Sandhusker
Well-known member
It kind of highlights the absurdity if knowingly importing BSE diseased cattle, doesn't it?
What you need to know about the beef you eat
- Thread starter cutterone
- Start date
flounder/Terry, what is you point in posting, along with my points regarding use of partial truths, spin and innuendo to make grass fed beef APPEAR safer than conventionally produced beef?
Your post regarding activists efforts to severely curtail or even end use of antibiotics in cattle shows the bias of activists when the Union of Concerned Scientists (with no indication of the qualifications of said 'scientists') 'calculations' of amounts of antibiotics used is, unquestioningly accepted as factual, while implying the estimates of amounts used from the cattle industry is somehow suspect. Why is that? Why aren't actual amounts provided, as they are regulated substances, surely sales are recorded.
And what purpose did you intend with your posts of violations found and the remediation process well begun?
Isn't that an indication that they system is working and people in violation are not being ignored? And that food from those animals is not going into the food system?
BTW, I have no use for anyone who uses pharmaceuticals for off label uses, or intentionally uses them in violation of rules and law. That includes ranchers who fail to administer vaccines properly (nearly all of them sub cutaneously) and in the wrong location. Anyone intentionally failing to adhere to proper withdrawal times is damaging the entire industry, and should be punished, IMO.
mrj
Your post regarding activists efforts to severely curtail or even end use of antibiotics in cattle shows the bias of activists when the Union of Concerned Scientists (with no indication of the qualifications of said 'scientists') 'calculations' of amounts of antibiotics used is, unquestioningly accepted as factual, while implying the estimates of amounts used from the cattle industry is somehow suspect. Why is that? Why aren't actual amounts provided, as they are regulated substances, surely sales are recorded.
And what purpose did you intend with your posts of violations found and the remediation process well begun?
Isn't that an indication that they system is working and people in violation are not being ignored? And that food from those animals is not going into the food system?
BTW, I have no use for anyone who uses pharmaceuticals for off label uses, or intentionally uses them in violation of rules and law. That includes ranchers who fail to administer vaccines properly (nearly all of them sub cutaneously) and in the wrong location. Anyone intentionally failing to adhere to proper withdrawal times is damaging the entire industry, and should be punished, IMO.
mrj
RobertMac
Well-known member
mrj said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That was a joke...wasn't it????!!!!
:shock: :roll: mrj said:
What about hormone implants?
Absolutely an economic benefit to cheaply grow more pounds per head...but without concurrent increased consumption, less head are needed to meet use and therefore less producers are needed to raise cattle. Also their use is know to reduce marbling and therefore quality, but they are still used..."quality be damned". The use of hormone implants has also reduced the number of consumers that are willing to buy conventional beef...reduction in demand.
So the use of hormone implants increases supply, reduces demand, and limits customer base. Beef has lost market share and consumption over the last thirty years...has hormone use helped the producer?????
Give consumer a reason to buy beef!!!!
Oldtimer said:
OT, i do not remember anything about "slaughtered at a young enough age that the USDA believed to not be manifesting the disease".
please reference this ???
are you saying all these cattle were under the imaginary OTM rule ???
NEWS RELEASE
Texas Animal Health Commission
Box l2966 •Austin, Texas 78711 •(800) 550-8242• FAX (512) 719-0719
Linda Logan, DVM, PhD• Executive Director
For info, contact Carla Everett, information officer, at 1-800-550-8242, ext. 710,
or [email protected]
For Immediate Release--
Feed Contamination Issue Resolved by FDA
Although many of you may have heard the latest regarding the resolution of the cattle feed
contamination situation in Texas, I wanted to ensure that you received this statement issued
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency in charge of regulating feed
components. The FDA has said the cattle involved are to be rendered and the material will not
enter ruminant or human food channels. The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) will
provided assistance to the FDA as requested and needed.
FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT
Today (Tuesday, Jan. the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken
on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from
other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in
feed for other ruminants. Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was
found in the feed fed to cattle.
FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total,
five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These
animals weigh approximately 600 pounds.
It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely
to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very
low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly
low, even if the feed were contaminated.
According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The
challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One
important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other
ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent
a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."
Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily
purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed
containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the
human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the
prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply
clearance process as usual.
FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error
that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working
closely with State and Federal authorities.
This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for
protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to
ensure these rules are followed routinely.
FDA will continue working with USDA as well as state and local officials to ensure that
companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S.
food supply.
---30--
http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/pr/2001/101FEED_ISSUE_RESOLVED.pdf
for Pete's sake, do you know how many millions and millions of pounds of these same type banned mad cow material have reached commerce and fed out since this what i call 'token gimmie' recall in 2001 from purina. when all this products is put out into commerce, how much do you think they really ever get back, compared to what is fed out in commerce $$$
in this one mad cow feed recall alone in 2007, please answer that question ;
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. MBM IN COMMERCE USA
2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried,
Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was
cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been
manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE
statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL
Prot-Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal,
TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY
Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST
POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI – 8# SPECIAL
DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J – PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK
CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC
MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY,
A-BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with
commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm
initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross
contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not
bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html
2006 was also a banner year for suspect 'banned' mad cow protein reaching commerce and fed out.
