Slaughter Plants and Rendering Facilities - Different but Mutually Beneficial

I'm a huge fan of The Office -- the Ninja and I own all the seasons on DVD and I am fairly adept at whipping out a Michael Scott quote in the middle of a conversation. One of the many reasons I love the show is that on the show Dwight is a beet (yes, beet. not beef) farmer so from time to time they make agricultural references about farming or slaughter. I've posted about it before here.

Last week, Dwight talked about his office co-workers not knowing the difference between a slaughter plant and a rendering plant and I thought that most people are probably unaware so here we go.

Slaughter and Rendering Plant 101

Beef carcasses in a slaughter plant in South Africa 

that I toured during a study abroad experience

A slaughter plant is a facility where animals that are at an appropriate market weight are sent to be processed into retail cuts of meat. There are numerous plants throughout the United States to accommodate the different species of livestock animals. For example, in southwest Kansas there are slaughter plants that receive cattle from the surrounding feedlots and from the panhandle of Oklahoma.

In northwest Missouri the pork slaughter plant is positioned so that it can accept pigs from all different areas of the corn belt. And there are even processing plants for lambs and goats in places such as Colorado, Montana and Michigan. There are currently no horse slaughter plants in the U.S. -- that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Of course, we can't forget about poultry plants. There are a ton of them in the southern U.S. where a large percentage of poultry broiler farms are - Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina etc.
There are even plants that can do more than one specie and did you know there are slaughter plants for bison and elk? I thought that was pretty cool.

So what's the difference between a slaughter plant and a rendering facility? A slaughter plant breaks down the whole carcass into cuts of meat, whereas a rendering facility produces a variety of by-products. There are two types of rendering facilities - independent and integrated. An independent plant is one that picks up grease, blood, feathers and offal (internal organs and entrails) for further processing and development. Integrated facilities are physically connected to the slaughter plant and operate in conjunction with each other. The by-products of slaughter are used to make several essential products that fall into two categories: edible and inedible.
 Below is a list of what types of products fall under each area.
 -- Inedible: tallow and grease for livestock feed, blood meal, soap and fatty-acids.
 -- Edible: these plants process fatty animal tissue into edible fats and proteins. The only material that goes into these products (which are USDA and FSIS inspected) are fats from the animals carcass.
THERE IS NO BONE OR OTHER INEDIBLE MATERAL THAT ENTERS THE EDIBLE FOOD SUPPLY

Rendering and its subsequent products play a vital role in agriculture - rendered products account for approximately 35% of the fats and oils used worldwide. More than 1/2 of the world's animal fat is produced in North America. Furthermore, rendering is a very efficient way to control environmental pollution. For example, with today's technology it is possible to recycle nearly 100% of inedible poultry raw material. Rendering products also creates competition in the market for animal feeds, preventing producers from being forced to choose between few options that are expensive.

Getting geared up for a slaughter plant tour - I've been fortunate enough to tour plants 

in 5 countries on 4 continents!

If you want more information about the whole process of rendering, check out these links. There is a lot of science and technology behind the whole process - steam, boilers, throughput etc - this is a great resource to find out more about the technicalities if you're interested.

Hope you've learned a lot - I know I did while researching this topic. If you've got questions or comments, shout 'em out!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

P.S. - interested in the difference between harvest and slaughter? Check this out.

The Importance of GMO's and Writing Letters to the Editor

image from here

Usually, I jam out to 106.9 Country Legends on the radio in my truck but in the mornings, on my way to work, I listen to the highly syndicated Kidd Kraddick in the Morning Show. Every week or so they have a segment titled "Consumer Watch" and they talk about a few topics that consumers should be interested in - previous topics include cigarettes, a cell-phone in the car law etc. One morning the topic was GMO's (genetically modified organisms) -- this was around the time of Prop 37 in California -- and I developed a stomach ache listening to the false information they were saying. They were basically giving their opinions but not backing them up with any fact and it was so frustrating.

So I did what any active advocate would do and I wrote them a letter.  I have never heard back from them and if they addressed my concern during another Consumer Watch segment, I missed it. But here is my letter, because I believe that everyone should fully understand the capabilities that GMO provides us with in terms of food production and also the importance they play in the world's hunger problems.

-----

I have been listening to the Kidd Kraddick show for some time now and I am always laughing and truly enjoy the show. I donate to Kidd’s Kids and have signed up for Friends with Benefits – in short, I’m a big fan.

However, every time you guys have a consumer watch I get so frustrated with your analysis of anything to do with food that I have to change the station. The latest incident happened just this morning when you were discussing Prop 37 in California and how, if passed, all genetically modified food (GM) would need to be labeled. You are right, this would be a huge hindrance to food production companies, would increase every family’s grocery bill and would put negative connotation on most food products at the grocery store.

What you failed to do was provide actual facts regarding GMO food.  Genetically modified organisms revolutionized food production and agriculture in the 60’s and 70’s. Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to the “green revolution” which had a tremendous impact on food production in underdeveloped countries in Asia and Latin America. The green revolution (and Mr. Borlaug’s work) was focused on the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains like wheat and aiding farmers in better management and use of technological advancements. Without the work of Mr. Borlaug and other scientists of the green revolution, over a billion people would have starved. 

