Is a "Prime" Burger Really Better?

After a long week in Denver and before another long week in San Diego, the Ninja and I ate at Ruby Tuesday this past Sunday before he ran off to another pork industry event. During my decision, which took awhile because the RT menu is long and complex, I saw the header by the burger section "We serve U.S.D.A. Prime burgers." Interesting.

Initially, that sounds great, right?! Who wouldn't want a Prime burger? The United States Department of Agriculture defines Prime beef as:

"...beef that has abundant marbling (the amount of fat interspersed with lean meat), and is generally sold in restaurants and hotels. Prime roasts and steaks are excellent for dry-heat cooking such as broiling, roasting or grilling."

For reference, this is a photo of a Prime steak compared to Choice and Select. USDA quality grades are assigned to a beef carcass based on the amount of marbling, or intramuscular fat, that is within the meat. Marbling contributes to both flavor and tenderness which is extremely evident to anyone who has ever eaten a high Choice or Prime ribeye.

Image courtesy USDA

Read more »

If Americans Weren't So Spoiled, We'd Appreciate Horse Meat

image from here

 

We're spoiled. You're spoiled. I'm spoiled - Americans in general are spoiled. No, this isn't a political rant. Those things don't belong on a blog and frankly, there are few very bloggers who are actually qualified to rage against "the man" without looking stupid.

Americans are spoiled by our endless food choices and although it's great to live in a country with abundant, cheap food it has definitely spawned some spoiled, whiny folks who want all people to eat the same way.

Except no two people have the same dietary requirements, restrictions, desires or tastes. Additionally, no two people have the same income restraints that play a massive role in the quality, quantity and type of food that ends up in the refrigerator. There are folks like the Ninja who will eat pretty much anything (except cottage cheese) and then there are folks like me who like meat, carbs, meat, dairy, meat and fruit [and meat]. It's asinine to try to force us to eat the same things because I would starve and he would inflate like a balloon from eating all the things I didn't want.

I previously blogged that this restaurant in Philadelphia was going to be serving horsemeat on its menu. However, the chef/owner recently decided to take horsemeat off the menu because he was receiving death threats. Why is it ok to threaten to kill humans over animal lives? I will never understand how folks can have so much hate built up against others.

Furthermore, regardless of the fact that Valley Meat Company in Roswell, New Mexico, has met all the requirements for federal inspection and have been given the "everything is OK" checkmark, the USDA still hasn't sent an inspector to the plant. Why are so many people dragging their feet? This is an opportunity to jumpstart the economy in Roswell and improve the welfare of unwanted horses.

I've already listed the advantages of horse slaughter but if you don't want to go back and read my previous posts on the topic, I've written them again below:

1. Job creation - The plant would create approximately 100 jobs for Roswell area residents and during an economic recession when so many folks are wishing for a decent job - voila! Reopening plants will increase the number of jobs and boost local economies.

2. Exports - the U.S. slaughtered 94,000 horses in 2005, the last full year of horse slaughter before federal inspection funding was repealed in 2007. Without a slaughter plant in the U.S., more than 197,000 horses were exported to other North American countries last year for slaughter. That's double the number from 2007 slaughter exports. What does that mean?

3. Animal Welfare - It means thousands of horses have endured excruciatingly long drives to Canada or Mexico on trains or trucks that aren't exactly the most welfare-friendly. Opening a slaughter plant in the U.S. would prevent thousands of horses from being improperly transported across U.S. borders.

4. Horse meat is a delicacy - maybe not to you or I, but in several other countries around the world horse meat is consumed quite often and is a staple in many diets. The U.S. is missing out on valuable export dollars by not opening horse slaughter plants. For example, between January and November of 2012, the UK imported ~$80,000 worth of horsemeat into the UK. That doesn't include the rest of the EU, Japan, China or the Asia-Pacific region. In short, this could provide a boost to the total agriculture GDP. Every little bit helps right?

Growing up, our parents told us to mind our own business if said business didn't affect us. I believe the same rules apply to those who are opposed to horse slaughter, but will never eat horse meat, own a horse or have a stake in the industry and are simply chiming in because they think eating horsemeat is wrong. If the horsemeat is just to be exported to other countries, why invest so much time and pure hatred towards those trying to improve the local economy, welfare of horses and provide more protein to a hungry world.

