Rabbit Meat is the New Horse Meat

If you haven't seen the news lately, you've missed out on the ruckus Whole Foods Market is causing by selling rabbit meat in select locations in North Carolina and the D.C. metro area. Obviously, close-minded American up in arms. I forgot that if a food product isn't widely consumed in the U.S. it must be wrong to eat it elsewhere in the world. Silly me. Does this sound vaguely familiar?


Rabbit carcasses in a butcher shop
photo source

Hmm -  that's right. This sounds like the horse meat argument all over again. The vast majority of Americans are against the consumption of horse meat as well. Something to do with companion animals - nevermind the fact that both rabbit meat and horse meat are widely available and consumed in other countries like Germany, France and China.

According to FOX News, several activist organizations banded together for a day of action where participants were encouraged to reach out to shoppers of Whole Foods and explain "... what wonderful animals rabbits are and remind them how popular rabbits are as pets." Guess what else is a popular pet that we eat? Fish. Sorry, Goldie.

This whole issue boils down to one small group of very vocal people striving to take control of society's consumption patterns. Nevermind the fact that Whole Foods Market developed a slaughter system that is in line with the high animal welfare standards they already in place for beef, pork and chicken. Nevermind the fact that, apparently, customers of the high end grocery chain have been asking for rabbit meat for years. Nevermind the fact that if you don't want to eat it, don't buy it.

While I was in France for a study abroad trip in 2009, I saw rabbit carcasses in the window of many butcher shops. It was perfectly normal - there were no animal rights groups staging sit-ins or attempting to sway consumers away from their purchases. Alternative meats are the norm outside of the U.S. - when are we going to start being more civilized and catch up with the rest of the world?

What's your take - would you eat rabbit meat? Do you think rabbits should be for pets only?

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~


The thoughts and opinions of this blog post strictly represent that of Brandi Buzzard Frobose and are NOT representative of any other entity or organization.

Always a Little Late

I don't have a great picture for this post,
so here's the newest addition to our family!

Often, I arrive just in time for something - which in my mind means I'm late because I'd like to be everywhere 10 minutes early.

So it doesn't surprise me that I'm posting my my 'Best of Thirteen' post on January 2. Better late than never? Hope so. Here's a roundup of top posts and other fun factoids.

Top Posts of 2013

1. Chipotle: That's Not Natural -- Chipotle is the annoying, ignorant bully at school. They make several appearances this year on the blog, but this was the most read entry of 2013.

2. Is Horse Meat Healthy? Is It Better For Me Than Beef? -- I post about horse slaughter a lot because several people are opposed to eating horsemeat but how much do they really know about it?

3. Slaughter Plants and Rendering Facilities: Different but Mutually Beneficial -- No two facilities are the same.

4. He Loves Me So Much! -- I've been married twice.

5. Chipotle, Hypocrites No More, To Use Antibiotic Treated Beef (Maybe) -- Chipotle is on the list. again.

Top 5 Countries of Readership
1. USA
2. Russia
3. Australia (good on ya!)
4. UK
5. Canada

Google and Facebook (Buzzard's Beat) are still my top two drivers of traffic and some of my favorite and most popular keywords used to find my blog are listed below (these are always fascinating):

• Eating buzzard meat
• How to manipulate a man (they found this post)
• Buzzards
• Hippo Hollow Resort (they found this)
• Temple Grandin
• Turkey Buzzard (thanks Sharita)
• Horse meat
• Fiji

How was your 2013? I'm looking forward to blogging more and utilizing SEO better so that my posts get more views! I've got lots of exciting things in the hopper - so stay tuned!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

False Alarm for Horse Slaughter

Horses of the Frobuzz ranch

Horse slaughter was to resume this week. "Was" being the keyword.

Last Friday, a U.S. District Court Judge dismissed a lawsuit and subsequent injunction against three plants that are itching to open their doors to America's horses that are past their prime. The Humane Society of the US, Front Range Equine Rescue and a handful of other animal rights extremists filed the case on the basis that "the government did not adequately study the issue of horse slaughter before granting permits to two companies."

The three plants that would have started slaughter this week are Valley Meats in New Mexico, Rains Natural Meats in Missouri and Responsible Transportation in Iowa. The meat from these plants can be shipped to Europe and Asia, which are big horse meat consuming countries. Reinstating horse slaughter in the U.S. prevents horses from being trucked across U.S. borders to Canada and Mexico.

