Private Meat Sales

[jabers34]

What bunch of BS . I can remeber when I was kid Dad and a couple of his friends would get together on Saturday and kill a beef .They would put rope on lead it outside, put it down .Then use the frontend loader or poles to hang it up ,skin it and gut it .Then load it in halfton .Take it up to the meat cutter and let it hang for a few days . Then get cut up,split the beef between who help kill it . We are all still alive and it was never checked by a Gov. inspector . Just another way for the Gov. to the little guys out of business and get a bunch money out of ya .
Sorry if I offended anyone things like this really tick me off .

[jabers34]

The key here is that all those involved in the slaughter were the recipients of the meat. A bit different than on farm slaughtering of beef for sale.
It is likely in the best interest of the industry that there are regulations governing the slaughter and sale of beef....although it may not make a lot of sense.

[grassfarmer]

jabers34, what you say is true enough - but a lot of this food selling business nowadays is built on consumer perception of good practice not facts - and the threat of being sued. Look how many meat recalls there are for beef originating in the huge packing plants that are Gov. inspected.

[dsinclair]

And, times have changed! We must realize that we are food producers, not cow producers. There is alot of time spent today on gathering information for EPD's to predict rate of growth, rib eye size, etc. Consumers are paying alot of money for the product and I believe they should be getting the best. I think there will come a day when the producer who raises the so called best will get a better dollar for his product. There will always be a place for other products as well, but the high return will not be there. Also, the fellow who produces each product will be recognized in some way, similar to country of origin. In France, we have heard, there are names of farmers and even photos of those that produced a particular cut of meat. I think that's going a bit far, but consider how many people buy from farmers markets and the money they pay for a product sold by the producer and one which may or may not be of superior quality. It comes down to this value added stuff. The production of beef, marketing it and selling it have changed and we have got to change too!

[cakadu]

Many people were raised on meat the way you speak of jabers. In fact, it is surprising how in one generation we don't see that much anymore. A friend of mine was commenting that he remembers doing what you speak of all the time on the farm, yet if he did it with his kids, they would be horrified.

It may not make a whole lot of sense, but I do believe it is for the common good. Many people were very careful with how they processed the meat on farm. All it takes is one who isn't and the problems and consequences of that can be huge. Better to avoid them altogether instead of having to deal with the consquences.

[boone]

Cakadu: Good points, and furthermore that scoundrel that is buying junk, cutting and running with the cash is gaining from the positive perception of "Alberta Beef". What happens when you all become painted with 'his' well deserved brush. Loss of confidence and meat sales I'll bet. It is in your general best interest to manage it among yourselves and bring this guy up short.

[boone]

Hopefully all individuals who are selling government inspected beef from their farm or farmer's market or by truck load sales will not be tarred with the same brush as someone who is less than above board.
I know of several families in my area that are selling government inspected beef and are very particular of the product they sell, because they want to continue to develop a good client base.

[cakadu]

Emrald, your example is what we do here as well and I know that many other direct marketers also do that.

The problem with many consumers is that they wouldn't necessarily make the distinction should a less than scrupulous seller cause an outbreak of some sort of food borne illness or heaven forbid, something worse.

Education and awareness of what direct marketers do is key, as is letting the customer know what it is you do on your farm. We tell all of our customers - repeat and new - exactly what goes on from the time the lamb hits the ground to the time it ends up in their freezer i.e. how it is fed, housed, guarded etc.

There is so much potential in direct marketing many of our farm products and most importantly, capturing the value. I am encouraged by the potential.

[cakadu]

I found this on the food safety net and thought it goes a long way to explain why we need to be as diligent as possible. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

We eat and drink our environment
October 16, 2004
Corner Post #352
Farm & Countryside Commentary
by Elbert van Donkersgoed
Last month, fresh sushi was banned in Ontario - maybe. Health officials have formalized rules which require the fish to be frozen first. There's a three-month stay on enforcement. Politicians were quick to respond with talk of a review. The official rationale for the new regulation? -- freezing raw fish is an effective way to remove parasites.
Also last month, General Mills, the second largest cereal producer in the U.S., announced its imminent conversion of all its breakfast cereals to whole grain. Twenty-nine cereals will feature new recipes and packaging as they join Cheerios and Wheaties in the healthier eating aisle. The official rationale for the nutritional makeover? -- the "Whole Grain" label on every box will make it easier for consumers to eat healthy food.
These stories took me back to the seminar series sponsored last winter by the Christian Farmers Federation on the theme: "Out of an Abundance of Caution." We say, "Food is safe for health, farming systems are safe for the environment" and then we load on the regulations, cook up new recipes and retarget the message. At the end of a day of exploring the growing vigilance permeating the food chain, we asked seminar participants: What is driving us to become so cautious?
Throughout the seminar series a total of 370 reasons for caution were recorded. Grouping them resulted in a number of themes for both society and farmers.
Society has become cautious because consumer attitudes and characteristic have changed, society is losing its ability to take risks, the media has emphasized perception rather than fact, trust throughout the food chain has eroded and governments have lost credibility.
According to participants, consumers have become more health conscious, are better educated on the connection between food and health, are more likely to make decisions based on emotions and have become detached from the source of their food. This disconnect between consumers and producers is generating a fear of the unknown (30 %). Society, in general, has become risk-averse in response to globalization, to awareness created by the discovery in Canada of SARS, Avian flu and mad cow disease, to technology such as transgenic modification and in response to the threat of terrorism (29 %). The media blows concerns about the food chain out of proportion through sensationalism and emphasizing the risks, while not bothering with sound comparative facts (22 %). A lack of trust and fear of the unknown was blamed on the anonymity and the lack of relationships between the participants in the food chain (14 %). Government credibility was described as non-existent because they had, for too long, emphasized cheap food (5 %.
Farmers are adopting more cautious approaches on their own farms because of market signals, their own desire to be responsible, fear of liability, the pressure of regulations and a sincere desire to reassure consumers. One of the breakout groups wrote: "We are no longer innocent until proven guilty."
Participants themselves have become more cautious and support various assurance schemes to protect market shares and slim margins, have an edge in the marketplace, be part of "new and improved" products, access premiums, open export markets and meet and exceed standards. They recognized that the concentration of market clout by a few transnational corporations creates competition and access issues that keep them scrambling to keep up with the pace of change (30 %). Participants want to be good stewards. They want to be recognized as proactive, responsible, caring, constantly improving, professional, science-based, accountable, committed to sustainable agriculture and be able to take pride in their production (22 %). Others felt forced into cautious activities to meet regulations, document their due diligence, create traceability and get the few who are careless to meet standards (20 %). One breakout group wrote "have to go along to get along." A number have changed practices out of fear of litigation and nervousness about some of the recent experiences in the Canadian food system such as the discovery of mad cow disease and Avian flu (18 %). Others are participating in documented assurance programs to emphasize the need to maintain consumer confidence in farm practices and products (11 %).
Our growing sense of caution is a response to a simple fact: the human footprint in our environment is growing. We eat and drink our environment.

[cowman]

The government has made all these regulations to improve food safety and then turn around and do everything possible to make them fail?
For example: The recent E Coli outbreak in Calgary? First it was rumored XL, then Centennial meats? I heard later yes it was Centennial meats...but guess what?...Australian meat!!!
Remember the Jack-in-the-Box scandal in Washington State? Again, Canadian meat! Well it turned out to be Australian meat, sold by some Canadian company...and a lot of it was kangaroo!
Why do we bother to try to produce a quality safe product when our government still allows all this filthy foreign product to be sold as Canadian meat?