I deeply care about not only my own horses, but about every other horse in the U.S. I am a lifelong horse owner and will fight for measures that improve the welfare of those animals who are unwanted.

So again, I ask you - what do you think? Weigh in below.

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

It's All in the Details: USDA/FSIS Meat Inspectors

 

Will there be a meat shortage?

Some details shedding light on how the sequester will affect the meat industry have been reported. In various articles this morning, Agriculture Undersecretary Elizabeth Hagen outlines how the furloughs will be implemented and during what time frame. You can read the two of the articles I read for the full story but here are the highlights:

As detailed by The Hagstrom Report, Hagen also told the committee that:

• 11 furlough days, scheduled from July to Sept. 20, will be for no more than one day a week and no more than two days per pay period.
• FSIS has decided the fairest plan for the nation’s meat industry is a uniform national schedule.
• FSIS will likely take a total cut of $52.8 million or 5 percent of its budget.
• Furloughs will be required of all 9,212 employees of the FSIS, including 8,136 meat inspectors and others on the front line such as lab technicians.

 Let's all breathe a collective sigh of relief that the days aren't consecutive and it's only 11 days and not more. Although, this article states that since some inspectors will be forced to take the same days off, there is still the possibility of shutting down the U.S. meat industry on those dates. But let's hope it doesn't get that bad.

Just as a refresher, this furlough is significant because meat plants CANNOT operate without federal inspectors present. It's illegal and would be a serious threat to food safety. For more info on how exactly federal inspectors regulate meat plant operations, you can read this about the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

What do you think of the decision handed down?

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

USDA Sequestration is Inevitable - Meat Plants Will Shut Down

 

Picking up from where we left off on my last post about sequestration and the meat industry, this came across my newsfeed this morning. 

"USDA Says Meat Plant Shutdowns Inevitable in Budget Cuts

USDA says meat plant shutdowns inevitable in budget cuts

- See more at: http://www.dairyherd.com/e-newsletters/dairy-daily/USDA-says-meat-plant-shutdowns-inevitable-in-budget-cuts-193448121.html#sthash.Fi01bgfW.dpuf

U.S. meat packers and processors face short-term shutdowns because of impending federal budget cuts but the administration will try to minimize the impact on the industry and consumers, the Agriculture Department said on Tuesday.

The automatic cuts, also called sequestration, are due to take effect on Friday because Congress and the White House are unable to agree on other ways to reduce the federal deficit. USDA says the cuts would force it to lay off its 8,400 meat inspectors for 15 days to produce the savings ordered for its food safety agency.

Early this month, the White House raised the prospect of a mass layoff, which would shutter the meat industry for two weeks. Plants cannot operate without USDA inspectors.

A House subcommittee chairman, Texas Republican Michael Conaway, said on Tuesday that USDA might order furloughs on non-consecutive days to mitigate their effect and keep plants running.

"Specific furlough dates for (inspectors) have yet to be determined but there is no question sequestration will have an adverse effect on food inspection services," said USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe. "USDA is taking steps to minimize the impact of the furloughs on consumers, our employees and the meat industry."

Even so, there would be some shutdowns, USDA said, because there is no way to stretch the workforce to cover all plants while reducing outlays enough.

The administration estimates some $10 billion in production would be lost if inspectors were laid off en masse for two weeks, or their agency's share of cuts. Stores and restaurants could run short of meat temporarily.

The USDA did not respond to questions about how it would approach possible furloughs at its Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which among other things generates prices used as benchmarks for livestock futures at CME Group Inc. The USDA has not mentioned AMS in its comments about the sequester.

Conaway said the administration has not replied in writing to his request for information about meat inspections and the White House budget office "owes us an explanation." The budget office was the first to raise the prospect of a furlough of all 8,400 inspectors and a resultant meat industry shutdown.

Although the spending cuts are due to take effect on Friday, it could be weeks or months before the meat industry is directly affected. Meat inspectors are guaranteed at least 30 days' notice of a furlough.

"This is a direct prescription from Congress to reduce every line item," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last week.

Up to one-third of the USDA's 100,000 employees may be affected by furloughs. The USDA says the cuts would deny food aid to 600,000 pregnant women, new mothers and infants and also force closure of hundreds of Forest Service campgrounds, picnic areas and visitors' centers during the spring and summer."