However, since HSUS is a bunch of jerkwads, another injunction has been filed in appeals court and has to be reviewed. I've got money on this one being thrown out as well. Give up, folks. Common sense will prevail eventually.

More info on the horse slaughter front is available here, here, here, and here.

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

The thoughts and opinions of this blog post strictly represent that of Brandi Buzzard Frobose and are NOT representative of any other entity or organization.

Is Horse Meat Healthy? Is It Better For Me Than Beef?

I think a lot of people ask these question but have a hard time finding the answers:

• Is horse meat healthy compared to beef?
• Does horse meat have a lot of protein?
• Is horse meat low in fat?

While I was looking for infographics about beef today on Pinterest, I found some really cool stuff about horse meat and wanted to share. The following infographics (links provided) provide information about calories, protein and fat content of horse meat, among other variables.

Infographic by EasyFit Personal Training

The above infographic does a great side by side comparison of beef and horse meat, although I am quite partial to beef -- there's nothing like it. On the other hand, I've never tried horse. I'm sure it's a very lean meat and would like to try it some day.

The following infographic is more biased against beef, simply because it's higher in calories and fat than horse meat. I happen to like intramuscular fat aka marbling A LOT.

Infographic source

 

 

So, would you eat it based on the information you've just learned? Both infographics provide varying viewpoints but I think the information they provide is very valuable.

 

Until next time,

~ Buzzard ~

 

Happy Dance for Horseslaughter

In case you missed this monumental piece of news over the weekend:

via

 

 

That's right - the USDA is finally approving inspectors for horse slaughter which means the plant in Roswell, New Mexico is full-speed ahead! Furthermore, plants in Iowa and Missouri could be approved in the near future. This is great news!

I'm so happy that something good finally came from Washington, D.C. that I'm at a loss for words.
So I'm reposting the reasons I'm ecstatic that this process has held up:

1. 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 slaughter plants in the U.S. prevents thousands of horses from being improperly transported across U.S. borders.

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.

3. Job creation - Reopening plants will increase the number of jobs and boost local economies.

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.

This is not to say that horse slaughter couldn't be ended soon - USDA is pressuring Congress to ban the practice altogether, however until that happens (which I pray it doesn't), they must comply with current laws and regulations. The New Mexico plant won't likely start slaughtering for approximately three weeks and who knows what could come from the next legislative session. But for now, I'm thrilled.

So what are your thoughts? Is anyone as jacked as I am?!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

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 ~

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.

Animal Welfare and AgChat - Questions Answered!

 Fresh, clean bedding for new baby lambs in the middle of winter = great animal care

For those of you who are unfamiliar with AgChat, it's a weekly conversation held on Twitter in which anyone can ask questions revolving around a predetermined topic. The topics change every week and the participants change often too - all are welcome to engage and communicate. Tomorrow night, be sure to search #agchat around 7 pm CST and join in on the convo!

Now that we're all on the same page, I must admit that very rarely is there a topic on AgChat in which I have enough expertise to positively contribute. Soil conservation, generational planning, herd management - these things don't play a role in my life yet. They will in the future, but for now it's me, the Ninja and a few select domesticated animals that rock out at the FroBuzz Ranchero.

However, AgChat on January 22 was right up my alley. The topic was animal welfare and since I have a M.S. in animal behavior, well-being and health, I consider myself relatively knowledgeable on the topic. But, insert a wedding anniversary and a KSU vs KU basketball game and participating in AgChat was made impossible. Shucks.

My solution is to answer all the questions from the 22nd in this blog post - there were about 15 questions and I'm going to answer them here to the best of my ability and in my opinion (I"ll even try to stick to 140 characters per 'tweet'). I would love to have you all chime in and contribute your own thoughts and ideas as well!