HOW much of this was ever returned ???
everyone's worried about Canada products, but yet were still feeding out PrPsc to commerce.
and this bone-headed move here ;
Once the cow was rendered, it was too late to test for BSE, officials said. But the FDA said it was informing the rendering company that "FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE."
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/other/bse/news/may0504fda.html
but then to feed the pigs back to cows, this is not logical. ......
Opinion (webmaster): This whole thing was a carefully orchestrated media pseudo-event that blew up in their faces -- a lot of Americans will go to their graves believing 1,221 innocent cattle in Texas contracted BSE, whereas the point of the contrived exercise was only to force broader compliance with the existing ruminant to ruminant feed ban.
All day hush-hush secrecy about a unit of the nation's largest producer and marketer of livestock feed, despite it being prominently named on the front page of the Wall St. Journal on 26 Jan 01 in a 13 paragraph article. The feed supplement was supposedly "put on the wrong truck" according to Beverly Boyd, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Agriculture.
In the webmaster's opinion, it was put on the right truck all right, and at just the right time too. The nation's largest feed manufacturer does not shoot itself in the foot to self-report a trivial feed incident to the nation's laziest regulatory agency in an ambient atmosphere of public BSE hysteria without a carefully considered agenda.
The FDA is stated to have quarantined 1,221 cattle with a date of effect that the agency refused to specify to WSJ reporters, conceivably indicative of a delayed response that may have meant some fed-cattle couldn't be tracked or even went off to market (which would have zero significance given the miniscule incubation time frame and zero evidence for the feed carrying BSE in the first place).
Take your pick:
"Purina Mills said Thursday it has decided to stop using ruminant byproducts in any of its livestock products."
"As of Friday, Purina Mills no longer includes cow byproducts in any of the feed it manufactures."
"A Purina Mills spokesman said Friday the company had begun phasing out the use of meat [meal?] and bone meal from cows in any of its livestock feed."
This is progress but still a half-measure. Poultry and pigs could still be used in cattle and pig feed. If a TSE amplification cycle got going in pigs (which would be clinically invisible given the short time to market and lack of testing), cattle remain at risk. Are cattle blood, gelatin, milk, fat, tallow, tankage, etc ruminant byproducts or not included because they are products in their own right?
"If it swims, crawls, walks, or flies, we feed it" -- that is Purina Mills' motto. This event was to be a textbook case of cross-contamination at the mill. The ruminant byproduct (sheep or cow not specified) could legally be used for pig and poultry feed, which the mill also produced. The feed was technically adulterated under FDA rules, thus the cattle become adulterated under the FFDCA, and so on its face the company and FDA did the right thing.
Max Fisher, a spokesman for St. Louis-based Purina Mills, the nation's largest maker of livestock feed, said "This (quarantine) just happened to be a matter of timing. But as of last night, we are no longer using it. It's a voluntary move on our behalf and takes us down to a zero risk factor for a misformulation in the future.''
In other words, by great good fortune, at the time of the incident they not only had alternative formulations worked out and extensively tested across their entire product line, but also had adequate stockpiles of alternative ingredients on hand and under contract that allowed for a seamless switch at production lines at their 49 different facilities.
There is no reason to worry about these particular cattle in any event given the overall levels of non-compliance FDA admitted to over the last couple years. Yet they will probably end up being incinerated, as part of a big show to impress Europeans.
It was then announced that the cattlemen, FDA, and USDA are having a "private" meeting on Monday 29 Jan 01 in DC, that consumer groups and press are not allowed to attend, at which feed issues will be discussed. NCBA has made no secret of its laudable goal of cracking down on risk associated with the ineffectual implementation of the ruminant feed ban disclosed a couple of weeks back in the NY Times.
We are supposed to believe these developments are unrelated? On the contrary, the event appears to have been staged in advance of Monday's meeting as a way of forcing non-compliant elements of feed industry into an actual ruminant to ruminant feed ban.
This outcome should not be confused with segregated facilities whereby a particular mill might accept feed source material unsuitable for cattle feed (sheep, cows, downers, cervids, roadkill?) while producing solely poultry and pig feed, ruling out cross-contamination at least at the mill level. This still allows for re-labelled or ignored-label feed bags to be used to feed cattle.
Purina Mills is going far beyond this: no ruminant byproduct in any feed product is going to be used, not even in their pig and chicken feed. On its face, this is going way beyond a MBM or specified offal ban to a European-style comprehensive ban (except pigs and chickens can still go to cattle feed; cattle blood may or may not be a ruminant byproduct).
What becomes then of the mountain of ruminant byproduct from 35,000,000 annually slaughtered cattle alone, used up to yesterday for pig and poultry feed?