So, according to this, USDA will do their best to space out the furloughs but it may not be completely possible to ensure that meat processing and packing will not shut down for at least a short while. This, obviously, will have a noticeable impact on supply and eventually price of meat in the grocery store, although it may not happen for quite some time.

Now that we have a bit more information on the topic - what are you thoughts? Upset with Congress and our White House leader for not being more responsible?

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

U.S. meat packers and processors face short-term shutdowns because of impending federal budget cuts but the administration will try to minimize the impact on the industry and consumers, the Agriculture Department said on Tuesday.
The automatic cuts, also called sequestration, are due to take effect on Friday because Congress and the White House are unable to agree on other ways to reduce the federal deficit. USDA says the cuts would force it to lay off its 8,400 meat inspectors for 15 days to produce the savings ordered for its food safety agency.
Early this month, the White House raised the prospect of a mass layoff, which would shutter the meat industry for two weeks. Plants cannot operate without USDA inspectors.
A House subcommittee chairman, Texas Republican Michael Conaway, said on Tuesday that USDA might order furloughs on non-consecutive days to mitigate their effect and keep plants running.
"Specific furlough dates for (inspectors) have yet to be determined but there is no question sequestration will have an adverse effect on food inspection services," said USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe. "USDA is taking steps to minimize the impact of the furloughs on consumers, our employees and the meat industry."
Even so, there would be some shutdowns, USDA said, because there is no way to stretch the workforce to cover all plants while reducing outlays enough.
The administration estimates some $10 billion in production would be lost if inspectors were laid off en masse for two weeks, or their agency's share of cuts. Stores and restaurants could run short of meat temporarily.
The USDA did not respond to questions about how it would approach possible furloughs at its Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which among other things generates prices used as benchmarks for livestock futures at CME Group Inc. The USDA has not mentioned AMS in its comments about the sequester.
Conaway said the administration has not replied in writing to his request for information about meat inspections and the White House budget office "owes us an explanation." The budget office was the first to raise the prospect of a furlough of all 8,400 inspectors and a resultant meat industry shutdown.
Although the spending cuts are due to take effect on Friday, it could be weeks or months before the meat industry is directly affected. Meat inspectors are guaranteed at least 30 days' notice of a furlough.
"This is a direct prescription from Congress to reduce every line item," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last week.
Up to one-third of the USDA's 100,000 employees may be affected by furloughs. The USDA says the cuts would deny food aid to 600,000 pregnant women, new mothers and infants and also force closure of hundreds of Forest Service campgrounds, picnic areas and visitors' centers during the spring and summer.
- See more at: http://www.dairyherd.com/e-newsletters/dairy-daily/USDA-says-meat-plant-shutdowns-inevitable-in-budget-cuts-193448121.html#sthash.Fi01bgfW.dpuf

U.S. meat packers and processors face short-term shutdowns because of impending federal budget cuts but the administration will try to minimize the impact on the industry and consumers, the Agriculture Department said on Tuesday.
The automatic cuts, also called sequestration, are due to take effect on Friday because Congress and the White House are unable to agree on other ways to reduce the federal deficit. USDA says the cuts would force it to lay off its 8,400 meat inspectors for 15 days to produce the savings ordered for its food safety agency.
Early this month, the White House raised the prospect of a mass layoff, which would shutter the meat industry for two weeks. Plants cannot operate without USDA inspectors.
A House subcommittee chairman, Texas Republican Michael Conaway, said on Tuesday that USDA might order furloughs on non-consecutive days to mitigate their effect and keep plants running.
"Specific furlough dates for (inspectors) have yet to be determined but there is no question sequestration will have an adverse effect on food inspection services," said USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe. "USDA is taking steps to minimize the impact of the furloughs on consumers, our employees and the meat industry."
Even so, there would be some shutdowns, USDA said, because there is no way to stretch the workforce to cover all plants while reducing outlays enough.
The administration estimates some $10 billion in production would be lost if inspectors were laid off en masse for two weeks, or their agency's share of cuts. Stores and restaurants could run short of meat temporarily.
The USDA did not respond to questions about how it would approach possible furloughs at its Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which among other things generates prices used as benchmarks for livestock futures at CME Group Inc. The USDA has not mentioned AMS in its comments about the sequester.
Conaway said the administration has not replied in writing to his request for information about meat inspections and the White House budget office "owes us an explanation." The budget office was the first to raise the prospect of a furlough of all 8,400 inspectors and a resultant meat industry shutdown.
Although the spending cuts are due to take effect on Friday, it could be weeks or months before the meat industry is directly affected. Meat inspectors are guaranteed at least 30 days' notice of a furlough.
"This is a direct prescription from Congress to reduce every line item," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last week.
Up to one-third of the USDA's 100,000 employees may be affected by furloughs. The USDA says the cuts would deny food aid to 600,000 pregnant women, new mothers and infants and also force closure of hundreds of Forest Service campgrounds, picnic areas and visitors' centers during the spring and summer.
- See more at: http://www.dairyherd.com/e-newsletters/dairy-daily/USDA-says-meat-plant-shutdowns-inevitable-in-budget-cuts-193448121.html#sthash.Fi01bgfW.dpuf

