Revised Guidelines for Livestock Processing

Meat Inspectors Get Clout to Stop Inhumane Slaughter

BY DAN FLYNN | AUG 16, 2011

Meat inspectors at federally regulated plants that slaughter animals got new instructions for humane treatment of animals.

Announced Monday by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the instructions come in the form of a new 40-page directive. The rules go into effect on Sept. 15. 

The directive on enforcement of humane handling codifies changes made in the last few years to ensure that animals going to slaughter are treated properly.  It replaces FSIS policies published in 1998 and 2003.

The new version, which FSIS says is going to require additional training for meat inspectors, includes a definition for "egregious inhumane handling" of animals -- "any act or condition that results in severe harm to animals, which includes the excessive beating or prodding of disabled livestock, stunning animals and allowing them to regain consciousness, or any treatment causing unnecessary pain and suffering."

The directive also provides inspectors with "verification instructions" to ensure that treatment of livestock during handling and slaughter "minimizes the animals' amount of excitement, pain, injury or discomfort."

Read More

The goal of everyone in agriculture is to continue improving on our methods.  These guidelines are updated on a fairly regular basis because we keep finding better ways to handle issues that arise.  It’s vital that we learn from problems that have happened in the past and I think this proves that we do.  No one wants to see instances of livestock being mistreated. 

Displacing Ag Land

Agriculture chief disputes USDA climate bill study
By Jerry Hagstrom
CongressDaily December 18, 2009

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Friday took issue with a report his own agency has issued on the impact of the House-passed climate change bill, which concluded there will be a large-scale conversion of cropland to forestland.

The study, authored by USDA Chief Economist Joe Glauber, said the bill would help the agriculture sector overall. But it also said if the price of carbon allowances increases to $70 per ton of carbon dioxide by 2050, almost 60 million more acres of land would be converted to forest, 35 million acres of which would come from cropland.

That would be a 14 percent decline in cropland from the current level and take away 24 million acres from pasture -- an almost 9 percent decline.

The analysis was based on the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model by researchers at Texas A&M University, which EPA has used to study climate legislation.

Glauber's testimony on the study before a House Agriculture subcommittee Dec. 6 had led some farm leaders and Republicans to warn such a shift would lead to much higher food production and consumer food costs. Vilsack echoed those concerns Friday, saying that the scenario would be "disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country."

But Vilsack added that he took away from his talks with Glauber that the economist does not believe the increased forest forecast is "necessarily an accurate depiction of the impacts of climate legislation."

Vilsack said the model could be updated and noted that Glauber testified that careful design of an offsets program could avoid "unintended consequences." Link

When we are at a time when we need to be doubling food production, our society can’t afford to have government policies that will reduce available farm land. This will make it more difficult to keep affordable food available to families. Along with that, it will make it more difficult for farming families to stay in business. Land availability is an issue already in most areas. Remember, all of this is supposed to solve a problem that might not even exist. Is it worth more hungry people?

Cattlemen Dealing With Many Issues

WINDMILL: Cattlemen bristle at EPA, USDA rules
By Jerry Lackey
Saturday, November 21, 2009

SAN ANGELO, Texas — An unbelievable number of issues confront not only the cattle business but agriculture as a whole, says Colin Woodall, vice president of government affairs for National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in Washington, D.C. But one of the biggest concerns is the Environmental Protection Agency’s dust rule.

“The EPA is proposing a tenfold reduction in the thresholds of what they call coarse particle matter, which is EPA talk for agricultural dust,” Woodall said in a recent interview during the 65th annual National Association of Farm Broadcasters convention.

“We’re talking about everything that comes out of the back of a cotton stripper or a combine (dust, leaves and harvest debris), cows that are milling around in the lot, even dust kicked up from pickup tires while driving down the ranch road,” Woodall said. “They would all be in violation of EPA’s clean air rules.” Read More

There certainly are many issues facing agriculture, and animal agriculture in particular. In my mind it highlights the need for producers to become involved in helping shape the solutions to these problems. It’s more important than ever to be active in an agriculture organization that represents your views. Your involvement can’t end there though, you need to be politically active as well by contacting your elected officials to share your thoughts and let them know how pending legislation might affect your ability to produce food and fiber. I was reminded again this weekend that politics is a contact sport. If you have been sitting on the sidelines, please suit up and get on the field!

USDA Closes Vermont Processor

USDA closes plant after HSUS undercover investigation
By Drovers news source Friday, October 30, 2009

The Humane Society of the United States released the results of an undercover investigation documenting animal abuse at a Vermont slaughter plant. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture took decisive action and immediately suspended operations at the plant, pending a continuing investigation. The HSUS is cooperating with agencies, and provided undercover footage and some preliminary findings to them earlier this week.

According to HSUS, videotape from the investigation reveals that veal calves only a few days old—many with their umbilical cords still hanging from their bodies—were unable to stand or walk on their own. The tape shows that the animals were kicked, slapped and repeatedly shocked with electric prods and subjected to other mistreatment. After reviewing the undercover footage obtained by the HSUS investigator in August and September 2009, animal scientists Dr. Temple Grandin and Kurt Vogel pronounced that, “the handling practices and attention to insensibility at this plant are unacceptable and must improve.” Link

There is no excuse for the mishandling of livestock. In our industry, we have spent millions of dollars on educational programming for all different segments of the livestock business so that there are no excuses for mistreatment. I am proud to be in the beef business, but there are members of our team that don’t always do things the right way. Because of that, we will continue to devote as many resources as we can to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The HSUS will use this to claim that we shouldn’t eat meat at all. But, we don’t stop going to the doctor when someone is convicted of malpractice and we don’t stop driving cars because someone used it to commit a crime. If these allegations are true, I am glad that it was brought to the attention of proper authorities and that it will get corrected.

E. Coli Is Focus of Conversation Lately

E. coli in burger sparks meat industry controversy
The meat producing and processing industries have been taking criticism that they’re not doing enough to prevent E. coli contamination.

Published: 10/11/2009
By Rebecca Ernst

In the wake of a stark exposé on safety practices in the beef industry that appeared last week in The New York Times , consumers are taking a second look at the meat they eat.

The media backlash after the article’s publication has paved the way for another debate over food safety regulation, in particular the limited role inspections and testing play in keeping ground beef contaminated with E. coli off the market.

“Testing of product, either raw materials or finished products, is something that has limited usefulness,” said Craig Hedberg, professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Minnesota. “We can’t test every square inch of an animal’s carcass to see if there’s bacteria present … it just would be too expensive.”

Contrary to the recent media buzz, most facilities are extremely clean, said Ryan Cox, professor of meat science at the University.

“If you were to go into a modern meat facility,” he said, “it looks very similar to a surgical suite in a hospital.”

Cox explained that meat industry practices are so stringently regulated that “to infer in some way that we have an unsafe system would be certainly an error.” Read More

E.coli has become the hot topic as of late. Starting with the New York Times and going through the Larry King Live show last night, it’s the featured conversation all of a sudden. One of the things from last nights show that was unbelievably absent from most of the conversation was the fact that E. coli is very easy to eradicate. Patrick Boyle only mentioned it briefly at the end of the show when he said that proper cooking of meat will eliminate any contamination. Between the New York Times and Larry King last night, the conversation was all about questioning the safety of beef and talking to people that suggested we should stop eating meat all together. So if the solution to all of these problems is a meat thermometer, why isn’t that talked about? It’s a good example of the sensationalized media we are dealing with today. It’s a shame that both of these institutions didn’t use their resources to help educate people more about this, and instead they only worked to raise more fear and doubt about the world’s safest, most affordable food supply.