Genetically modified doesn’t necessarily mean that the product was radiated or anything like that, it could be as simple as cross breeding or using a gene mutation in a strain of corn to make the plant more productive. For example, some variations of papayas have been genetically modified to resist the ringspot virus – this was done by developing a breed that is resistant to them. Hawaii, a big producer of papaya, almost had their industry devastated by the virus however, since the new genetics were discovered, their industry is successful. It’s important to point out that there is still no method of production other than the genetically engineered papayas that is resistant to the virus. Organic papayas (which are ridiculously expensive, like every other kind of organic food), are not resistant to the virus. Other GM foods are soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets and squash. GMO versions of tomatoes, potatoes and rice have been created and approved by the government but aren’t commercially available yet. 

Modifying plants allows farmers to be more productive which is essential with a population that is growing exponentially. If we don’t accept and employ technology like GMO’s, it’s going to be pretty dang impossible to feed 9 billion people in 2050.

Regarding obesity – I can’t believe that you guys just blamed the obesity epidemic on genetically modified food. Americans are overwhelmingly overweight because we have become increasingly lazy and restaurants have increased their portion sizes dramatically. The fast food industry is booming – it’s easier (and often, cheaper) to buy a meal off the dollar menu than it is to buy fresh food or whole grains. America is one of the few countries in the world where it is more expensive to buy fresh food than it is to buy processed food. Add into the mix that low-income families can buy more food if they buy Cheetos and Pepsi than they can if they buy juice and apples and you can see why so many Americans are overweight. 

Hundreds of thousands of folks listen to your show every day – you have the opportunity to set the record straight on controversial issues like this and hopefully you will be more responsible with the facts you are representing. It would be nice if as much research went into Consumer Watch and food issues as does the Showbiz Top 5.

Thank you for reading and please keep up the hilarious antics.

Respectfully,

Brandi

---

So that's my letter. Again, I've never gotten a reply but hopefully they are aware of the influence they have and will take steps to make sure that future broadcasts are more fact filled rather than flashy and entertaining. Fear sells but isn't always the truth.

Have any of you ever written a similar letter to the editor? Did you get a reply? My only other experience has been this and it's been a rollercoaster ride since then.

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 ~

Scientists Care Too

I recently read an article titled, "In Animal Testing Debate, Fur Still Flies." It addresses the treatment and welfare of laboratory animals like rats, monkeys, guinea pigs, dogs and many more species. Many people are opposed to animal testing because not all animals fall under animal testing policies and being a 'guinea pig' (pardon the pun) for pharmaceuticals and other products is not the most glamorous of lifestyles. The fact of the matter is that animal testing enables us to have, among other things, vaccines, antibiotics, chemotherapy, joint replacement and bypass surgeries.

I would also like to bring to light that scientists who utilize animals for laboratory research give those animals the utmost care, just like a farmer does his livestock. While here in Australia, I've had the chance to do a lot research with sheep and most recently, I helped perform fat biopsies on some crossbred ewes. The surgery was not unlike one that would occur in a regular hospital.

Each surgery used a new set of sterilized surgical equipment and lots of sterile surgical guaze.

 The area where incision will be made is shaved, then cleaned with iodine and alcohol and finally, treated with an analgesic so that the sheep won't feel any pain.

During the surgery, covers are placed around the area and the scientists and researchers wear surgical gloves so the entire process stays clean. In this picture, Hyatt is suturing the tiny incision that was made to collect the sample. After he has finished the sheep will be treated with antiseptic to ensure that no infection ensues.

Regardless of your position on animal testing, you should know that research animals receive special care and are not treated badly. Scientists and researchers care about the animals that have been entrusted to us; just like farmers and ranchers.

Until next time,

~ Buzzard ~

So, you're going to be a vet, right?

Photo courtesy of America's Horse Daily

If you've ever told anyone that you're an animal science major, graduate or in the animal agriculture industry - chances are you've been asked this question "So, you're going to be a vet." And more than likely you've said, "No, I'm not pursuing a veterinary degree" (not because there's anything wrong with being a vet but because there are far fewer veterinarians than other animal agriculture career options - and vet school is REALLY HARD).

Well, if you're not going to be a vet what are you doing in animal science? Let me explain. On the way back to the ML yesterday on the train (click here to find out exactly what the ML is) I was reading the newspaper and ran across these atrocious gems in the 'Overheard on the Train' column:

Girl 1: I really can't eat anything vegetarian.
Girl 2: Why? They're made of vegetables.
Girl 1: Really?
Girl at Red Rooster: Can I please have a Rooster Roll, but instead of rooster can I have chicken?

The aforementioned examples exemplify exactly why I am an animal science student passionate about advocating for all of agriculture and educating an increasingly 'disconnected from ag' public about the farmers and ranchers who feed the world. While I would never eat a vegetarian dish, I think it is abominable that some people do not understand what they are eating or are not making educated dining choices.

It is my duty as an agriculturalist and animal scientist to strive to preserve agriculture's timeless traditions and inform people where their food comes from. That's why I'm an animal science student.

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Science + Emotion = Effective

Many scientists, including myself, often struggle with the fact that research and sound scientific method are not sufficient evidence that agriculture and producers are doing the right thing.  In fact, some may claim that emotions and moral drives play a larger part in consumer education than science and research.  Be that as it may, producers, scientists, agvocates and the media must work together to tell ag's story.  Troy Marshall explains that idea much more convincingly, not to mention eloquently, in this recent BEEF Daily article. A bit of reading for you to ruminate.

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~