U.S. meat packers and processors face short-term shutdowns because of impending federal budget cuts but the administration will try to minimize the impact on the industry and consumers, the Agriculture Department said on Tuesday.
The automatic cuts, also called sequestration, are due to take effect on Friday because Congress and the White House are unable to agree on other ways to reduce the federal deficit. USDA says the cuts would force it to lay off its 8,400 meat inspectors for 15 days to produce the savings ordered for its food safety agency.
Early this month, the White House raised the prospect of a mass layoff, which would shutter the meat industry for two weeks. Plants cannot operate without USDA inspectors.
A House subcommittee chairman, Texas Republican Michael Conaway, said on Tuesday that USDA might order furloughs on non-consecutive days to mitigate their effect and keep plants running.
"Specific furlough dates for (inspectors) have yet to be determined but there is no question sequestration will have an adverse effect on food inspection services," said USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe. "USDA is taking steps to minimize the impact of the furloughs on consumers, our employees and the meat industry."
Even so, there would be some shutdowns, USDA said, because there is no way to stretch the workforce to cover all plants while reducing outlays enough.
The administration estimates some $10 billion in production would be lost if inspectors were laid off en masse for two weeks, or their agency's share of cuts. Stores and restaurants could run short of meat temporarily.
The USDA did not respond to questions about how it would approach possible furloughs at its Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which among other things generates prices used as benchmarks for livestock futures at CME Group Inc. The USDA has not mentioned AMS in its comments about the sequester.
Conaway said the administration has not replied in writing to his request for information about meat inspections and the White House budget office "owes us an explanation." The budget office was the first to raise the prospect of a furlough of all 8,400 inspectors and a resultant meat industry shutdown.
Although the spending cuts are due to take effect on Friday, it could be weeks or months before the meat industry is directly affected. Meat inspectors are guaranteed at least 30 days' notice of a furlough.
"This is a direct prescription from Congress to reduce every line item," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last week.
Up to one-third of the USDA's 100,000 employees may be affected by furloughs. The USDA says the cuts would deny food aid to 600,000 pregnant women, new mothers and infants and also force closure of hundreds of Forest Service campgrounds, picnic areas and visitors' centers during the spring and summer.
- See more at: http://www.dairyherd.com/e-newsletters/dairy-daily/USDA-says-meat-plant-shutdowns-inevitable-in-budget-cuts-193448121.html#sthash.Fi01bgfW.dpuf