Q1 - Please tell us about farm and ranch efforts to care for animals in the frigid temps much of the country is experiencing.
A -- Increase bedding in shelters, make sure that adequate shelter is provided and increase forage intake to increase body heat. #animalwelfare

Q2 - To farmers & ag peeps, how many nonfarm folks have you had convo with regarding farming methods in last three months?
A -- Approx five. Was at a bach party and topic of grass-fed vs grain-fed beef came up. Made sure everyone knew that all #beef is raised humanely

Q3 - How has the livestock industry improved animal welfare over the past decade.
A - Better handling facilities in the race, more efficient and safer ways of stunning. Less stressful handling has been developed i.e. quieter

Q4 - What are some of your best practices for speaking with opposing groups about animal welfare? Do's and Don'ts?
A - Don't preach. Do be honest. Don't get defensive. Do find common ground and work from there. Don't attack opposition. Verbally or otherwise

 Even though this horse is dirty (he likes to roll), he isn't being poorly cared for. It's muddy outside but he is in out of the wind and is fat; meaning he has access to lots of food which keeps his body temp up during cold weather.

Q5 - Animal welfare is something that can be hard to explain. How would you describe it?
A - The overall wellbeing of an animal. Physiological responses, behavior patterns & health status in one collective term. VERY hard to measure.

Q6 - What are the public's biggest concerns when it comes to animal welfare?
A - Industrial farming, antibiotics and slaughter plants. No question about it.

Q7 -What is the perceived value of of certifications such as Animal Welfare Approved & Certified Humane?
A - Cert is valuable but issue is if people will pay for it. Many see labeling and feel good abt purchase, even if they don't know what it means

Q8 - How can we encourage veterinarians to be more engaged in talking about animal welfare?
A - My initial thought is that they are so busy on office and farm calls they probably don't have time to chat.
A - But on 2nd thought, talking to small animal vets who don't have a lot of large animal background could help in the long run.

Q9 - How much value do producers actually put on the results of animal welfare research?
**This was my question, so I'll post my answer and few other answers that were provided**
A (mine) - depends if they 'approve' of the investigator/company/institution that funded the research. Everyone plays politics, unfortunately.
A - (from farmerhaley:)  Q9 - A LOT! The methods in which farmers use to care for their animals today all evolved out of available research. #agchat

A - from (diana_prichard:) Q9 Value is dependent on methodology. If the research is sound, I put a tremendous amount of value in it. #AgChat

A -  from (judgingcoach:) Q9: Research is only as good as the people doing it. Non-producers regularly question how it's paid for/who's putting it out? #agchat

 ** There will be a blog post regarding that last answer early next month**

 

Q10 - What are the biggest public misconceptions about farm animal welfare?

A - Where to start!?  nutrition, health care, housing, handling etc. Slaughter houses, antibiotics and nutrition are the big ones in my mind.

A - Bigger is bad or cruel. If a farmer has more than 50 animals it makes them a corporate jerk. Technology shouldn't be allowed in animal ag. 

Q11 -  Why do farmers and ranchers spend so much time, $$ and effort to keep animals healthy?
A - Because it's the right thing to do and farmers and ranchers have souls like everyone else.
A - Also, healthier animals are more productive and yield more. This means more food for a hungry world.

Q12 - How are animal welfare and antibiotic usage in livestock related.
A - Both are about responsibility at their very core. And both also contribute to a stronger, healthier and more productive animal.

Q13 - Let's help each other. Who are the animal welfare experts you recommend learning more about or from?
A - Well, I am one so first I try to come up with an answer myself. But I've worked with Temple Grandin on projects and learned a lot from her.
A - Bud Williams is also an animal handling pioneer and has some great methods.

Q14 - How can animal agriculture be more proactive in welfare?
A - Allow more tours of slaughter plants and handling facilities. Public is afraid of unknown. Make them familiar & they'll be more accepting

Q15 - This year, I will personally do ____ to foster convo regarding animal welfare.
A - I will do a better job of posting more animal welfare related posts that are easy to comprehend and can connect with consumers better.
** I think this post is a good work on my answer for number 15**

So those are my answers - if you want to see what the rest of the Twitterverse said regarding animal welfare, you can check out the archives.

Anyone want to add anything? Discuss methods, my answers, your opinions? Any non-ag folks out there with questions about animal handling or processing? I went to school to answer questions just like this and have worked, done trials and seen different methods in lots of different settings and would love to chat with you! Feel free to ask me any questions regarding animal behavior or welfare and I'll do my absolute best to answer them!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Horse Slaughter Funding Reinstated

A few days ago, some news was announcd regarding the equine industry which, as you know, is very near and dear to my heart.

