Ah, the complexities of producing and marketing food today. I’m sure Canadian cattlemen and processors were quite taken aback that a Canadian restaurant chain would shut them out of the supplier chain. It is also a bit surprising that it is happening in a smaller country, where one might expect businessmen to be more likely to stick together and protect each other. No one can accuse Earls of too much “nationalism,” a term the politically correct have turned into a “diversity” offence.

In this PC age, businesses are sometimes quick to overreact to consumer fads/trends, thinking they need to stay ahead of trends. On the other hand, the fact that only one supplier in the two countries feeding nearly all the world’s grain-fed cattle could supply something would tell most businesses they were getting ahead of their supply lines. Judging by their menu prices, they could also be getting ahead of their average customer’s devotion to a fad/trend, especially if based on preconceived notions and inaccurate information.

Prudent business planning would suggest that having only one supplier for any business is risky. In the meat business, a processor is always just one inspection problem, one process problem from being shut down for hours or days. It is an inherent risk.

But companies consider different risks differently. I’ll admit I was very surprised that some of the biggest food companies in the U.S. are cutting and running ahead of Vermont’s GMO labelling law (to take effect in July). I really thought that with Vermont’s minuscule population of roughly 625,000, the big food companies would figure, “What, reconfigure our entire product line and get new label approvals for 1/1,000th of the population?”… and just refuse to ship to Vermont.

Yet the biggest corporations have public relations departments telling them that if they are not politically correct — aren’t green enough, don’t recycle, don’t acknowledge so-called climate change and aren’t sustainable enough, they might have protesters outside their gates and social media in an uproar. Their sensitivity level is very high.

Meanwhile, while kowtowing to politically correct overreaction, how much accurate information from credible sources is being provided to those customers who really want to know? Adele Douglass, who runs the group providing the “Certified Humane” standards, was raised in New York City and nothing in her resumé indicates any real experience in production agriculture.

This is the difficulty all of agriculture has with its customers: many of them think of animals in terms of what’s sitting on the couch with them watching TV, a setting far removed from animal agriculture. They have difficulty imagining the sensitivity level or relative intelligence level of chickens, for example. They cannot easily understand how cattle can thrive outside in conditions humans can only handle with proper clothes and protection. And the misinformation about beef cattle, that spend 75-80 per cent of their life outside, eating grass, which the activists and the somewhat emotional feel is essential, somehow gets flipped to, “What, you leave them outside in the winter?” What happened to free to roam and fresh air?

I’m also concerned with the implication that the terminology “humane” is being lumped in with the use of antibiotics or growth promotants. Humane has historically meant how animals are treated, as regard to food, shelter, handling and, in the case of food animals, slaughter. I see nothing germane to humane when it comes to growth promotants. As for antibiotics, is it humane to let an animal suffer or humane to provide proper medical care? Why create a conundrum wherein the temptation is to see if the animal gets well on its own, rather than treat it and immediately forgo the substantial premium for animals that are never treated?

As for slaughter, there have been humane slaughter laws for many decades. Additionally, there are likely no major packers in either country that have not had Temple Grandin in to evaluate their facilities and recommend improvements in the handling and harvesting of the animals.

Of course, Earls’ management has since announced that it would be happy to buy Canadian beef as long as it can meet the same standards of the Creekstone brand and be certified humane. The Canadian industry contends it already meets these standards, and is in the process of creating programs to certify it. As I write this, however, Earls’ menu still states: “Our juicy, all-natural 100% Creekstone Farms Black Angus hand formed beef burgers are free of antibiotics with no added hormones.”

Note, it doesn’t say the livestock were raised without the use of antibiotics and growth-promoting natural hormones. It says the burgers are free of antibiotics with no added hormones. The same statement can be made for virtually every burger produced in Canada and the U.S. by the time an animal is harvested. The implication, however, is that other beef burgers are laced with hormones or antibiotics. Now we even have DNA research to document the “free” part for all beef.

The bottom line: the industry has a lot of educational work to do so consumers understand the real truth.