Nobody is talking here about incineration. Is the public to take up the slack by tripling their consumption of hot dogs and face cream?
And exactly whose ox is being gored? -- that mountain of ruminant byproduct will be going into products of lesser value than feed (if greater value existed, they wouldn't have been going to pig and poultry feed in the first place).
And what are the pigs and poultry going to eat? Something more expensive, because if something cheaper had been available they would have been eating it already. Now corn and soybeans would be already contracted up as cattle have largely been off ruminant (though not necessarily chicken and pig) for some time, plus the added demand recently from Europe.
Now it all starts to make sense: cattle producers reassure Euro and Asian trading partners with an guaranteed effective BSE feed ban while at the same time their arch-enemies over in white meat scramble to find more expensive feed and reduced market share. Purina MIlls reduces its exposure to a catastrophic event, soybean growers love it, FDA's enforcement chore vaporizes, and for once, even consumers benefit.
The only missing piece is to find a high value market for the mountain of ruminant byproduct, but hey why not partner up offshore to make cattle feed for developing countries?
If this takes hold, BSE risk is going to be reduced in the US, which is all to the good. But if that risk is simply exported to a country with even less surveillence and no ruminant or specified offal ban, we get a net worsening of global BSE risk. It is just a repeat of Britain exporting BSE to 69 countries.
Will there still be one-stage amplification loopholes like cattle blood as milk replacer for calves, bovine byproducts that are not actually bovine byproducts, and cattle-based feeds that somehow are not feeds? Will two-stage amplification risks, like pig to pig to cattle, still be permitted with zero Prionics surveillance?
[The company emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy on 29 June 00; its relation to the more familiar Ralston Purina, now being taken over by the Swiss-based Nestle (Iowa Beef Packer is being taken over by a huge chicken producer), is a bit baffling:
"Purina Mills is America's largest producer and marketer of animal nutrition products. Based in St. Louis, Missouri, the company has 49 plants and approximately 2,500 employees nationwide. Purina Mills is permitted to use the trademarks "Purina" and the nine-square Checkerboard logo under a perpetual, royalty-free license agreement from Ralston Purina Company. Purina Mills is not affiliated with Ralston Purina Company, which distributes Purina Dog Chow brand and Purina Cat Chow brand pet foods."]
http://www.mad-cow.org/00/jan01_late.html
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995
snip...
To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed
compounders.
To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through adverse publicity.
To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by
maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw
material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any
changes which may be required.
snip...
THE FUTURE
4..........
MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at
handling potentially explosive issues.
5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which
contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive
test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly
supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible.
6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed
compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct
linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases,
the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ...
SEE full text ;
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf
give me a friggen break. _.. . / .. -. - / --.- -.-. / -.- / - ... ...
and that my friends, in the end, is what it is all about $$$, nothing more, nothing less. ...
TSS
A
Anonymous
Guest
flounder--nothing over 30 months-- I believe it was actually 20 months entered the food chain.....The majority of the cattle did not go to slaughter-but they satisfied themselves that if any had- they were young cattle in which the disease has not been shown to manifest itself....
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Do we know that an infected 20 month old animal will not spread the disease?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandhusker said:
Well they don't according to USDA's "science"- but since all BSE "science" is made up of theory-- who knows :???:
Actually USDA says UTM is under 30 month--where a big part of the world still recognizes 20 months....Just still more of the "unscientific unknown science" associated with BSE.......
RobertMac
Well-known member
Question, mrj....how many consumers will stop eating beef if the industry banned the use of added hormones?
RobertMac, while it doesn't suit your agenda, the real question should be how much LESS lean beef, which consumers prefer, will be available?
Th MAJOR reason for implants is to produce more pounds of LEAN beef.
Of course, that doesn't fit your mantra of "eat all the beef fat you can", either.
The use of implants has meant an extra 20 pounds or more per calf to many cattle producers. That can be the difference between profit and loss.
You benefit by being able to charge more for your beef that is not implanted. What is it to you whether the majority of producers who are not in your enviable position use implants, which may or may not be hormones, and which do not leave "residues" in the beef?
If you are right, the market will drive the end of hormone use, rather than yet another government mandate being forced on the industry.
Your statement that people using modern, scientifically developed pharmaceuticals and feed rations do so because they do not care about quality is off base, at best. IF anyone feels that way, they won't remain long in business. Many who use implants, etc. do so to GAIN quality, that is more LEAN beef with less wasteful fat.
You have your agenda to sell your grass fed beef. Others are doing what they believe is best, too. Cutting costs is not evil! The jury of public opinion still is choosing lean beef over heavily marbled beef. Heavier animals are harvested at a younger age, therefore marbling is not such an issue for higher end SElect and mid to low Choice grades. That makes lower cost beef available to MORE consumers. There is a better market for the high Choice and Prime beef. Different Strokes for Different Folks. A broader product line for more people. Are we selling all the beef we produce, or not?