In 2006, horse slaughter in the U.S. was effectively 'banned' because the funding for plant inspections was cut. All slaughter plants in the U.S. must be inspected by USDA/FSIS and if there is no funding available then there is no slaughter.

Recently, news broke that the Department of Agriculture had reinstated federal inspection money in a November 18 bill. Hallelujah!

Not suprisingly, there has been an uproar from anti-agriculturalists and people who are unfamiliar with the equine industry. Allow me to take the opportunity to lay out some facts:

- Although horse meat is not widely consumed in the U.S., it is consumed and described as a delicacy in countries like France, Canada and Mexico. We (the U.S.) comprise a very small percentage of worldwide population and shouldn't assume that if we don't like something, it's therefore taboo for everyone else. It takes all sorts of minds to make a world go round, folks.

- Horses are expensive - just like other livestock. Expensive to feed, expensive to own and very expensive to have euthanized by a veterinarian. By selling a horse to the slaughter market, an owner could save some money on a euthanasia injection but also contribute to feeding people in France, Canada, etc.

-  When horse slaughter was stopped in 2006, horse welfare drastically decreased. Where there was once a market for horses who were past their useful lives there was now an abyss of no hope. It wasn't smart to take your trailer to the salebarn and leave it unlocked because you'd likely find yourself with a few more hungry horse mouths to feed. Others were unlucky enough to walk outside in the morning and find a few horses left in their pastures. And most horrible of all, there were  instances where the hide that contained the brand had been cut off, and the horse had been set free - all to prevent the horse from being returned to the owner.

Link to article about horse in Nevada whose brand had been cut off

- This reinstatement of funding is holistically a great thing in many ways. Horse welfare will improve and jobs will be created. Job creation? Yes, that's right. Every slaughter plant that opens will employ several hundred people, if not a thousand, essentially stimulating the economy in that region.

These are all points that I have seen time and again be misrepresented or misquoted in the comment stream on horse slaughter articles. Many of those comments are outrageous and unfounded however there is one such mindset that needs to be addressed. On an article on Huffington Post, several comments have touted irresponsible breeding as the culprit of poor welfare. I hope that horse owners view the previous five years as a wakeup call. Equine people, if you can't afford to feed and care for a horse, please don't continue to breed them. If your child only wants one to ride occasionally, please seek out leasing options or buying an older horse - not contacting a breeder to have one specially bred just for your child. These are all strategies that have partially created the situation we are in. This is what a friend of mine said on Facebook and I can't say it any better myself:

 "I couldn't be more supportive of the reinstatement of funding for horse slaughter in the U.S. It is desperately needed for our industry. However, those of us that own horses shouldn't just see it as a "garbage disposal" for our unwanted horses; we have to approach the problem up front. This means prudent and responsible breeding practices. Just because you think you want a foal, consider whether this horse will contribute to your lifestyle please! There is a lot more work that goes in to making a well-trained, confident, good horse than you may realize. I support horse slaughter and I support breeding GOOD horses, it's time to focus on the latter."  - A. Wilson, cowgirl and responsible horse owner

All in all, this is a fantastic thing for agriculture and the equine industry, in my opinion. What are your thoughts?

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Live Export Ships

You may have read my blog posts about the Live Export Ban in Australia and the conditions that led to its initiation. If you haven't, you may want to familiarize yourself with the issue. Read this first and this second.

Ok - now that you're caught up. Hubsy and I have had the privilege of being hosted in Perth for the past six days - he was asked to speak at the APL/CRC Pork Roadshow so we've been socializing with western Australian swine producers, attending dinners and doing a little bit of sight seeing. On Saturday we went whale watching with some family friends and saw two of these: one docked and one at sea.

Live export ship docked in Fremantle, WA, AUS.

Live export ship on the Indian Ocean - Fremantle, WA, AUS.

I tried to zoom in and see if there were any animals aboard but I couldn't really tell and hubsy couldn't either.

It was interesting to actually see a live export ship up close - the trip from Perth to Indonesia takes about a week and a local cattle producer told us that the goal is for the cattle to not have any shrink. They said, for the most part, that they reach this goal often. It's one thing to hear and talk about something, but quite another to see it in person.

What's your opinion on the live export issue in Australia?

Until next time,

~ Buzzard ~