vaccinations or drugs arrives in the mail box. A mooing cow when you open the card, or some other catchy cutout that obviously costs more to produce than I can make on one calf........why are we the ones that have to feed the world cheaply.....why do the drug comapnies not participate in this "cheap" model?

Many producers use a product because they were told to, some make an informed decision, some are convinced it made them more money. All I know, there is a growing amount of people wanting to buy our non implanted, non treated animals.....and that is what I want to feed my family.

 

[Ben H]

.



:clap:

 

[Grassfarmer]

:clap: :clap: :tiphat:

 

[per]

:agree: :clap:

 

[RobertMac]

:agree: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

There will come a day, when the cumulitive total of these products will be found to cause illness..

That day is here because we aren't eating "God's food", we are eating "man's food" because it is cheap and we have been lied to about its healthfulness.

I like your point about margins...look at the dramatic increase in production by producers, but has our profit margin increased as dramatically???

 

[burnt]

Well said, perfecho.

 

[katrina]

Katrina I think that your cattle are most likely grading better than you think. That is the reason the buyers are after them. Seeing the type of cattle you have and the fact that you don't implant, I would be willing to bet that they would do very well on a quality grade based grid.

I know they do too.... :wink: But I know there alot of good cattle that do too with differant managment styles..

 

[ChrisB]

I'm not trying to get into this debate but I thought I would throw some facts out about implants that I ran across some time ago. I didn't write down what university the statistics were from but I think it may have been Michigan State.

From what I hear it is a somewhat common practice in the EU to not castrate bull calves. Beef from a bull contains 10 times the testosterone (hormone) level than a steer that has been implanted.

There are horomones in most of the food we eat so here are some comparisons: A person would need to eat 6 kilograms (13.2 lbs?) of beef from an implanted steer to equal the amount of estradial in one egg. A one pint glass of milk contains about 9 times as much estradial as a 250 gram (8.8 oz.?) portion of beef from a implanted steer.

One bottle of beer has more estrogen than a whole beef implanted with an estrogen based hormone. (sorry)

4 oz. of beef from an implanted steer has 1.9 nanograms of estrogen.
4 oz. of non implanted beef has 1.3 nanograms.

(A nanogram is 1 billionth of a gram. Or 1 blade of grass on a football field. Or 1 penny in a stack 35,000 miles high)

3-1/2 oz. of peas contain 340 nanograms.
3-1/2 oz. of ice cream - 520
Cabbage - 2000
Wheat germ - 3400
Soybean Oil - 1,680,000

A male child produces 41,000 nanograms naturally before puberty.
A female child produces 54,000. An adult male - 136,000. An adult female - 480,000. A pregnant female - 20,000,000.

A young boy would need to eat more about 16 pounds of beef from an implanted steer daily in order to produce a 1 percent increase in his production of this hormone.

Something that is often overlooked by the anti-implant crowd is the fact that being overweight causes an increase in the amount of hormones your body produces. Most researchers blame the health problems that seem to be more prevalent today on the obesity levels that keep increasing, not on implants used in beef production that have been proven safe time and time again.

Just some food for thought.

 

[RobertMac]

From what I hear it is a somewhat common practice in the EU to not castrate bull calves. Beef from a bull contains 10 times the testosterone (hormone) level than a steer that has been implanted.

Alright...now that I have proof, I can use my ad campaign...

"Improve your performance with Grassfed bull beef, Nature's Viagra!!!" :wink: :wink: :lol: :lol:

ChrisB, good thing you don't like to debate, you make rebuttals difficult.
My problem with implants is that it increases beef supply while reducing potential market share...that means lower cattle prices.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I'm not trying to get into this debate but I thought I would throw some facts out about implants that I ran across some time ago. I didn't write down what university the statistics were from but I think it may have been Michigan State.

From what I hear it is a somewhat common practice in the EU to not castrate bull calves. Beef from a bull contains 10 times the testosterone (hormone) level than a steer that has been implanted.

There are horomones in most of the food we eat so here are some comparisons: A person would need to eat 6 kilograms (13.2 lbs?) of beef from an implanted steer to equal the amount of estradial in one egg. A one pint glass of milk contains about 9 times as much estradial as a 250 gram (8.8 oz.?) portion of beef from a implanted steer.

One bottle of beer has more estrogen than a whole beef implanted with an estrogen based hormone. (sorry)

4 oz. of beef from an implanted steer has 1.9 nanograms of estrogen.
4 oz. of non implanted beef has 1.3 nanograms.

(A nanogram is 1 billionth of a gram. Or 1 blade of grass on a football field. Or 1 penny in a stack 35,000 miles high)

3-1/2 oz. of peas contain 340 nanograms.
3-1/2 oz. of ice cream - 520
Cabbage - 2000
Wheat germ - 3400
Soybean Oil - 1,680,000

A male child produces 41,000 nanograms naturally before puberty.
A female child produces 54,000. An adult male - 136,000. An adult female - 480,000. A pregnant female - 20,000,000.

A young boy would need to eat more about 16 pounds of beef from an implanted steer daily in order to produce a 1 percent increase in his production of this hormone.

Something that is often overlooked by the anti-implant crowd is the fact that being overweight causes an increase in the amount of hormones your body produces. Most researchers blame the health problems that seem to be more prevalent today on the obesity levels that keep increasing, not on implants used in beef production that have been proven safe time and time again.

Just some food for thought.

I am sure glad you posted this.

 

[Grassfarmer]

Ah, but are the hormones cattle are given as implants the same as these naturally occurring hormones or are they synthetic?

Rather like the guys that claim GMOs are safe because genetic engineering is basically just speeding up the plant/trait selection our forefathers did. In the case of GMO tomatoes that are designed to last longer in the chiller at the supermarket or the corn that is a little more frost tolerant the "advance" was made by extracting a gene from the Artic carp (a fish) and implanting it in the new GMO plant.
I don't know about anyone else's forefathers but I'm sure mine didn't practise that kind of thing.

 

[RobertMac]

Believe it or not, Pure Country, I am not so worried about the profits of the big bad evil corporations as I am staying afloat myself. For the past thirty years, I have given all of our calves (both steers and heifers) a growth implant at branding time. The one we have always used is Synovex-C, which is cleared for replacement heifers as well. With all the hoopla, I decided this year to impant only the steers and not do the heifers. This was a poor decision because our heifers were shy at least fifteen pounds of pay weight, on a year when prices are not very great at best. I will gladly not implant my calves if everyone else will also refrain. The way it is, even if I don't implant, the buyer will do so anyway. What incentive is there for me to sacrifice these extra pounds if the hormones will end up in the cattle I produce, regardless?

Were your weights down across all (top end and bottom end) or was there more variability in weights that brought the average down? My thinking is that implants(and other inputs) tend to help the poor performers more than good performing cow/calves. I've used cutting back on inputs as a culling tool...poor performers tend to stand out more.