The post Too far out? appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Certainly the entire beef industry leapt to the defence of its product with vigour when the company announced its new policy. Enough so that an obviously shocked Earls was forced to backpedal from its original position and admit that it would be delighted to purchase Alberta beef that meets the standards of the U.S. Certified Humane brand.

What’s harder to find is any sign that Earls’ customers were overjoyed by this change in policy. Will its beef sales go up sufficiently to cover the cost of its campaign, and this U.S. product? The dollar alone turns it into a high-priced item for them. And if Earls’ beef sales don’t go up (and in some markets they may well go down) what does that say about the Certified Humane brand?

Overall, it won’t have much influence on beef sales. We may see a slight increase in U.S. product, but every pound of Canadian beef will still find a home. We can’t forget that over half of what we sell ends up in the U.S., so it seems a bit disingenuous for us to quibble over a small increase for a branded product.

The big concern, of course, is not the volumes involved, but that Earls’ campaign, like A&W’s hormone/drug-free slogan, implies all other beef is unsafe or unsound.

What effect that actually has on consumers is difficult to measure. Statistics tell us Canadian per capita beef consumption is still in decline but the demand for the product is rising. Health scares may have some influence on consumption but rising demand for the product suggests otherwise.

So do we fight these types of campaigns, or join them? It’s your choice, if you are a beef producer.

In the end anything that increases beef consumption seems like a pretty good idea, especially if it can be sold at a higher price to cash in on our rising demand curve.

When you think about it, campaigns like Earls are probably more the result of this slumping consumption trend than a cause, as people are forced to look for new ways to encourage their customers to buy more beef.

Viewed in this light these campaigns offer an opportunity to anyone who is willing to pay the price to get into that supply chain.

As we all know there is a cost involved in raising antibiotic- and hormone-free beef. In this issue Dr. Matt May with Feedlot Health Management Services puts it at 100 pounds per head. That’s a lot to make up in premiums to make the switch worthwhile.

Humane treatment, however, is something Canadian producers can generally lay claim to and starting this month, something they can be verified for. In fact, two auditable animal care programs are now available in Canada.

One is offered by the National Cattle Feeders Association. A general outline of this program appeared in our May issue, and a more detailed look at its auditing process is found in this issue.

The newest one is the animal care module of the Verified Beef Program that is being launched June 15 with two other new modules devoted to biosecurity and environmental stewardship that are being incorporated into the current VBP course materials. The animal care module is tied very closely to the requirements of the new Beef Cattle Code of Practice.

All three are tailored to fit into a total package under the guidance of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef which includes retailers and food-service representatives.

At one time you might have expected a lot of competition between these two auditing services but today the goal is to blend them so nobody needs to have more than one auditor coming out to their place.

This is one of those places where the connectivity pillar of the National Beef Strategy is starting to pay off.

If you are interested in a more detailed breakdown on the plans and achievements of Canada’s National Beef Strategy in its second year of operation you should plan to take in the Canadian Beef Industry Conference August 9 to 11 at the Grey Eagle Resort just outside of Calgary. Separate reports will be presented on each of the four pillars, productivity, competitiveness, beef demand and connectivity. Plus the organization funded by the national beef checkoff will be holding its own meetings at the same venue.

There are more details on the Beef Cattle Research Council session in Reynold Bergen’s June Research on the Record column. More details are available at the Canadian Beef Industry Conference website.

See you there.

The post Comment: We can audit for animal care appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

While many may consider this a victory, the question I pose in this article is did we win the war or just the battle? I suggest that we won the battle, and that it is just a matter of time before another Earls or A&W comes along and questions through its marketing practices how Canadian beef producers conduct business. The elephant in the room is how will beef producers react the next time and the time after that, particularly if the next company is a really big player like Walmart or McDonald’s?

