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

Ractopamine

B

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,022
Location
west of Soapweed
WB brought up this additive in a different thread. I'm curious about everyone's opinion. It appears that using this additive has hurt US beef demand around the world. There is evidence that the use of ractopamine can show up in negative effects in consumers, and evidence to the contrary. Clearly we produce enough beef without the additive.

If cattlemen can tax beef transactions to promote beef demand (as in the check off), should cattlemen be able to abolish drugs or additives that adversely effect demand. Sound science is the word of the day, and market science is science as much as biology.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/12/24/ractopamine-beta-agonist-drug.aspx
 
I suppose, according to the NCBA, that if beef goes down from a harmful additive, we all go down together and the hurt is spread among all of us.

Honestly, I don't even like to give an anti-biotic unless it's completely necessary.

The research on the Ractopamine is all over the place. Don't know what to believe, but if in doubt, I don't.
 
I think we need to be careful which consumer action groups we align ourselves with. The evidence of poor eating quality is quite substantial with its use. The industry is run by the drug companies in this case the manufacturer of Optaflexx is Elanco. They are the ones that benefiting from its use.

If Beef can't beat pork on its eating quality then there really is no future for our industry.
 
I don't know enough about this to make any well informed comments. Having said that, Mercola is a highly suspect source of information about anything. I recently saw an article from him that said that you can eat as many as a dozen eggs a week, as long as they were all natural, cage free, hormone free, antibiotic free and organic hens. I think his politics get in the way of any science.
 
Texas Tech did a study that found a 75% to 90% increase in feedlot mortality for cattle fed Ractopamine, which raised animal welfare issues. It is allowed because Elanco makes a ton of money on it even as it alienates consumers.
 
rancherfred said:
I don't know enough about this to make any well informed comments. Having said that, Mercola is a highly suspect source of information about anything. I recently saw an article from him that said that you can eat as many as a dozen eggs a week, as long as they were all natural, cage free, hormone free, antibiotic free and organic hens. I think his politics get in the way of any science.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem here.

You do realize that every egg you eat is one less chicken, don't you? :cowboy:
 
I agree mercola is at least suspect. The science on ractopamine is like a Rorschach test - everyone sees what they want. It's hard to dispute the market science.
 
My problem with feeding it is it marginalizes eating quality. We as an industry have improved our genetics, our health protocols, and our overall management to throw it all away the last 40 days of the feeding period is silly to me. I have never believed in business that shooting yourself in the foot is a wise strategy. I know we have to improve efficiency but this is not the way to do it.
 
It's good to see some of you questioning Mercola statements. When he is selling his personal brand of 'science' and discrediting sources using conventional, respected, science from US Universities, it seems worth a little more study on our part.

I don't like the denigration of 'profit' for businesses. How can anyone stay in business without it?does Mercola live and keep his business going if he follows his own dictates and refuses to make a profit???? And what kind of person is he if it is ok for him, but wrong for the businesses he smears?

Why are we who raise cattle for food searching for ways to create more lean muscle in our cattle? Isn't it because that is what consumers (pushed by health professionals) demanding?

We have done much with cattle genetics to give them what they SAY they want, but that hasn't been enough for them (both consumers and health professionals), so we have searched ways to do it with nutrition, including various enhancements, developed by professional research, to enhance growth of lean over fat in our cattle.

People like Mercola seem to make an exceptionally good living by convincing people that the whole scientific world is trying to kill them with scientifically developed, commercially produced food and medicine. WHY would cattle producers look to him for advice?

mrj
 
mrj, if you are interested in giving consumers what they want isn't a quality eating experience at the top of the list? Optaflexx gives beef a bland rubbery flavor. Is that a good thing? You can discredit the messenger all you want but let's not put our collective heads in the sand and ignore the obvious. Pork tastes like crap that is undeniable beef is well on its way to the bottom with the pork industry. I hope we can save ourselves but it's getting late in the game I am afraid.
 
Sorry you feel that way about my opinion of Mercola and his ilk, most of whom are working to end ALL consumption of ALL meats and using faux science to do so, imo.

I disagree with you about the quality of beef today. Maybe some of it is as you say, but I can honestly say I've rarely had a poor experience eating beef wherever that has been, even McDonalds, and I prefer my beef without any enhancements except maybe a bit of salt and pepper, though I do like the onion and tomato on a hamburger.