U.S. meat packers and processors face short-term shutdowns because of impending federal budget cuts but the administration will try to minimize the impact on the industry and consumers, the Agriculture Department said on Tuesday.
The automatic cuts, also called sequestration, are due to take effect on Friday because Congress and the White House are unable to agree on other ways to reduce the federal deficit. USDA says the cuts would force it to lay off its 8,400 meat inspectors for 15 days to produce the savings ordered for its food safety agency.
Early this month, the White House raised the prospect of a mass layoff, which would shutter the meat industry for two weeks. Plants cannot operate without USDA inspectors.
A House subcommittee chairman, Texas Republican Michael Conaway, said on Tuesday that USDA might order furloughs on non-consecutive days to mitigate their effect and keep plants running.
"Specific furlough dates for (inspectors) have yet to be determined but there is no question sequestration will have an adverse effect on food inspection services," said USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe. "USDA is taking steps to minimize the impact of the furloughs on consumers, our employees and the meat industry."
Even so, there would be some shutdowns, USDA said, because there is no way to stretch the workforce to cover all plants while reducing outlays enough.
The administration estimates some $10 billion in production would be lost if inspectors were laid off en masse for two weeks, or their agency's share of cuts. Stores and restaurants could run short of meat temporarily.
The USDA did not respond to questions about how it would approach possible furloughs at its Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which among other things generates prices used as benchmarks for livestock futures at CME Group Inc. The USDA has not mentioned AMS in its comments about the sequester.
Conaway said the administration has not replied in writing to his request for information about meat inspections and the White House budget office "owes us an explanation." The budget office was the first to raise the prospect of a furlough of all 8,400 inspectors and a resultant meat industry shutdown.
Although the spending cuts are due to take effect on Friday, it could be weeks or months before the meat industry is directly affected. Meat inspectors are guaranteed at least 30 days' notice of a furlough.
"This is a direct prescription from Congress to reduce every line item," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last week.
Up to one-third of the USDA's 100,000 employees may be affected by furloughs. The USDA says the cuts would deny food aid to 600,000 pregnant women, new mothers and infants and also force closure of hundreds of Forest Service campgrounds, picnic areas and visitors' centers during the spring and summer.
- See more at: http://www.dairyherd.com/e-newsletters/dairy-daily/USDA-says-meat-plant-shutdowns-inevitable-in-budget-cuts-193448121.html#sthash.Fi01bgfW.dpuf

U.S. meat packers and processors face short-term shutdowns because of impending federal budget cuts but the administration will try to minimize the impact on the industry and consumers, the Agriculture Department said on Tuesday.
The automatic cuts, also called sequestration, are due to take effect on Friday because Congress and the White House are unable to agree on other ways to reduce the federal deficit. USDA says the cuts would force it to lay off its 8,400 meat inspectors for 15 days to produce the savings ordered for its food safety agency.
Early this month, the White House raised the prospect of a mass layoff, which would shutter the meat industry for two weeks. Plants cannot operate without USDA inspectors.
A House subcommittee chairman, Texas Republican Michael Conaway, said on Tuesday that USDA might order furloughs on non-consecutive days to mitigate their effect and keep plants running.
"Specific furlough dates for (inspectors) have yet to be determined but there is no question sequestration will have an adverse effect on food inspection services," said USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe. "USDA is taking steps to minimize the impact of the furloughs on consumers, our employees and the meat industry."
Even so, there would be some shutdowns, USDA said, because there is no way to stretch the workforce to cover all plants while reducing outlays enough.
The administration estimates some $10 billion in production would be lost if inspectors were laid off en masse for two weeks, or their agency's share of cuts. Stores and restaurants could run short of meat temporarily.
The USDA did not respond to questions about how it would approach possible furloughs at its Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which among other things generates prices used as benchmarks for livestock futures at CME Group Inc. The USDA has not mentioned AMS in its comments about the sequester.
Conaway said the administration has not replied in writing to his request for information about meat inspections and the White House budget office "owes us an explanation." The budget office was the first to raise the prospect of a furlough of all 8,400 inspectors and a resultant meat industry shutdown.
Although the spending cuts are due to take effect on Friday, it could be weeks or months before the meat industry is directly affected. Meat inspectors are guaranteed at least 30 days' notice of a furlough.
"This is a direct prescription from Congress to reduce every line item," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last week.
Up to one-third of the USDA's 100,000 employees may be affected by furloughs. The USDA says the cuts would deny food aid to 600,000 pregnant women, new mothers and infants and also force closure of hundreds of Forest Service campgrounds, picnic areas and visitors' centers during the spring and summer.
- See more at: http://www.dairyherd.com/e-newsletters/dairy-daily/USDA-says-meat-plant-shutdowns-inevitable-in-budget-cuts-193448121.html#sthash.Fi01bgfW.dpuf

Sequestration Is a Big Deal -- Why USDA Inspectors Are Vital to the Meat Industry

image from here

There's a lot of hubbub about potentially furloughing all USDA meat inspectors for two weeks beginning on March 1. My friend Jenny, who has spent countless days working in her family's meat locker, wrote a fantastic post about the potential impact of no inspectors in the meat plant for two weeks. Please go read it, she's very smart and well-versed and one heck of a great lady!

While reading through the comments on her post (and adding a few of my own), I noticed that a few readers seemed to be missing the point. While I agree that the potential furlough could very well be a political ploy to get Congress to increase the budget (tsk, tsk) I think it's important that every meat eater be aware of the critical role inspectors play in our meat supply - from slaughter to sales.