To look at this issue more closely, let’s look at the decision by Earls’ executives. While not privy to corporate thinking, it appears to me that this business saw an opportunity to fill a niche that it felt consumers were demanding, specifically for beef that is certified humane. Emphasis on the word certified! They were right in stating that they would have to look long and hard in Canada to find a consistent source of certified humanely produced beef. Not to say we do not humanely treat our animals; anyone who knows anything about the industry knows that such a claim would be totally removed from the truth! Unfortunately most consumers are not as well tied into agricultural practices and increasingly are looking for more than verbal assurances that their food is safe, that animals are treated humanely and raised in an environmentally sustainable manner!

When I look at the website of the American company that Earls’ beef was to be sourced from, it offers a high-quality product that among its long list of brand requirements is a statement on humane treatment of animals. This company goes the additional step of having its production practices certified under standards of Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC,) which is a non-profit charity. This organization has created a long list of standards that producers must adhere to in order to quality for certification. While one may not agree with everything listed, for the most part they reflect the common-sense values that the vast majority of Canadian beef producers uses when raising beef cattle and reflect many of the values that leaders of various beef organizations are trying to instil in Canada.

Consider for example the Canadian Code of Practice for Care and Handling of Beef Cattle released in 2013 through the National Farm Animal Care Council and the Verified Beef Production Program offered across the country through various provincial and national cattle organizations. Both lay out guiding principles for producing beef in a safe and humane fashion. They cover virtually the same areas of animal care and production that the American HFAC standards cover. The difference is that those American producers enrolled under HFAC are “certified,” while in Canada participation to a large extent is voluntary. Producers in VBP are verified and audited, however, the number of participating producers at this point is limited and sourcing a consistent supply of beef under this program from birth to slaughter would be challenging.

So how big an issue are we facing? Are calls for beef to be raised in a humane, environmentally sustainable manner a passing fad or the new reality? Will we see increasing demand by consumers (backed up through their spending practices) for certified food production practices? My gut feeling is that we are at just at the tip of the iceberg in this regard and that these programs will become increasingly prevalent with time. Accepting the status quo with regards to food production will no longer cut it with a large segment of society, particularly young people.

That is why initiatives such as the Canadian Round­table on Sustainable Beef are so important to the future of this industry. This multi-stakeholder initiative is working to develop a framework that will allow all players in the beef value chain (i.e. producers, processors, retailers) to produce and source beef that is verified as “sustainable.” Not only will this initiative define sustainable beef production with input from all stakeholders, it will develop for each sector of industry, sustainability production indicators that can be audited and verified. This vision which is available on the roundtable’s website is to have Canadian beef recognized globally as economically viable, environmentally sound and socially responsible. Attaining this vision will require widespread industry buy-in! The question is — are you up for the challenge?

Of course the alternative the next time a major chain questions how Canadian beef is produced is to respond, “I am not eating there anymore!” However, in the big picture, I am not sure such a response does much to help the future of the industry.

The post Is ‘I am not eating there anymore!’ the best response? appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The move comes about six weeks after Earls retreated from a plan to source its beef from Creekstone Farms, choosing the Kansas company from beef suppliers following the U.S.-based Certified Humane animal welfare certification program.

Facing an uproar from consumers and ranchers, the chain said it would instead seek out Canadian suppliers who could provide beef “raised without the use of steroids, antibiotics or added hormones, while adhering to a standardized auditing process for ethical farming practices.”

The company on Wednesday said it will now be able to provide Canadian beef meeting its criteria for its 24 restaurants in Alberta and three in Saskatchewan, and will offer discounts on steaks and burgers at those stores until June 29.

The company announced its “new partnerships” with Vegreville, Alta.-based Spring Creek Ranch — which will supply Aspen Ridge Farms, a brand of meat packer JBS following the Certified Humane program — and Etobicoke, Ont.-based Beretta Family Farms, certified by Texas-based Global Animal Partnership.

Earls, in a release, also named White Moose Ranch, a beef operation at Priddis, Alta., as a “possible future” partner.

“We’ve been raising our cattle to meet the standards that Earls has been seeking because we believe it’s in the best interest of the animal as well as the consumer, so we’re happy that Earls has made this type of farming a priority in how they source their beef,” Kirstin Kotelko of Spring Creek said in Earls’ release.

