Impressive crops?

[BFW]

Cswilson and Grassfarmer,I have no problem with people trying new things or looking for opportunities that may improve their situation. What I object to is Grassfarmers comments that since this "grassfed" beef is not subjected to the stress of being placed in an ILO and not "filled with hormones" that it is somehow better than the traditional grain fed product. Science says that there is no difference and the EU pays penalties to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year to keep North American product out if hormones have been used in the production process. If these people (Hovens) at Eckville are as successful as you claim it will be because they deliver a quality product, provide good service and are competively prices to a select group of consumers who believe that they are getting a better product when in fact scientific evidence will show that they are not.

[grassfarmer]

We had this debate a few weeks ago and when I asked the other party to come up with test results proving that grainfed beef tastes better,is better quality, healthier or more natural than grassfed beef they started throwing insults at me insisting I had no right to ask for proof. Can you point me to the science that shows these things BFW?
The argument that N.American hormone beef is safe because "science says so" is the same stupid argument we are having with all the bodies opposing testing for BSE currently. If by some miracle the Americans were able to bully the EU into accepting shipments of hormone treated beef tomorrow the European consumers would refuse to buy it. When will some people ever learn that the consumer is king - it is THEIR money we are wanting afterall.

[grassfarmer]

In your earlier thread BFW you implied that I was advocating producing grassfed beef cheaper than S.America, Australia etc when I clearly said I saw a place for Canadian grassfed beef in the "local" marketplace (ie Canada) In my opinion no grain fed cattle reared in an ILO can ever be considered either efficiently or cheaply produced - it is clearly the most expensive way to produce beef in terms of energy utilisation, water/soil pollution concerns and air quality concerns.

[grassfarmer]

I read a long time ago that the base, or carrier for the implants was more of a problem to the EU than the hormone itself. Of course, to present a foriegn substance into an animal requires some sort of anti something to deflect infection. A few years ago more basic slow release antibiotics were used, but other things have been having success lately. Slow release antibiotics would very likely change the immune system of any animal, as well as potentially affecting the animal that eats it. I do not agree with hormones as I think we are screwing with things that do not need to be screwed with, ie marbling etc., however an argument over antimicrobial immune response would definately be a place for discussion.

[BFW]

Grassman, if there is a significant marketplace developed for grass fed beef it will ultimately be filled by those most able to produce it the cheapest. We import from those countries already. As for the other, I never claimed that grass fed beef was less healthy, didn't taste as good, wasn't as tender etc. as grain fed beef and doubt that there is any scientific evidence available to support that either is better than the other. However I know that if I look hard enough I can find that cattle implanted with growth hormones produce beef that is now higher in levels of growth hormone than that of cattle receiving no treatment. Frankly, as a cattlefeeder I do not care whether I implant my cattle or not but will as long as my competitors do as I will be at a disadvantage of about $30.00-$50.00 per head if I chose not to use them and the market will not compensate me for hormone free in the volumes that I am producing. Anyway have at it. If producing grass fed beef will keep your business afloat I wish you all the best.

[15444]

Rpkaiser:

You raise a very valid point when you talk about slow release antibiotics and how they may affect the immune system. My neighbour, whom visited with me for some time tonight, reflected on a very interesting story that occured quite a few years ago.

We were discussing the use of hay fields being used as nesting grounds for sharp-tailed grouse or what most people call 'prairie chicken.'

My neighbour said that a few years back he put a mother grouse through the haybine. Clipped her wing and she bled to death. Luckily, her little ones just hatched a little while before and were small enough that they missed the knife on the machine.

My neighbour then took these chicks back to the farm, tossed the eggs from one of his mother hens when she was out of her nest, and placed the chicks in their sted. Hen adopted them as if they had hatched when she wasn't around.

Everything was looking pretty good. Fed the chicks a little chicken feed..BAM...all drop dead. WHY? Medicated feed. You cannot feed wild birds medicated feed or it will kill them!

Now, when you realize this and think about it, is the EU really wrong in banning antibiotics and hormones in their food?

Grassfarmer is definately on the right track with his grassfed beef idea, although I think it is more broadly a reflection on the need for more organic production, or more eliquantly put, 'a reconstruction of thought in conventional production.'

And not to seem one-sided, BFW, I know what you mean when you say that hormones are a good thing when it comes to economic advantages. For many years, if it looked like the year might be a little low on calf prices, give the steers (never bulls or heifers) an implant before they go out to pasture and (in our case) your cows are bringing back calves that average 500 rather then 460 or 470.