To explain this, I'll be referencing the Federal Meat Inspection Act. I won't be explaining each and every subheading from the FMIA in detail but if you want to look at it in its entirety, feel free to do so.

1. Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, it is required by law that all animals that are sent to be slaughtered be inspected by a federal USDA meat inspector for signs of disease or illness. 603(b)

2. Livestock or horses (including sheep, goats, poultry, swine, cattle, and mules) that are found to have disease or injury are set apart and slaughtered separately; they are not to enter the food supply. 603 (b)

3. After slaughter and exsanguination, during which a USDA inspector is present to ensure all animals are slaughtered humanely, carcasses are inspected several times during processing and break down by the inspector. Once approved, they are stamped with a non-toxic ink stamp to show that the animal has been inspected and approved by USDA food safety guidelines and a licensed inspector. If a part of a carcass, or a whole carcass, does not pass inspection it is condemned (and stamped with a condemn stamp) and then disposed from the human food supply in the presence of the inspector. (604)

A butcher points to the USDA Insp'd and P'S'D stamp on a beef carcass.

 

 

A close up of an Inspected and Passed

 



4. All meat food products are inspected by USDA inspectors before they leave the plant or processing facility. This is true not only for slaughter plants but also meat processing facilities such as rendering, salting or canning as well. Products not fit for human consumption are marked as condemned and removed from human food supply (606). This goes for meat that stays in the domestic US food supply but also for meat exported to other countries.

5. Inspectors not only closely watch the quality and cleanliness of slaughter and meat processing but also are keeping a keen lookout for negligence in the sanitation of plants. If any product is found to be adulterated, it is condemned and disposed of forthwith. (608)

This FMIA is a very long document and outlines a lot of things but I just wanted to highlight the points that I think are pertinent to this specific conversation. The above five topics outline the process by which we know our meat is safe to eat because it's been inspected continually and repeatedly. I have eaten meat that was slaughtered and prepared in less regulated markets outside the U.S. and I will attest that I did not have a pleasurable eating experience. Quality assurance is a must.

In summary:

• Livestock CANNOT be slaughtered without inspectors present. So, no inspectors = no slaughter.
• You guessed it, no slaughter = no deceased livestock = no meat products.
• No meat products for two weeks will mean an eventual decrease in supply and an eventual hike in meat prices. All meat prices - pork, chicken, turkey, beef, lamb, horse... wait, we don't slaughter horses in the U.S right now even though we technically can. Find out about that here. Basically, if a meat locker or facility is federally inspected, during sequestratoin that facility won't be able to slaughter livestock if the inspectors aren't present.

I hope that I have cleared some of the smoke that is around this issue - conspiracy theory, deprivation of choice etc. The hard facts are that if the sequestration occurs, the meat industry will come to a halt and we will eventually feel the hard and lingering effects.

UPDATE: Thank you to readers who pointed out that the furloughs might not take place on March 1, furloughs may take place in the form of hourly time off and that USDA employees will have 30 days notice before a furlough occurs. However, this post is meant to outline the importance of inspectors and how things can't operate if they aren't on duty. Thanks to Heather T and Angie W for pointing out those facts!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

We Are Hungry - School Lunch Parody

Song parodies with an agriculture twist aren't going to stop anytime soon. In light of the recent school lunch policies and the continual mindset that some people have about conventional farming practices, the internet is alive with young minds belting out popular hits with altered lyrics.

First there were the Peterson Farm Brothers and I'm Farming and I Grow It (which has over 7 million views, by the way).

Then, Lil Fred put out his version of 'Call Me, Maybe' with "Farm It Maybe", which has over 1 million hits.

Most recently, the kids at Wallace County High School in Sharon Springs, Kansas (yeah, that's right another Kansas group - we're the bomb) have come up with this awesome gem of a video.

Introducing..... We Are Hungry


I think these guys and gals hit the nail right on the dang head. Kids are active and need food to play sports, keep their minds sharp and have enough energy to get through 6-7 hours of class per day. You can watch it here but also head over to YouTube and give them a thumbs up or a nice comment. They're doing their part to increase awareness of a flawed school nutrition program.

Oh and that kid in the I Heart Beef shirt (from Kansas State University - booyah) is a good family friend named Callahan Grund. The kind of kid you want to be friends with because he's a hardworker, funny and good-natured. His mom is in the video too and apparently she makes some good meatloaf.