Spring Creek became known in 2013 as the Canadian face for the suppliers to Canadian burger chain A+W, when that company publicly pledged to serve beef raised without the use of hormones or steroids.

“Earls has confirmed their loyalty to Canadian beef producers and we look forward to a long-term relationship in providing the very best our industry has to offer each and every time,” Canada Beef president Rob Meijer said in Earls’ release Wednesday.

Alberta Beef Producers chairman Bob Lowe of Nanton, Alta., in the same release, said the producer organization has been working with Earls “to identify new partner ranchers that meet Earls’ criteria for their customers and market segment.”

The company credited Meijer and Lowe as being “instrumental in helping us find our way back to Canadian beef that meets our criteria.”

The company didn’t say in its release Wednesday exactly who will now supply steaks and ground beef for its 28 other Canadian restaurants, which include three in Winnipeg, five in southern Ontario and 20 in British Columbia.

However, the company said on its site it is “developing relationships with new ranchers and suppliers all the time. And they want to work with us over the long term as we build our supply for all of our restaurants across Canada.”

In the meantime, however, the company reiterated it will still serve “consciously sourced beef in every one of our restaurants.”

Earls, on its website, noted it has “made a very public commitment” to serve Canadian Beef,” but also to offer its customers beef raised without antibiotics, steroids, or added hormones and “consistently audited by a third party” for animal welfare.

“We know Canadian cattle are raised with care and attention on the ranch,” the company said, but “humane audits look every year at the full cycle from the ranch to feedlots and the slaughtering process. We believe these audits, which are somewhat new to the industry, are good things.” — AGCanada.com Network

CLARIFICATION, June 22, 2016: A previous version of this article put the number of Earls restaurants in Alberta at 25. The Bankers Hall location in Calgary (315 Eighth Ave. SW) was closed effective Jan. 1 for renovations and is expected to reopen later this month as a “brand new Earls concept,” which for now leaves the number of Alberta stores at 24.

The post Earls locks in Canadian beef supplies appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Mo Jessa, president of Vancouver-based Earls, said Wednesday the company will instead begin to “work with local ranchers to build our supply of Alberta beef that meets our criteria” for animal care and treatment.

The company faced widespread criticism after announcing April 26 it would switch the beef supplier for all its 59 Canadian and seven U.S. restaurants to Kansas-based Creekstone Farms, a standard-bearer for the U.S.-based Certified Humane Beef certification program.

“We moved to a U.S. supplier as we thought they could supply all of our needs,” Jessa said in a release Wednesday. “It was a mistake not to include Canadian beef.”

Jessa noted the company has “deep roots” in the province with “many operations and employees here. Alberta has supported us. We need to support Alberta, especially in tough times.”

The company opened its first Earls restaurant in Edmonton in 1982 and now has over two dozen locations across the province.

Earls said Wednesday it is now “committed to sourcing as much beef as we can from Alberta and will work with cattle ranchers to build supply.”

In a notice to customers on its website, Earls emphasized it “stands by” its decision to offer its customers beef that has “never been treated with antibiotics or growth hormones and that meets specific, audited standards for animal care.”

The company said that when it set out to find a beef source with the quantity of cattle it needed, it had found one in Alberta, “but the supply was limited, so we found a supplier in the U.S. who could supply what we needed.”

Since then, Earls said Wednesday, customers have “told us that sourcing locally is very important” and the company has had ranchers “reach out to us to help supply us with product from Alberta.”

On its website, the company said it’s “had a lot of dialogue” with consumers and stakeholders over the past week and now wants to “make things right.”

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association on Wednesday said it “will watch with interest as Earls reintroduces Canadian beef to its supply chain.”

The association said it “supports market differentiation for beef, provided marketing claims follow Canadian food labelling guidelines. These guidelines require that claims do not mislead or create an erroneous impression, including about the quality, healthfulness or safety of a product.”

Earls’ original decision last week had quickly come under fire across social media, where the #BoycottEarls hashtag circulated widely among farmers and others on Twitter.