But then their comes a point when people get too greedy and run for the buck rather then to try to stabilize their cash flow. This is evident through the ads that Ralgro and others had through the years. At first, hormones were strongly recommended only for steers and because of their cost, should be considered only if "the producer is unsure of the fall market prices." Now we have implants that are for steers and heifers, and their are many people who will use them just to get that little bit more out of their cattle, regardless if they need to or not.

We used to do the steers only if we were worried about calf prices in the fall, as it was of quite an economic gain. It was when we began to use implants in years when calf prices were quite decent, that I began to realize that we should step back and realize what we are doing.

We still have the Ralgro gun and almost one full round of implants. We did not use it this year (and have not for quite a few years), but in hindsight, should we have? Based on what may happen this fall with the predicted huge calf run, every dollar counts. So yes, we should have.

As producers we want to get away from things like antibiotics and hormones, but we need to change the entire system of how we are paid for our product. And that will only happen after something changes. Many producers would hope that the consumer would pay more for the conventional product so that it would be more economically feasible to make the change to 'more organic-based and environment friendly production.' But that is not going to happen. Consumers want us to make the changes to our product first, and then they will decide how much to pay us accordingly.

To use a perfect analogy, take a carpentry tool like a cordless drill for example. The company does not ask the consumer to pay more for their regular drill in order to finance the production of a new one-of-a-kind drill because then the consumer would get cheesed off at the price, wonder why they are being charged so much for a regular drill, and then buy another company's drill. No, the company must find the resources and finances to put forth a new one-of-a-kind drill that in the end, the consumers will hopefully judge to be of higher quality or desirability then the other 'regular drills' and for that matter demand a higher price.

In the end, the phrase, 'the consumer is always right,' is always right. Any other way or notion leads to nothing but demise.

[cowman]

An implant definitely will put some weight on a calf but at what cost? Once upon a time I used to use them but I got sick and tired of little 400 lb. heifers bulling and the darned little steers riding everything!
Now 40 extra pounds of weight looks pretty good for a $1.25 investment right? But the last few years the darned buyers just adjust the price down so you don't get a heck of a lot more anyway.
I think the days of hormones should be over. If those hormones turn these little calves into sex maniacs, what the hell is it doing to the people who eat it!

[cswilson]

Haven't used implants for years except to Jazz up steers a few years back to use as gomers. In fact are calves a certified hormone free so are eligible to go to Europe if that market develops.In fact I'm convinced unimplanted cattle quality grade better-our last 33 fats we killed had-Sterling-20 head-8-19cent premium. Prime-7 head-16-22cent premium. CAB-5 head-11-16 cent premium. AAA-3-7 cent premium. The premiums vary because we had some heavies because of having to wait to kill them. But you can see that the quality grade premium balances out the increased performance from implanting- average per head premium was around $85.00 per head.

[cakadu]

I would argue that despite best efforts, we are no where near the lowest cost producer, no would we want to be in my opinion. As lowest cost producer, that implies that you will "take" the lowest price offered and that certainly isn't the way to make any money in the beef business.

We have grown larger and larger in an attempt to have some sort of margin and what has it done for us? We have razor thin margins and that is for those who know their costs of production. Far too many producers do not have any idea of their production costs in a year -- all they know is that every year they go a little further in the red or see less black, which ever way you want to look at it.

We simply cannot compete with countries that can leave them out on grass year round. In a good year we have to feed for a minimum of 200 days; I don't think we could ever be the lowest cost producer of beef no matter what we did.

[cowman]

You are correct Linda. No way can we feed cattle up here in the bloody Artic and compete!
Now if we had a government that actually gave one small rip about its farmers the answer would be simple...don't compete! Don't let that cheap beef in here at all. Basically the same thing the EU does(in a round about way) and the exact same thing the US is doing to us right now!
Do we really need to export beef? Well yes we do because the darned cow herd is just too big! And it is too big for one reason...the government chose not to stand up and protect our grainfarmers in the international grain wars! The EU and the Americans subsidized their grain farmers...Canada chose not to...claimed they didn't have any money!!! Of course there is always lots to go around for idiot schemes like gun control and goofy ads to make Quebec happy!
So grain was no longer feasable for a lot of people and in came the cows! Almost all our problems today can be traced back to poor agricultural policy over the last three decades?
This "devastating" decline in agriculture has been borne by the farm families and small rural communities. A whole way of life is slowly dying and no one cares! Canada is Toronto/Montreal/Ottawa and they couldn't care one hoot if all the dumb farmers were gone!
They see absolutely no value in the Canadian farmer!