Your complaint of driving cattle producers out of business has more than one cause, as you well know. With modern equipment, one rancher can care for far more cattle than ever before. That and social choices have something to do with having fewer farmers today than 50 years ago. I do not discount financial reasons, but consider ALL the reasons, while you focus on the conspiracy of the big, bad corporations forcing us out of business as the only reason, judging by your posts.
Consumers have lots of reasons to buy beef.......they want it, and they choose it as often as they can.......and their pocketbooks have been the major limiting factor, IMO.
mrj
OT & Sandhusker, how can the "science" of BSE be anything OTHER than theory?? Exactly how long has the condition been known and studied? If, as some on this site claim, the incubation period can be up to 40 years, isn't it reasonable that there is little verifiable and certain "science" available.
Th MAJOR reason for implants is to produce more pounds of LEAN beef.
Of course, that doesn't fit your mantra of "eat all the beef fat you can", either.
The use of implants has meant an extra 20 pounds or more per calf to many cattle producers. That can be the difference between profit and loss.
You benefit by being able to charge more for your beef that is not implanted. What is it to you whether the majority of producers who are not in your enviable position use implants, which may or may not be hormones, and which do not leave "residues" in the beef?
If you are right, the market will drive the end of hormone use, rather than yet another government mandate being forced on the industry.
Your statement that people using modern, scientifically developed pharmaceuticals and feed rations do so because they do not care about quality is off base, at best. IF anyone feels that way, they won't remain long in business. Many who use implants, etc. do so to GAIN quality, that is more LEAN beef with less wasteful fat.
You have your agenda to sell your grass fed beef. Others are doing what they believe is best, too. Cutting costs is not evil! The jury of public opinion still is choosing lean beef over heavily marbled beef. Heavier animals are harvested at a younger age, therefore marbling is not such an issue for higher end SElect and mid to low Choice grades. That makes lower cost beef available to MORE consumers. There is a better market for the high Choice and Prime beef. Different Strokes for Different Folks. A broader product line for more people. Are we selling all the beef we produce, or not?
Your complaint of driving cattle producers out of business has more than one cause, as you well know. With modern equipment, one rancher can care for far more cattle than ever before. That and social choices have something to do with having fewer farmers today than 50 years ago. I do not discount financial reasons, but consider ALL the reasons, while you focus on the conspiracy of the big, bad corporations forcing us out of business as the only reason, judging by your posts.
Consumers have lots of reasons to buy beef.......they want it, and they choose it as often as they can.......and their pocketbooks have been the major limiting factor, IMO.
mrj
OT & Sandhusker, how can the "science" of BSE be anything OTHER than theory?? Exactly how long has the condition been known and studied? If, as some on this site claim, the incubation period can be up to 40 years, isn't it reasonable that there is little verifiable and certain "science" available.
A
Anonymous
Guest
But you and your Packer bought out followers at the leadership of NCBA lobbied with the Packers to get the USDA to change the long standing, well researched, world accepted, USDA TSE/BSE protection rules- that used the long standing proven practice of quarantine - to allow in questionable beef from BSE countries- so the Packers could profiteer- when their had been no new scientific changes to this little verifiable or certain science available :???:
And they are still lobbying along with the Packers to keep the US consumers from being allowed to know what country that piece of meat they want to buy for their family and kids comes from- even knowing that some is being imported from higher risk BSE countries....
And they are supporting their Packer buddies by lobbying against the small packers (like Creekstone) from being able to test and market tested beef- so that consumer can buy her kids "BSE tested Beef" giving them one more assurance of safety.....
Maxine--Can you actually sleep at night?
Ethanol byproduct in feed may boost E coli in cattle
Robert Roos News Editor
Jan 30, 2008 (CIDRAP News) – Recent studies suggest that an ethanol production byproduct that is widely fed to cattle may make cattle more likely to shed deadly Escherichia coli O157, possibly contributing to the surge in beef contamination cases in 2007.
The feed ingredient, called distillers' grain (DG), is what's left of corn or other grain after the starch in it is fermented into ethanol for fuel. Ethanol plants sell DG to cattle producers for feed. The material is cheaper than corn and other livestock feeds, helping cattle producers cope with high feed costs fueled by the ethanol boom, and yields valuable revenue for the ethanol plants, according to a recent report in the Des Moines Register.
But the growing use of DG as cattle feed may be contributing to E coli contamination in beef, recent studies suggest. In the latest study, published this month in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Kansas State University researchers found that cattle that were fed DG were more than twice as likely to shed E coli O157 in their feces, compared with cattle that didn't eat DG.
The latest findings about the effects of DG follow a spike in beef recalls due to E coli contamination. In 2007 there were 21 recalls, totaling a record 33.4 million pounds of beef, according to Laura Reiser, a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) spokeswoman in Washington, DC. In 2006 there were just eight recalls involving about 182,000 pounds, and 2005 saw five recalls totaling about 1.25 million pounds.