Without naming the restaurant, the CCA on Sunday had issued a statement that Canadian animal care regulations and standards, including the national Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Beef Cattle, “can stand up to, and perhaps even exceed, any worldwide certifications or standards.”

Regulations and standards, the association said, “differ from certifications, which are simply a record of the production practices the majority of Canadian cattle producers are already doing.”

The national Code of Practice “covers everything from proper nutrition (and) treatments when cattle are sick, to proper handling and transport. It encourages the use of low-stress handling techniques, as well as pain mitigation and medication for stressful procedures.”

Methods developed by low-stress cattle handling experts “are used extensively in Canada,” the association said, citing experts such as Bud Williams and Dylan Biggs — as well as Temple Grandin, the famed U.S. expert with whom Earls’ management met ahead of its decision last week.

Also without naming the restaurant, the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef on Friday issued a statement that its stakeholder members are “working hard to set the framework for sustainable beef in Canada and welcome others to join us.”

The organization, set up in 2014 with the aim of defining and advancing sustainability in Canadian beef, said Friday it “encourages all retail and food service companies, supply chain stakeholders and other interested individuals and organizations to join this effort and support the production of homegrown Canadian beef that is continuously improving for the planet, people, animals and progress.”

Toronto-based group Animal Justice on Wednesday said the chain’s decision and subsequent retreat serves to highlight what the group alleged to be a lack of government oversight, standards and enforcement on animal welfare in the livestock sector.

“Earls’ public relations disaster makes it clear that consumers want standards, transparency and accountability right here in Canada,” lawyer Anna Pippus, the group’s director for farmed animal advocacy, said in a release. –– AGCanada.com Network

The post Earls retreats from U.S. beef sourcing appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The company, which operates 59 Earls restaurants in Canada and seven in the U.S., on Tuesday billed itself as the first North American chain to commit to 100 per cent sourcing from operations following the Certified Humane Beef program in both the U.S. and Canada, starting Wednesday.

The beef comes from cattle raised from birth without the use of antibiotics or steroids and with no added hormones, the company said.

However, the company said on its website, while it has always previously used Canadian beef for its steaks and burgers in Canada, its move to “Conscious Sourcing” dictated that in the case of beef, “Certified Humane was more important to us than origin, so we chose a U.S. supplier for our beef.”

The Certified Humane program is managed by Virginia-based Humane Farm Animal Care, a not-for-profit organization operating in the U.S., Canada, Brazil and Peru, offering certification regimes for beef cattle, broilers, laying hens, dairy cattle, goats, pigs, sheep, turkeys and bison.

The company’s chosen Certified Humane supplier for beef is Kansas-based processor Creekstone Farms. Earls’ protein buyer, Dave Bursey, said in a video on the chain’s website that it tested product from 16 different companies throughout North America and in “steak cutting after steak cutting, the Creekstone product has won out.”

Earls said its decision stems from its recent development of a new restaurant concept for Calgary, which company president Mo Jessa said was designed as a “single, unique location, not part of the chain.”

Management, he said in a release, asked themselves if the new concept could be “100 per cent consciously sourced; Certified Humane; antibiotic-free, steroid-free, local, even organic.”

Then, however, they “fully realized the positive impact we could make within our industry by not only having one restaurant follow these principles, but by having our entire company follow these principles.”

The company began sourcing the certified beef for its Earls Test Kitchen in Vancouver and sent its chefs to visit ranches following the program and meet with U.S. animal handling expert Dr. Temple Grandin, who designed the Creekstone plant’s handling facilities.

Earls then began sourcing the beef last year for its nine “flagship” sites, followed by all its U.S. sites.

The company noted it has also committed to “free-run” and humanely raised chicken; cage-free eggs; and seafood sources approved by Oceanwise and the Marine Stewardship Association.

Earls said it has also committed to its Quebec organic maple syrup supplier and its organic vegetable suppliers in Ontario and British Columbia “to grow the way they want, from a single farm, knowing Earls would take 100 per cent of their crop.” — AGCanada.com Network

The post Earls ups ante on beef sourcing appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.