Respondents were overwhelmingly concerned and did not want hormones or antibiotics in food in North America (54 per cent), Latin America (59 per cent) and in Europe (65 per cent). Africa and the Middle East had greater concerns than North Americans at 55 per cent of the population shunning food containing or perceived to contain antibiotics or hormones. Continue around the globe to the Global South and 69 per cent of respondents in Asia-Pacific also shun food containing antibiotics or hormones.

In all regions, over 50 per cent of consumers said they did not want to eat GMO food with the lowest concern in North America at 51 per cent and the highest concern in Europe at 59 per cent. This tells us that GMO resistance is global in context and greatly affects consumer purchases. Sodium and carbohydrates were a greater concern in North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific and Africa/Middle East than in Europe. And gluten was a factor for 29 per cent of the respondents in Asia-Pacific and 32 per cent in Africa/Middle East compared to 23 per cent in North America. The data indicates that Europeans are the least concerned about salt, gluten and carbs while the Asia-Pacific market is very conscious especially in regards to hormones and antibiotics (69 per cent) and gluten (29 per cent).

Interestingly, there was a question specific to beef and red meat. In North America 18 per cent of respondents do not want beef or red meat in their diet compared to 16 per cent in Latin America and 13 per cent in both Europe and the Africa/Middle East region. The greatest rejection of beef or red meat in the diet came from the Asia-Pacific region (24 per cent), which is concerning, as this is a major target market for Canada.

Rabobank managing director, Deborah Perkins shared her thoughts on the future of animal protein with Meatingplace editor Lisa Keefe (March 2017). She explained that packers will need to continue to be more responsive to consumers. Moving forward she urged that “all aspects of the value chain have to be economically viable in the long term” which invites another range of responsibilities to the protein industry. As there is bound to be more animal protein in the future, Perkins referred to the interrelation of all protein industries.

• More ‘Straight from the hip’ with Brenda Schoepp: The origin of all things

There is very little evidence of proteins taking an interrelational, non-competitive view of each other in the past, even though they face the same challenges when it comes to what consumers will not eat as highlighted in the Nielson study. And the fact that the non-animal protein uptake is on the rise is a shadow on all animal protein industries. From an environmental perspective, the push is on for consumers to believe that animal protein is a high user, if not abuser of energy, land and water. This is cited from environmentalist manifestos to scientific nutritional research. So it is not beef specifically that is under the microscope but all animal protein, products and practices that are associated.

Looking back from a global perspective on what consumers will not buy; it is clear that there is a linkage between the proteins that should be catching the attention of the beef industry. If any protein industry continues to produce food with hormones, there will be push-back. How do we collectively prepare for this? What research needs to be done? What message needs to be articulated regarding appropriate antibiotic use, GMO feed ingredients and additives, specifically sodium in prepared products such as sausage?

In Perkins’ checklist of survival tools she referred to successful clients and their adaptation to technology, innovation and sustainability or in her words “people you want to do business with.” If we look at these in terms of the protein industry and weave them into the beef specific then we have the beginnings of a conversation.

Historically, animal proteins were produced on small Canadian farms and their existence complemented each other. Farmers knew to keep pigs separate from fowl to avoid disease transmission and how to use excess production for the benefit of the other. And although this is highly sustainable and innovation and technology can be applied to this model, it is unlikely to mass produce to the current demand. But the model does work because of the interrelationship between human and animals and between the varieties of proteins themselves. Can we launch a discussion from a point of understanding that there are interrelations, identify them and then focus on specific actions?

Who needs to lead? In Keefe’s interview with Perkins it was clear that there were leadership competencies that were attributed to successful business and industry. First, leaders must understand the complexities of the entire value chain. To date, the industry is still broken into individual representation of specific production or processing points (who sit at the same table) with the final consumer as a separate component. This needs to change and markets clearly understood. Look again at the data in the Nielson study. The areas that industry is trying to sell into are the most resistant to the product.

Can we accept that the reactive nature of a traditional industry such as beef is not keeping up with the speed of other proteins and there could be a great benefit in discussions that focus on controllable issues that are relevant to the advancement of the animal protein industry? Looking to the future it is clear that we will not convince consumers to eat our product unless we change it. Are we ready to engage our scientists, empower our producers and work as an animal protein team? Food for thought as we face a hormone-, antibiotic-, GMO-, gluten-, sodium- and carbohydrate-free future in animal protein.

The post The interrelationship in animal protein appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

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.

The first step is to determine efficacy (effectiveness). In other words, a new growth promotant must be able to improve growth rate, efficiency or carcass composition before it will be approved for that purpose. But these products don’t just have to promote growth. They also can’t pose a threat to animal or human safety.