Concern bout the DG research findings has prompted the USDA to launch its own study. The agency is checking the E coli prevalence in manure from 300 cattle being fed a diet that includes DG and in manure from another 300 cattle whose feed is free of the material.
The study was launched last fall at the USDA's Roman L. Hruska Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Neb., and is to be finished by the end of this year. Feed given to the treatment herd in the study will be 40% distillers' grains, according to the Register report.
Study: Up to 9% of samples had E coli
In the Kansas State study, 379 yearling heifers were assigned to one of three diets, each of which consisted mainly of steam-flaked corn. The rest of the feed consisted of (1) 15% corn silage, (2) 15% corn silage and 25% DG, or (3) 5% corn silage and 25% DG. Fecal samples were collected and analyzed weekly for 12 weeks.
E coli O157 was found in 9.0% of the samples from the cattle that ate DG with 15% corn silage; the pathogen was found in 7.3% of samples from the group that ate DG with 5% corn silage. Both of these were significantly higher than the 3.6% prevalence in samples from the cattle that ate only corn and corn silage.
The findings agreed with results of a previous study from the same research team, according to the report. The earlier study also showed a higher E coli prevalence in heifers that were fed DG, but samples were collected and tested only twice during a 150-day feeding period, rather than weekly.
In the new study, the scientists also assessed the effect of DG on the growth of E coli in cultures of cattle stomach fluid and feces. Using a dozen steers that were fed diets with or without DG, the scientists took samples of stomach (ruminal) fluid and feces, added E coli O157, and incubated them for 24 hours. The ruminal samples from the DG-fed steers were found to have higher levels of E coli after 24 hours than the samples from the non-DG-fed steers, but the fecal samples showed no difference.
In a further culture experiment, the researchers took ruminal and fecal samples from two steers, added varying amounts of DG to the samples, incubated them, and then measured the levels of E coli O157 after 24 hours. Results from the ruminal samples were inconsistent, as the smallest amounts of DG led to growth of the pathogen, whereas larger amounts did not. But in the fecal preparations, greater amounts of DG stimulated more growth of E coli O157. The authors concluded that the fermentation experiments "provided some evidence that DG may actually stimulate the growth of E. coli O157."
The authors said their findings have "potentially serious ramifications" because of the growing use of ethanol as a biofuel and of DG as a feed ingredient. "The utilization of distillers' by-products as components of feedlot diets may depend in part on our ability to devise feeding strategies that do not compromise the perceived safety of beef products," the report states.
USDA study could weigh heavily
Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, PhD, associate professor of food science and nutrition at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, said the methods and conclusions of the Kansas State researchers appear sound, but he cautioned that the findings should be seen as preliminary. It would be premature to conclude that the use of DG has contributed to recent E coli outbreaks and meat recalls, he told CIDRAP News.
"While the use of distiller's grains has become a very common practice in the Midwest where the bulk of the ethanol plants are located, we do not really know what type of diet the cattle that was the source of beef were fed for most of the [recent E coli] outbreaks," Diez-Gonzalez said. In the case of Topps Meat Co., which recalled 21 million pounds of beef last year, the beef trims used in ground beef were imported from a company in Alberta, he pointed out.
In addition, he said, "There is a possibility that the combination of distiller's grains with steam-flaked corn may have caused the observed increase in prevalence and counts." This would limit the scope of the findings, because steam-flaked corn is not commonly used as cattle feed in the Upper Midwest, where cracked corn is more common, he commented.
Mentioning the USDA study in Nebraska, Diez-Gonzaleza added, "Let's wait for their findings."
Implications for ethanol industry
The possible link between DG and E coli levels may also have implications for the future of the ethanol industry. A 2006 study in Minnesota suggested that without the use of DG for animal feed, the benefits of ethanol production would be seriously undermined. The study was reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers conducted a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of ethanol production from corn and biodiesel production from soybeans. They determined that ethanol from corn yields 25% more energy than is required to produce it. However, this positive energy balance was attributed almost entirely to an energy credit for the DG yielded by ethanol production. The energy credit was given because the DG offsets the production of other commodities such as corn and soybean meal, the report said.
Even if further research confirms a connection between DG and E coli in cattle, the USDA is unlikely to halt the use of DG in feed. According to the Des Moines Register story, Richard Raymond, the USDA's under secretary for food safety, said the agency had no intention of restricting the use of DG. He said it would be up to the industry to decide how to deal with the problem.
Jacob ME, Fox JT, Drouillard JS, et al. Effects of dried distillers' grain on fecal prevalence and growth of Escherichia coli O157 in batch culture fementations from cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008 Jan;74(1):38-43 [Full text]
See also:
Brief description of USDA research project on the effects of DG on E coli O157 in feedlot cattle
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?accn_no=412678
July 2006 PNAS study of the costs and benefits of ethanol and biodiesel production
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/30/11206
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/jan3008grain.html
when the dumb get dumber, God works in mysteries ways. ...