We have been told the home grown beef at our house is wonderfully flavorful and tender, so believe we do know what quality tastes like. But we travel a lot and eat in a variety of places from fast food to top of the line steak houses, and have even bought some at Walmart just to see what it is like, and any problems experienced have been the fault of the cook, imo.

I can understand you wanting to promote your own high quality beef, but do you really benefit from denigrating other beef, unless it is to share a specific 'bad experience' you have had? I believe doing that harms most other beef producers in the eyes of consumers, with no justification for it.

mrj
 
I think the markets reflect what consumers think of our product. To deny the effects of Optaflexx on eating quality is simply sticking your head in the sand. We are in a race with pork to the bottom I guess when we get there we will at least have some company. To bad too because a lot of good hard working people are being harmed by this stuff. Bland rubbery tasting beef cannot be overcome no matter how you prepare it unless you prepare it like pork and add the flavor from a bottle.

Mrj,if you read my first post on this thread I said we have to be careful who we align ourselves with when it comes to these things.


I feel the beef industry currently is at a crossroads which direction we choose will determine our fate for the future. It is not looking good for the home team as I write this.
 
WB, I sure can't agree that beef is universally poor quality. I don't know what percent of cattle are given ractopamine, etc., but I do know there is a lot of high quality beef in market places, and I don't believe one has to buy from Omaha Steaks, or even pricier sources to get it. I just can't believe it is a large percent of beef in markets have been implanted. I think we may need more science, not less!

I also believe high supermarket prices of beef probably are more of a deterrent to more consumption than some people will admit.

I don't see corporations as somehow evil and trying to take over the food industry. It has been a pretty darn good system of production, regulation, processing, more regulation, distribution, more regulation, and supermarkets and more regulation to do such a good job of feeding the majority of people across our nation and the entire world as we do today.

Sure, there are some improvements needed, maybe beginning with streamlining and cost control on government regulation! Maybe even more helpful would be if we weren't so prone to attempting to use that proverbial "circular firing squad" to solve the problems we do have in this industry!

mrj
 
Mrj, I am not calling for a firing squad. Simply let's all produce the best product possible so our consumers think of buying something besides hamburger when they go to the beef counter. I am not anti-corporation either but let's not mortgage the next generation's future by using things that are neither necessary nor productive when in comes to creating more beef demand.

You say that this is not widely used but I have asked people in the packing business what would be an honest guess and the have told me over 70 percent of fed cattle currently receive Optaflexx. It might be higher as no one tracks such things. We as an industry cannot continue as we are.


Yes I think our industry is in sad shape. I will ask anyone in this business if you can handle another year like this past one? Can you handle $70 live cattle? It is a distinct possibility they way we are going.
 
I was talking to a fellow sitting on the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, he wasn't happy about sitting with MacDonald's and WWF but when he told them that not using implants cost him $70/hd in the feedlot. MacDonald's said if that's what it takes to make a profit they were OK and WWF said if you can get more beef with fewer hooves on the ground that was fine with them.
I was to sit there as well, but I don't think producing beef as cheap as possible is really the definition of Sustainable I agree with.
I think ranchers should be rewarded for the environmental goods and services they produce while raising quality beef.
 
I am not advocating against implants as they are totally different than ractopamine. Implants operate on the endocrine system whereas ractopamine alters the blood increasing blood pressure and increasing heart rate changing the muscle tissue. Thus they change the eating quality that we are trying to enhance with better genetics, better health and better feeding regimines. We have come a long ways in just better management overall and yet the ractopamine can take it all away.
 
"People like Mercola seem to make an exceptionally good living by convincing people that the whole scientific world is trying to kill them with scientifically developed, commercially produced food and medicine. WHY would cattle producers look to him for advice?"

I posted the mercola point of view, not looking or seeking advice as the question assumes, but rather to illustrate a significant point of view in the market place. I'm all for science dictating policy - market science is science also. Sometimes it seems as though we're stuck in a 1970s mindset that "we're going to tell the consumer what is good science." How long have we simply given up on the eu beef market over implants? (Sure, the eu uses the issue to ban foreign beef) I'd like to see the study comparing the money lost by reduced market access (the eu) by using implants vs reduced productivity by not using implants
 

Latest posts

Back
Top