Target animal safety means that the product doesn’t negatively affect the health and welfare of the animal it is intended to be used in. For example, growth implants are not intended for use in breeding heifers due to concerns around possible negative effects on reproduction.

Risk assessments are conducted to ensure that veterinary drugs used in food animals do not pose a risk to humans. These risk assessments have four steps.

Hazard identification looks for potential adverse health effects that may occur if people are exposed to the veterinary drug or its breakdown products in food. These adverse effects may include reproductive disorders, cancer, DNA damage, organ damage, compromised immunity, etc. Lab animals are used to study synthetic hormones that mimic estradiol (zeranol in Ralgro), testosterone (trenbolone acetate in TBA-containing implants), or progesterone (melengestrol acetate in MGA). But much of the knowledge about how these synthetic hormones affect the human body exists because their natural versions have well-defined physiological roles in the human body. In fact, progesterone, estradiol and testosterone are used therapeutically for birth control, menopausal treatments and andropause. So the effects of both extremely high and low levels of natural hormones are well defined in humans.

Hazard characterization consists of dose-response studies aimed at finding levels of drug exposure that are so low that no negative health effects occur. This is called the “No Observed Adverse Effect” level (NOAEL). This is the level at which the humans (or animals) who were exposed to the drug were no more likely to experience an adverse effect than the control group were (humans or animals that weren’t exposed at all). Because humans aren’t the same as monkeys, and because human studies are usually done using a defined therapeutic group (e.g. people of a certain age, weight, sex and ethnic background), the NOAEL is divided by a large safety factor of 10 or 100. This new number is called the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The ADI is the level of the drug that can be eaten by humans on a daily basis over a lifetime without a measurable health risk. An analogy may help here. If all-wheel-drive Ford minivans can be driven safely at 100 km/h on dry Canadian highways in summer, that’s similar to the NOAEL. But to account for the fact that not all cars are Fords, minivans, or all-wheel-drive, and because driving conditions are sometimes wet, snowy or icy, the NOAEL of 100 km/h would be reduced by a factor of 10 or 100 to arrive at an ADI (speed limit) of 10 km/h or one km/h.

Exposure assessment, in the case of growth promotants, accounts for how much beef people consume. In Canada, this assumes that people eat 500 g of beef per day. That’s another safety factor, since average per capita beef consumption is below 75 g per day.

Risk characterization arrives at the maximum residue limit, or MRL. The MRL is the maximum level of drug residue that is allowable in the carcass or organs. Withdrawal times are established, based on studies of how the veterinary drug is metabolized by the animal, to ensure that the drug can be administered safely without exceeding the MRL. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency does random drug testing at federally inspected packing plants to ensure that MRLs are being observed.

The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives concluded that the amount of extra estradiol, progesterone and testosterone consumed in beef from implanted cattle would be incapable of exerting any hormonal effects in human beings. The same is true for their synthetic versions (zeranol, MGA and trenbolone).

You don’t have to use hormonal growth promotants. But there’s no need to feel embarrassed or worried if you do. When label directions are followed, they won’t harm your market cattle or pose a risk to consumers.

The Beef Research Cluster is funded by the National Checkoff and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada with additional contributions from provincial beef industry groups and governments to advance research and technology transfer supporting the Canadian beef industry’s vision to be recognized as a preferred supplier of healthy, high-quality beef, cattle and genetics.

The post Performance-improving product approvals for livestock appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Take, for example, the class of feed additives known as ionophores. These are a special category of antibiotics that can be used in both the cow-calf and feedlot sectors. There are three products currently registered for use in Canada. These include lasalocid sodium, monensin sodium and salinomycin sodium. Originally marketed for control of coccidiosis in poultry, these products were found to have similar biological activity in beef cattle. Coccidiosis is a protozoa infection of the lower gut, typically seen in young animals, particularly those that are under stress (i.e. weaning, shipping and mixing). The protozoa that cause this disease have a unique life cycle that includes an oocyst stage that occurs outside the animal and both asexual and sexual reproductive stages that occur within the small and large intestine of the animal. Calves are infected when they ingest oocytes that have been shed in the manure of infected animals. Severely infected animals can develop a watery diarrhea that may or may not be discoloured with blood. Other symptoms include depression, dehydration, weight loss and even death. In less severe cases, cattle tolerate the infection and develop immunity. However, growth and feed efficiency can be adversely affected. Ionophores work by interfering with the normal cell function of the protozoa that cause this disease. As their name suggests, they interfere with ion exchange across cell membranes and by so doing, hinder the growth and reproduction of the protozoa causing the infection. Both lasalocid sodium and monensin sodium are registered for coccidiosis control in Canada, monsensin sodium at 22 milligrams per kilogram (ppm) of diet dry matter, lasalocid at 36 milligrams per kilogram of diet dry matter.