TSS
Robert Roos News Editor
Jan 30, 2008 (CIDRAP News) – Recent studies suggest that an ethanol production byproduct that is widely fed to cattle may make cattle more likely to shed deadly Escherichia coli O157, possibly contributing to the surge in beef contamination cases in 2007.
The feed ingredient, called distillers' grain (DG), is what's left of corn or other grain after the starch in it is fermented into ethanol for fuel. Ethanol plants sell DG to cattle producers for feed. The material is cheaper than corn and other livestock feeds, helping cattle producers cope with high feed costs fueled by the ethanol boom, and yields valuable revenue for the ethanol plants, according to a recent report in the Des Moines Register.
But the growing use of DG as cattle feed may be contributing to E coli contamination in beef, recent studies suggest. In the latest study, published this month in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Kansas State University researchers found that cattle that were fed DG were more than twice as likely to shed E coli O157 in their feces, compared with cattle that didn't eat DG.
The latest findings about the effects of DG follow a spike in beef recalls due to E coli contamination. In 2007 there were 21 recalls, totaling a record 33.4 million pounds of beef, according to Laura Reiser, a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) spokeswoman in Washington, DC. In 2006 there were just eight recalls involving about 182,000 pounds, and 2005 saw five recalls totaling about 1.25 million pounds.
Concern bout the DG research findings has prompted the USDA to launch its own study. The agency is checking the E coli prevalence in manure from 300 cattle being fed a diet that includes DG and in manure from another 300 cattle whose feed is free of the material.
The study was launched last fall at the USDA's Roman L. Hruska Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Neb., and is to be finished by the end of this year. Feed given to the treatment herd in the study will be 40% distillers' grains, according to the Register report.
Study: Up to 9% of samples had E coli
In the Kansas State study, 379 yearling heifers were assigned to one of three diets, each of which consisted mainly of steam-flaked corn. The rest of the feed consisted of (1) 15% corn silage, (2) 15% corn silage and 25% DG, or (3) 5% corn silage and 25% DG. Fecal samples were collected and analyzed weekly for 12 weeks.
E coli O157 was found in 9.0% of the samples from the cattle that ate DG with 15% corn silage; the pathogen was found in 7.3% of samples from the group that ate DG with 5% corn silage. Both of these were significantly higher than the 3.6% prevalence in samples from the cattle that ate only corn and corn silage.
The findings agreed with results of a previous study from the same research team, according to the report. The earlier study also showed a higher E coli prevalence in heifers that were fed DG, but samples were collected and tested only twice during a 150-day feeding period, rather than weekly.
In the new study, the scientists also assessed the effect of DG on the growth of E coli in cultures of cattle stomach fluid and feces. Using a dozen steers that were fed diets with or without DG, the scientists took samples of stomach (ruminal) fluid and feces, added E coli O157, and incubated them for 24 hours. The ruminal samples from the DG-fed steers were found to have higher levels of E coli after 24 hours than the samples from the non-DG-fed steers, but the fecal samples showed no difference.
In a further culture experiment, the researchers took ruminal and fecal samples from two steers, added varying amounts of DG to the samples, incubated them, and then measured the levels of E coli O157 after 24 hours. Results from the ruminal samples were inconsistent, as the smallest amounts of DG led to growth of the pathogen, whereas larger amounts did not. But in the fecal preparations, greater amounts of DG stimulated more growth of E coli O157. The authors concluded that the fermentation experiments "provided some evidence that DG may actually stimulate the growth of E. coli O157."
The authors said their findings have "potentially serious ramifications" because of the growing use of ethanol as a biofuel and of DG as a feed ingredient. "The utilization of distillers' by-products as components of feedlot diets may depend in part on our ability to devise feeding strategies that do not compromise the perceived safety of beef products," the report states.
USDA study could weigh heavily
Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, PhD, associate professor of food science and nutrition at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, said the methods and conclusions of the Kansas State researchers appear sound, but he cautioned that the findings should be seen as preliminary. It would be premature to conclude that the use of DG has contributed to recent E coli outbreaks and meat recalls, he told CIDRAP News.
"While the use of distiller's grains has become a very common practice in the Midwest where the bulk of the ethanol plants are located, we do not really know what type of diet the cattle that was the source of beef were fed for most of the [recent E coli] outbreaks," Diez-Gonzalez said. In the case of Topps Meat Co., which recalled 21 million pounds of beef last year, the beef trims used in ground beef were imported from a company in Alberta, he pointed out.
In addition, he said, "There is a possibility that the combination of distiller's grains with steam-flaked corn may have caused the observed increase in prevalence and counts." This would limit the scope of the findings, because steam-flaked corn is not commonly used as cattle feed in the Upper Midwest, where cracked corn is more common, he commented.
Mentioning the USDA study in Nebraska, Diez-Gonzaleza added, "Let's wait for their findings."