Way to go guys - this is fantastic and had me grinning from ear to ear! Keep up the good work!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Antibiotics Safe for Livestock Use

Just like we've been sayin' all along...
The Government Accountability Office released a report that stated there isn't sufficient evidence  to warrant a study into a link between antibiotic use in food animals and antibiotic resistance in humans. Did you get that? Here, I'll say it again.

GAO said "these data [collected by USDA] lack crucial details necessary to examine trends and understand the relationship between use and resistance."

Haven't pork producers been saying this for quite some time? In a www.meatingplace.com release, NPPC has noted that pork producers have long been in compliance with responsible antibiotic use with veterinary supervision in order to keep their animals health and pork safe.

Need some more info? Read the whole piece here.

image from here

And if you're new to the antibiotic use scene, here are some crucial facts to help you better understand antibiotic use.

Antibiotics are given strategically – administered when pigs are sick, susceptible or exposed to illness.

Using antibiotics strategically ensures that the safest meat in the world ends up on America's dinner tables.

Only antibiotics approved by the FDA are used to treat pigs.

Human safety is a key component when considering animal antibiotic approval.

•    Withdrawal times, or the number of days an animal must be removed from antibiotics before entering the food supply, ensure that antibiotics are not present in the animal’s system at the time of slaughter.

Do you have comments about this issue? Are you excited about this news (as I am) or does your opinion differ? Let's converse! Leave me a comment below!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Guest Post: Kevin Pearia, USDA Loans

Hello blogosphere - today may be the first of many guest posts on Buzzard's Beat. Ya'll might enjoy what other people have to say way more than what I write so..... we'll see.

Today's post is brought to you by Kevin Pearia of USDAloans.com. If you have questions about this post, please feel free to contact me and I'll hook you up with Kevin's contact info.

Financially Responsible Way to Obtain/Refinance the Farm Life                 Once exclusively available to low-income farmers, USDA loans help even moderate-income farmers finance a home. Despite the fact that non-farmers may be eligible for USDA loans, the program remains a popular choice for livestock farmers. For those looking for a new property where they can also raise livestock in low-stress environments, USDA loans may be a perfect financing option.

                Farmers who raise livestock understand improving the quality of life improves the quality of the product. Farmers should also be able to improve their quality of life with a housing upgrade that won’t cost a fortune. That’s where USDA loans come into play.

                As part of the Rural Development Program, USDA loans lessen the financial burden of purchasing a home. When farmers choose to finance through a USDA loan, they save money they can funnel into their livestock operation.

                One way USDA loans reduce the fiscal stress of home buying is by eliminating the down payment. It’s rare to find a financing option with this perk, but USDA loans flaunt it. In turn, it allows farmers to save tens of thousands of dollars right off the bat. On top of that initial savings is the possibility of getting the seller to cover some of the closing costs. Alternatively, it’s possible to include legal fees, closing costs and the guarantee fee in the loan.

                The funding fee for USDA loans is a miniscule 2 percent. When the fee is included in the loan, USDA loan borrowers may have a loan worth 102 percent of the home’s value. Regardless of the loan’s size, it comes with fixed interest rates and no private mortgage insurance (PMI) for as long as 38 years.

                For livestock farmers who love their property but would like to make some improvements, USDA loans can still help. Construction, repairs, renovations, purchases and refinances may be eligible for USDA loans.

                These loans can only be used in eligible areas per the USDA’s requirements. Basically, areas that may be eligible are in the open country or towns, cities or villages with fewer than 25,000 people. The latter areas must also be without sufficient credit for mortgages to low- and middle-income families, and be outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area. Chances are good that farmers running a low-stress livestock operation are within these limitations.

                However, there are financial requirements too. The USDA requires borrowers to have an income that is no greater than 115 percent of the area’s median income. Per the size of the family, the property to be purchased must be reasonably sized and the family’s current housing has to be inadequate. The USDA determines such factors.
                USDA-approved lenders also like to see:
                -credit scores of at least 620;
                -debt-to-income ratios no higher than 41 percent;
                -and PITI (principle, interest, taxes, insurance)-to-income ratios no higher than 29 percent.

Thanks to Kevin for being my guest blogger for the week!

Until next time,

~Buzzard ~