• More ‘Nutrition’ with John McKinnon: Strategic protein supplementation

Control of coccidiosis is only one of the many benefits that ionophores provide to beef cattle operations. They are also registered at inclusion levels that may or may not be the same as for coccidiosis control for improvement of weight gain and/or feed efficiency. Cattle fed ionophores typically eat less feed while gaining the same or slightly better than non-ionophore-fed counterparts. It is not uncommon to see feed efficiency improve by five to 10 per cent when these products are fed at approved levels. To understand how ionophores influence feed efficiency, one needs to examine the nature of rumen bacteria. There are two broad classes of rumen bacteria; these include those classified as gram positive and gram negative. When rumen bacteria ferment feed, they produce fermentation gases such as acetate, propionate, butyrate, lactate and methane. Without going into detail, gram positive bacteria are less efficient at fermenting feed than gram negative bacteria. Specifically, they produce more acetate and methane than gram negative bacteria. Methane and the energy it contains are lost to the environment when the animal belches. In contrast, gram negative bacteria produce more propionate during rumen fermentation which results in more feed energy being available for use by the animal. Feeding an ionophore such as monensin promotes the growth of gram negative and hinders the growth of gram positive bacteria. The result is a shift in the rumen microbial population and a more desirable rumen fermentation pattern, particularly in terms of feed energy capture. The result is less feed for the same gain and, as a result, improved feed efficiency.

The shift in rumen bacterial population also has implications for control of rumen acidosis. For example, when cattle are fed high-grain diets, specific species of gram positive bacteria will produce lactic acid, which can accumulate in the rumen and lead to digestive disturbances such as acidosis. In contrast, under the same conditions, specific species of gram negative bacteria utilize lactic acid. By shifting the balance towards more gram negative bacteria, ionophores help to minimize the buildup of lactic acid and to control fluctuations in rumen pH. While not a label claim, studies have shown that monensin-fed cattle are more stable in terms of their eating patterns and as a result are less prone to digestive disturbances and off-feed related issues. Specific ionophores (i.e. monensin sodium) are also used to help reduce the incidence of bloat and bloat-related mortalities in growing cattle grazing legume pastures. In this case, a slow-release rumen bolus is used to deliver the designated dosage.

One could go on, but it is fair to say that technology such as ionophores are an essential component of modern beef production. Their use prevents disease, improves feed efficiency and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Why as an industry we have to defend their use is perplexing, particularly when those who suggest subliminally or otherwise, that beef produced with such technology is somehow tainted are in the same business as the rest of us — that is producing and marketing high-quality Canadian beef!

The post The role of technology in the efficient production of wholesome beef appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

A 75-gram serving of beef from cattle treated with hormone implants contains two nanograms (ng ~ one billionth of a gram) of estrogen.

“A person would need to eat 3,000,000 hamburgers made with beef from implanted cattle to get as much estrogen as the average adult woman produces every day, or 50,000 hamburgers to get as much estrogen as the average adult man produces every day,” says BCRC’s science director, Dr. Reynold Bergen.

“Beef is a really excellent source of protein, zinc, iron and a lot of other essential nutrients. It’s a really poor source of hormones.”

Considering there are about 45,000 ng of estrogen in 75 grams of white bread, the bun probably has far more estrogen than the beef!

If you need an explanation to go with the stats, the short of it is that cattle, alongside people and all other animals and plants, naturally produce hormones that are vital to growth, development and health. That’s why meat and plants can never be hormone-free.

Some of those natural hormones are steroid hormones, which are nothing more than a class of hormones that have the distinct four-ring nuclei known as a steroid nucleus. The word “steroid” comes from cholesterol because the hormones are derived from cholesterol and transported in the bloodstream to do their work in other parts of the body.

Promoting beef as raised without the added use of hormones and steroids seems rather redundant as far as beef production goes, Bergen says.

The long of it

Cortisol, primarily produced in the adrenal cortex, isn’t used to improve feed efficiency or growth in beef cattle, but is one of the most commonly prescribed steroid hormones in human medicine because of its anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects.

Estradiol (an estrogen) and progesterone (a progestin) are the two female sex hormones produced in the ovaries. Oral contraceptives are synthetic versions of these steroid hormones.

Testosterone, produced primarily in the testes, has an anabolic effect in people, that is, it helps repair and rebuild muscle and bone tissue. In human medicine it’s often used to treat people with wasting diseases or recovering from surgeries. Synthetic forms of testosterone were developed to give people the benefits without the unwanted side effects, mainly the development of secondary male characteristics. Synthetic steroid hormones that have this anabolic effect are called anabolic steroids.