Implications for ethanol industry
The possible link between DG and E coli levels may also have implications for the future of the ethanol industry. A 2006 study in Minnesota suggested that without the use of DG for animal feed, the benefits of ethanol production would be seriously undermined. The study was reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers conducted a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of ethanol production from corn and biodiesel production from soybeans. They determined that ethanol from corn yields 25% more energy than is required to produce it. However, this positive energy balance was attributed almost entirely to an energy credit for the DG yielded by ethanol production. The energy credit was given because the DG offsets the production of other commodities such as corn and soybean meal, the report said.
Even if further research confirms a connection between DG and E coli in cattle, the USDA is unlikely to halt the use of DG in feed. According to the Des Moines Register story, Richard Raymond, the USDA's under secretary for food safety, said the agency had no intention of restricting the use of DG. He said it would be up to the industry to decide how to deal with the problem.
Jacob ME, Fox JT, Drouillard JS, et al. Effects of dried distillers' grain on fecal prevalence and growth of Escherichia coli O157 in batch culture fementations from cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008 Jan;74(1):38-43 [Full text]
See also:
Brief description of USDA research project on the effects of DG on E coli O157 in feedlot cattle
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?accn_no=412678
July 2006 PNAS study of the costs and benefits of ethanol and biodiesel production
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/30/11206
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/jan3008grain.html
when the dumb get dumber, God works in mysteries ways. ...
TSS
RobertMac
Well-known member
mrj, if I had an agenda to benefit my situation, I would be supporting everything you say because your attitude is what is drivning customers to me.
Quality, defined by the industry, is Prime and Choice, not Select and Standard...the use of hormone implants has resulted in less carcasses grading Prime and Choice.
My point is that if the industry(not by government mandate) stopped using hormone implants, there would be no one that would stop eating beef for that reason. But there would be many more consumers that would start eating beef again...that is expanding our market!!!! Same would happen for BSE testing and limiting the use of antibiotics. We need to be doing things to encourage people to eat beef, not defending the things that are driving people away from eating beef!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, I agree with you on hormone implant use...any residue that may be in the meat will only effect a microscopic percent of the population...if that!!! But the lack of acceptance of our product because of its use is largely responsible for the tight profit margins that forces producers and feeders to believe they need to use them. A growing market is the best solution for profitability!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quality, defined by the industry, is Prime and Choice, not Select and Standard...the use of hormone implants has resulted in less carcasses grading Prime and Choice.
My point is that if the industry(not by government mandate) stopped using hormone implants, there would be no one that would stop eating beef for that reason. But there would be many more consumers that would start eating beef again...that is expanding our market!!!! Same would happen for BSE testing and limiting the use of antibiotics. We need to be doing things to encourage people to eat beef, not defending the things that are driving people away from eating beef!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, I agree with you on hormone implant use...any residue that may be in the meat will only effect a microscopic percent of the population...if that!!! But the lack of acceptance of our product because of its use is largely responsible for the tight profit margins that forces producers and feeders to believe they need to use them. A growing market is the best solution for profitability!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And my point is that there are market niches for MANY qualites, types, and grades of beef WITHOUT claiming the beef other people choose to sell is bad for them.
I'm well aware of the quality grades........and of the fact that there isn't enough of the highest quality beef produced. That is why it can be sold for huge prices, isn't it?
BTW, is implanting the ONLY reason there are fewer carcasses grading Prime and Choice? Isn't it a fact that some of the continental breeds, among others, do not easily grade choice, if at all, or at least without making the carcass too large?
It also is not what MOST consumers want to eat every day. Are you very sure it is implants, antibiotics, etc. that are the major reason people are not eating pounds of beef every day?
Or, could it be, number one, the price, and closely behind, the fears of the problems some of you would rather accuse packers of than help to clean up? After all, choice in the market place DOES exist and is growing and should be the driving force after product safety.
OT,you wouldn't admit truth from a lie if it was capable of biting your butt. You CHOOSE to believe your spin and manipulations rather than face the fact that you might be wrong.
There was a good, seamless North American beef trade before BSE, and there will be again when all of you who are using it for your own political agenda wear out.
How can YOU sleep at night, considering that some of you supporting BSE testing claim there is a very long incubation period, and that the tests have not yet been in existence long enough to prove that they work if that incubation period is factual????
Jealousy of NCBA successes driving your nastiness on this site is NOT flattering to you!!!
mrj
I'm well aware of the quality grades........and of the fact that there isn't enough of the highest quality beef produced. That is why it can be sold for huge prices, isn't it?
BTW, is implanting the ONLY reason there are fewer carcasses grading Prime and Choice? Isn't it a fact that some of the continental breeds, among others, do not easily grade choice, if at all, or at least without making the carcass too large?
It also is not what MOST consumers want to eat every day. Are you very sure it is implants, antibiotics, etc. that are the major reason people are not eating pounds of beef every day?