Abuse of anabolic steroids and substances that the body converts to steroids is most often associated with athletes trying to build muscle, strength and endurance, but their illegal use is also reported to be growing among teens wanting to buff up.

Beef producers don’t abuse the use of steroid hormones in beef production, as evidenced by a compliance rate greater than 99.9 per cent on residue tests. They achieve high compliance by choosing appropriate products for specific classes of cattle and using them according to manufacturers’ instructions.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) conducts ongoing random spot checks at packing plants and has zero tolerance for hormone levels that exceed specified limits.

Use of growth promotants (hormones, ionophones and beta agonists) in beef cattle production isn’t anything new or covert. The products must be manufactured, tested and proven safe for beef cattle and beef consumers in accordance with Health Canada’s Food and Drugs Act regulations.

The Canadian Animal Health Institute reports that steroid hormones have a long safety record without incident for cattle and consumers dating back to their introduction in Canada in the 1960s and 1950s in the U.S. They are also approved for use in Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan, Chile and another 24 countries. The World Health Organization, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the European Community Scientific Committee and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives agree that hormones used in beef cattle production don’t pose a health risk to humans.

Steroid hormones and beef cattle

Zeranol, which is the active ingredient in the name brand, Ralgro, isn’t a steroid, but acts like a steroid by binding to the estrogen receptor. It is a synthetic form of the natural estrogen, zearalenone, produced by Fusarium spp. fungi.

According to The Merck Veterinary Manual, natural testosterone isn’t used on its own in farm animals because of the difficulty in achieving effective blood concentration levels over a long period of time (100 days) with current delivery systems. The synthetic form, TBA, has greater anabolic activity, especially in feeder heifers and feeder cows and when combined with estradiol for steers.

Estradiol naturally occurs in relatively large quantities in male and female cattle and has potent anabolic effects at very low blood concentration levels in cattle. Supplementing estradiol is more effective in steers than for feeder heifers and feeder cows.

Most of the approved implants are combinations of estradiol with TBA and/or natural progesterone added because the latter two seem to have the effect of slowing down estradiol release. Zeranol is a stand-alone product.

The forms of estradiol, testosterone and progesterone in implants aren’t orally active. If eaten they would be broken down by digestive acids and enzymes in the liver before entering the bloodstream.

That’s why steroid users who abuse veterinary steroid hormones inject them rather than eat them, Bergen explains. Oral steroid hormones for people are alkylated so they bypass the liver and enter the bloodstream.

Implants for beef production are commercially available in compressed pellets or silastic rubber to be implanted under the skin of the outer ear, which is easily discarded during processing. Release of hormones from compressed pellets is rapid at first, then slows over the course of 120 to 200 days, depending on the product.

MGA is approved as a feed additive for feeder heifers, mainly to suppress reoccurring heat cycles and the associated riding activity, thus conserving energy for growth. It may also have the effect of increasing estradiol release from the follicles.

Bergen says a key point is that cattle are implanted long before they go to slaughter. By then, the implant hormone is used up. That’s partly why feed efficiency and growth rate trail off later in the feeding period — the implants and their growth-promoting effects are depleted.

It’s also why there’s almost no measurable difference in hormone levels in beef from implanted and unimplanted cattle. There is more variation in hormone levels between male and female cattle than between treated and untreated animals.

BCRC’s document, “Optimizing Feed Efficiency in Feedlots,” explains how and why beef producers may provide ionophores and beta agonists as feed supplements to improve feed efficiency and weight gain. Neither contain steroid hormones, nor do they mimic or supplement hormones, Bergen clarifies.

Ionophores are a class of antibiotics not used at all in human medicine. They improve feed efficiency in several ways, one of which is by inhibiting methane-producing bacteria in the rumen that waste feed nutrients because energy in the form of methane can’t be absorbed by the animal. The CFIA’s surveillance program ensures there are no antibiotic residues of any kind in beef.

People are most familiar with beta adrenergic agonists used in asthma medication. In cattle, beta adrenergic agonists bind to a beta receptor on the muscle and act sort of like adrenaline to redirect nutrients to muscle growth instead of fat buildup toward the end of the feeding period. Being water soluble, beta agonists approved for use in beef cattle in Canada don’t stay in the animals for more than a couple of hours. Compliance with use and withdrawal times is 99 per cent.

Bergen feels consumers are concerned about conventional beef production practices because they don’t understand them. BCRC’s blog post on conventional production of Canadian beef and other sound information can be found on its website, along with many useful references when talking with consumers about why the beef industry does what it does.

The post Straight talk on cattle steroids appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.