Or, could it be, number one, the price, and closely behind, the fears of the problems some of you would rather accuse packers of than help to clean up? After all, choice in the market place DOES exist and is growing and should be the driving force after product safety.
OT,you wouldn't admit truth from a lie if it was capable of biting your butt. You CHOOSE to believe your spin and manipulations rather than face the fact that you might be wrong.
There was a good, seamless North American beef trade before BSE, and there will be again when all of you who are using it for your own political agenda wear out.
How can YOU sleep at night, considering that some of you supporting BSE testing claim there is a very long incubation period, and that the tests have not yet been in existence long enough to prove that they work if that incubation period is factual????
Jealousy of NCBA successes driving your nastiness on this site is NOT flattering to you!!!
mrj
Sandhusker
Well-known member
MRJ, "Jealousy of NCBA successes driving your nastiness on this site is NOT flattering to you!!! "
What NCBA successes?
What NCBA successes?
RobertMac
Well-known member
If I'm not mistaken, there is research backing the fact that implants reduce marbling.mrj said:
So continental breeds are the problem????? How about this...back when beef had 60% market share of the protein market, Herefords were the vast majority of the USA cattle herd. Using your twisted logic, the increased use of Angus cattle is responsible for the loss of market share!!!!!!!
We began losing customers and market share when saturated fats were blamed for heart disease and red meat(beef) was blamed for saturated fats. When doctors and the government tells consumers to stop eating beef or they will have a heart attack, they stop eating beef. Confront those lies and change the consumers mis-perception about beef, then we will have a chance to regain market share.
Tell that to McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King!!!!mrj said:
I'm sure it is the bad propaganda about implants, antibiotics, etc. and saturated fats that have caused the loss in market share.mrj said:
The price of beef has always been higher that chicken and pork...that excuse is packer propaganda so they can justify paying less for your cattle.mrj said:
Packers are responsible for the safety of our product after it leaves our ranches and feedlots...damned right they should be held responsible and every recall hurts demand!
mrj said:
" 'This isn't a niche market full of environmental health nuts and affluent yuppies anymore.'--Marcia Mogelonsky, senior research analyst at Mintel, discussing new Mintel research that shows organic food sales have grown 132% since 2002."--Meatingplace magazine.
Proof that consumers will buy and pay more for beef if they perceive it to be safe and healthful. Refusal to make changes to reach that end is what is holding back the beef industry!!!!!!! None of us selling directly to the public are having a problem selling our beef. Wake up!!!!!
RobertMac, how much Prime Beef does McDonalds, wendy's, and Burger king buy? High Choice and Prime was the focus of that point in my previous post.
Packers are responsible for cattle CARRYING e coli being sent to them???? I don't think so! And, very likely, refusing to accept such carriers is the ONLY way they can guarantee no e coli infected beef will come out of their plant, at this point in time/knowlege of keeping it out of beef.
Do you know absolutely and guarantee there is NO e coli in YOUR cattle???
mrj
Packers are responsible for cattle CARRYING e coli being sent to them???? I don't think so! And, very likely, refusing to accept such carriers is the ONLY way they can guarantee no e coli infected beef will come out of their plant, at this point in time/knowlege of keeping it out of beef.
Do you know absolutely and guarantee there is NO e coli in YOUR cattle???
mrj
RobertMac, how much Prime Beef does McDonalds, wendy's, and Burger king buy? High Choice and Prime was the focus of that point in my previous post.
Packers are responsible for cattle CARRYING e coli being sent to them???? I don't think so! And, very likely, refusing to accept such carriers is the ONLY way they can guarantee no e coli infected beef will come out of their plant, at this point in time/knowlege of keeping it out of beef.
Do you know absolutely and guarantee there is NO e coli in YOUR cattle???
mrj
Packers are responsible for cattle CARRYING e coli being sent to them???? I don't think so! And, very likely, refusing to accept such carriers is the ONLY way they can guarantee no e coli infected beef will come out of their plant, at this point in time/knowlege of keeping it out of beef.
Do you know absolutely and guarantee there is NO e coli in YOUR cattle???
mrj
cutterone
Well-known member
Ok I'm going to ask a novice (as we have never used implants) question. What are the hormones used in implants?
And how would the use of them compare to hormone treatment or birth control products on women?
My dear wife says I need to clarify where i'm going with this.
I see where there may be a corolation with the overuse of antibiotics and imunity link to them with humans but what would be the corolation and affects be in use of implants be compared to direct hormone use by humans such as in birth control or other hormone treatment. It would appear to me that direct use would be more significant.
And how would the use of them compare to hormone treatment or birth control products on women?
My dear wife says I need to clarify where i'm going with this.
I see where there may be a corolation with the overuse of antibiotics and imunity link to them with humans but what would be the corolation and affects be in use of implants be compared to direct hormone use by humans such as in birth control or other hormone treatment. It would appear to me that direct use would be more significant.
RobertMac
Well-known member
mrj said:
