let's talk farm animals

Inside Farming: Hormones Are Everywhere, Including In You

By: Chloe Gresel, CanACT member, University of Guelph

The beef with growth implants in cattle production

Many Canadians actively search for hormone-free beef for their next meal, but hormonal implants may not be the enemy. In reality, growth implants help beef animals convert feed more efficiently, which results in leaner meat and keeps the price of beef more reasonable for the consumer. In addition, the levels of horses in these animals not be as worrisome as some think. Photo by Rudolph Spruit

Many Canadians actively search for hormone-free beef for their next meal, but hormonal implants may not be the enemy. In reality, growth implants help beef animals convert feed more efficiently, which results in leaner meat and keeps the price of beef more reasonable for the consumer. In addition, the levels of horses in these animals not be as worrisome as some think. Photo by Rudolph Spruit

There is much buzz in today’s media about wanting hormone free meat. Can I let you in on a secret? There is no such thing. You see, just like humans, all animals have naturally occurring hormones in their bodies. What the consumer is actually trying to get when they ask for “hormone-free beef” is animals that are raised with no hormones outside of their own. Companies such as A&W are trying to scare consumers into thinking that their products are better because they are using beef that is raised without growth hormone implants.

Can I let you in on another secret? Implants are not the enemy. Growth implants are used to help beef animals convert feed more efficiently. This means the animals develop more lean meat and grow more on less feed. Beef animals that are implanted have increased weight gain from 5 to 23 per cent and convert feed to meat 3 to 11 per cent more efficiently than non-implanted cattle. By using less feed, costs are reduced for the farmer and beef is kept at a reasonable price for the consumer. There is also a smaller environmental impact when cattle are implanted, as farmers are using fewer resources to get them finished and ready for harvesting. A 2012 study published in the Journal of Animal Science stated that if we were to remove growth implants from our cattle production system, we would need 10 per cent more cattle, 10 per cent more land and feed, and 7 per cent more fuel and fertilizers to raise the same amount of beef.

You might be thinking that it’s great that implanted beef has a smaller environmental impact, but you still don’t want all those extra hormones in your own body. Well then, let me share this tidbit of information: 15 ml of soybean oil has over 28,700 nanograms of plant estrogen, while a 100 gram serving of beef raised with growth hormones has only 2.2 nanograms. Surprising, isn’t it? Studies have shown that there are greater differences in hormone levels between the different sexes of cattle then there are between cattle raised with growth hormones versus cattle raised without growth hormones.

Share

Posted by Farm and Food Care on June 23rd, 2014 :: Filed under Agriculture Education,Animal health,Beef cattle,Consumers,Feeding the world,Food,Food safety,Innovation and technology,Misconceptions,Regulations,Speaking out,Sustainability
Tags :: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Inside Farming: There’s an App for that

Pictured is a milking parlour, showing off the electronics used by a computer system. As technology advances, farmers are utilizing these types of technologies that can work to their advantage when managing a farm. Photo by Rudi Spruit.

Pictured is a milking parlour, showing off the electronics used by a computer system. As technology advances, farmers are utilizing these types of technologies that can work to their advantage when managing a farm. Photo by Rudi Spruit.

By Rudi Spruit, CanACT President, University of Guelph
Today’s farms are more modern than ever with enough technology to care for hundreds of animals with a phone.

From GPS to weight monitoring to breeding problems out of genetics, technology has come a long way and continues to move forward at an extremely rapid pace. Every type of farm utilizes technology in some way and continues to improve to try and produce more food for less money.

If I had asked my grandfather how many cows he could milk, he would have said he could probably milk 45, although he would then be swamped with work. So, when my dad took over the farm in the 80s, he purchased his first computer and increased the herd size to 60 cows and 200 pigs. The computer allowed him to manage the animals more efficiently and decreased the amount of paperwork there was to fill out. Now, instead of using a calculator and paper, he was able to transfer all the information to a spreadsheet, completing a task that would have taken hours in just mere minutes.

In the early 2000s, we adopted a new computer program. This program allowed us to track each and every cow’s performance on an hourly basis. We can see which cow walked more or less than usual, if they lay down more than usual, if they’re not eating enough, or if they’re metabolizing too much body fat for milk output. We can also check the health of every cow by analyzing their milk as they are being milked. This kind of management level has increased our herd size to 200 milking cows, but takes less work than the 35 my grandfather was in charge of.

Share

Posted by Farm and Food Care on May 2nd, 2014 :: Filed under Agricultural Advocates,Dairy cattle,Innovation and technology
Tags :: , ,

Even Livestock are Getting in on the Tech Craze

Jean L Clavelle

RFID 2 PICAccording to StatsCan as of January 1, 2021 there are over 12 million beef and dairy cattle, almost 900,000 sheep and lambs, and nearly 250,000 bison in Canada.   Which is a lot of animals.  Bet you didn’t know that each and every one of those animals can be identified by its own unique number (much like our own Social Insurance Number).  The next question might be why…?  Why would livestock need to have their own number?

Well it is simple really.  With individual animal numbers we are able to easily track where any one animal came from in Canada.  The ability to identify animals and their origins during an animal health or food safety emergency is paramount to the success of the response operation and the protection of human and animal health.  Meaning it gives us the ability to prevent the spread of disease and further, to eradicate disease as it arises - to protect not only Canadian livestock but consumers and customers as well.

It was initiated in 1998 by beef and dairy industry leaders who recognized the importance of protecting our national herd and assuring consumer confidence which lead to the establishment of a national identification program.  On January 1, 2021 the Government of Canada passed regulations for compulsory animal identification for both cattle and bison. The Canadian Sheep Identification Program (CSIP) followed suit with its own industry-led trace-back system introduced in 2004 applicable to all ovine animals in Canada.

Share

Posted by FACS on April 14th, 2014 :: Filed under Agriculture Education,Animal health,Beef cattle,Bison,Dairy cattle,Sheep,Traceability,Uncategorized
Tags :: , , , , ,

Cleanliness and consistency keys to chicken comfort, farmer says

(St. Anns) - When newly-hatched chicks arrive at Topp Farms, they are placed into barns that have been freshly cleaned and warmed for their arrival. New bedding lines the floors, and energy efficient lights reflect off the natural wood paneling to create a cozy and safe place for them to explore.

“When chicks are placed into my barns, they’ve usually just hatched a few hours before,” says Kevin Topp, owner of Niagara-area Topp Farms. “It’s important to make chicks feel comfortable and that they find the water and food as quickly as possible.”

Kevin Topp is shown in his family's chicken barn.

Kevin Topp is shown in his family’s chicken barn.

Topp is a third-generation chicken farmer with a university degree in economics. He worked in the barns with his father growing up, but he considered a career in banking before returning home with his wife, Renee, who landed a teaching job in the area. He says his return to the farm was driven largely by new technology that was taking some of the labour out of chicken farming, such as automated feeding equipment, and improved temperature control systems. The industry was becoming more organized too, with a vertical supply chain that guarantees consistency and quality to end-users. Today his chickens are sold to a company that supplies restaurant chains such as KFC and Swiss Chalet.

Share

Posted by Farm and Food Care on December 16th, 2013 :: Filed under Animal care,Chickens,Family vs factory farming,Uncategorized,Ventilation
Tags :: , , , ,

It’s All Antibiotic Free, Baby!

Reprinted with permission from Hurdhealth.com

 

It’s All Antibiotic Free, Baby!

Posted by
After all of the recent Panera and Chipotle hype about antibiotic free production, I decided to look at the data. This is also a follow up to my previous blog about antibiotic free (ABF) meat; I am going to present some data to back up my claim that there is very little difference between conventional and ABF – in other words, it’s all antibiotic free, baby! #ItsAllABF!

Due to farmers following appropriate withdrawal times, there are very few violations. In fact in the last three years of USDA testing no broiler chickens have been found with violative residues for the scheduled (random) sampling. For beef only 2 violations out of 1,600 samples were found and only 3 out of 2,200 from market hogs.  Note that antibiotics are not toxins, there are useful and very safe products used by us all.

The Bottom Line

The residue detection levels in the 3 classifications that I analyzed (beef cattle, market hogs, and broilers) are extremely small and well below the levels that would cause adverse effects to a human eating the meat. In addition, if an animal tests positive for residues, it does not enter the food supply.

Meat from an ABF farm would supposedly have zero levels of residues – but, if you aren’t going to get sick or be affected by the perfectly healthy, wholesome conventional meat, why should you pay more for something that potentially carries more foodborne illness?

From a veterinary perspective, I am concerned with the internal struggle that the ABF farmer must face. Most farmers get some premium for raising ABF meat, so if the animals get sick does the farmer treat and lose the financial benefits of ABF or wait a day or two? Waiting can increase mortality and spread of infectious disease significantly. What about the veterinarian, who has taken an oath to prevent animal suffering, but management will only let him treat a small percentage of the barns? Can these restaurateurs really argue their ABF meat provides a better “conscience choice,” if it comes at the cost of additional mortality and animal suffering?

Share

Posted by Farm and Food Care on September 6th, 2013 :: Filed under Animal care,Animal health,Animal welfare,Consumers,Economics,Food safety,Innovation and technology,Media,Regulations,Research,Social media,Speaking out,Traceability
Tags :: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Drinkable Water - from Livestock Manure

An article entitled “Drinkable Water – From Livestock Manure” received a great deal of interest when it was published in the Globe & Mail on June 26.  The story features a project that is one of four semi-finalists in the Globe’s  Small Business Challenge Contest.

The article starts off: “General audiences might cringe watching a video that shows Ross Thurston, president of Calgary-based Livestock Water Recycling Inc., drinking water produced from treated hog manure.

But livestock farmers will probably say, “Genius.”

Mr. Thurston’s company builds and installs systems that treat hog and cow manure, separating solids and phosphorus, extracting and concentrating ammonium and, finally, discharging water that’s clean enough to drink.”

You can read the whole article at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-growth/the-challenge/drinkable-water-from-livestock-manure/article12810772/#dashboard/follows/

Micah Shearer-Kudel, Environmental Coordinator for Farm & Food Care Ontario, is working on many water quality initiatives funded through the Water Resource Adaptation Management Initiative (WRAMI). He submitted the following letter to the editor to the Globe and Mail:

The editor:

Drinkable water from livestock manure seems like a bad sci-fi movie theme, but is really a practical example of how today’s farmers are innovative environmentalists.  For example, Ontario farmers have invested $220 million dollars in environmental improvements on their farms in the past six years through Environmental Farm Plan projects. 

Saving soil, planting trees or funding plant research doesn’t usually make the news, but they are all excellent examples of commitments made by farmers that help people, animals and the planet. 

 

Share

Posted by Farm and Food Care on July 22nd, 2013 :: Filed under Environment,Environmental Farm Plan,Pigs,Research,Water Quality and Conservation
Tags :: , , , ,

Accessorized

by Kim Waalderbos

Mooove on over, ladies. There’s a new diva on the block, and she’s…accessorized. Her momma too.

Cows and calves on Canadian dairy and beef farms are all sporting a pair of ‘earrings’ or ear tags that are unique to them. The cool part about these ear tags is not only are they stylish, but they serve an important purpose too — traceability.

A young dairy calf sports her Canadian national identification ear tag (the round button in her right ear).

These ear tags are part of an industry initiated, industry-led program called the Canadian Cattle Identification Program (http://CanadaID.com). Participants in Canada’s beef, dairy and bison sectors established the program January 1, 2001, with full enforcement (including fines and penalties) since July 1, 2002.

Share

Posted by Farm and Food Care on May 21st, 2013 :: Filed under Animal care,animal handling,Beef cattle,Dairy cattle,Food safety,Traceability
Tags :: , , , , ,

Different types of dairy barns for different reasons

Cows waiting to be milked in a Pipeline or Tie Stall barn

by Patricia Grotenhuis

What are dairy barns like? There are three different kinds of dairy barns, and farmers chose the one that works best for them.  Some have an existing barn which is set up in a specific way, and they decide to keep that style of barn.  Others make changes as their needs change, or as new barns are built.

The three basic styles of dairy barn are pipeline or tie stall, parlour or free stall, and robotic, which is a different kind of free stall offering cows a choice of when they are milked.

Share

Posted by FFC on January 17th, 2013 :: Filed under Animal health,Barns,Dairy cattle,Farm life,Uncategorized
Tags :: , , , ,

The dirty side of anti-GMO activism

By Lisa McLean, Farm and Food advisor

If you haven’t noticed an increase in online dialogue about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) lately, you will. Next month, Californians will vote on Proposition 37, a controversial piece of legislation that, if passed, would require mandatory labeling on foods that contain GMOs and would influence labeling practices across North America. And as the voting deadline approaches, there’s an uncanny amount of “new information” being released about the supposed perils of consuming GMOs.

Most recently, a researcher in France managed to publish a scientific paper claiming to have discovered something that decades of private and public research has failed to produce: that GMOs cause cancer. According to the study’s researcher, rats that were fed a diet of GMO corn developed cancer and died at significantly higher rates than controls. Conveniently, the research was completed just in time for the final stretch of the Proposition 37 campaign.

The scientific community around the world has called into questionmany aspects of the study since it was released. Concerns include the conditions under which the results were released to media, the breed of rats used, the architecture of the study, and the troubling history of the lead researcher himself. And while the study’s results were quickly discredited in media outlets around the world, the damage is already done – particularly for consumers who are uninitiated to the dirty tricks used in campaigns such as this one. We can be certain anti-GMO activists will widely quote this “newly available” research. And, at least some consumers who have been safely consuming GMOs for years will buy into the fear mongering.

Anti-GMO activists use all sorts of tactics

But fights such as this one come at a hefty cost. The spending on both sides of the debate is getting out of hand, as proponents and opposition alike invest millions of dollars in campaigns around the issue. The consumer organizations and select food companies in favour of labeling are funded by a healthy dose of organic and so-called “natural” brands that stand to profit handsomely from further differentiation in the marketplace. Their opponents – large corporate food companies and suppliers – are likewise investing even larger sums of money playing defense to point out that their products have already undergone rigorous third party testing and have been proven safe for human consumption, time and again.

The truth is, most North Americans don’t give much thought to what approved scientific technologies were used to grow their safe, affordable food. And, consumers who take the time to educate themselves can opt to avoid foods containing GMOs, (if that is important to them), by choosing products that are labeled “certified organic.” But proponents of GMO labeling continue to turn up public pressure, and in all likelihood, someday soon they’ll succeed. It’s unfortunate that they feel the need to tear down trust in science simply because they don’t like what the science says. It’s unfortunate that, in an effort to scare others into agreeing with them – and in the absence of real evidence – they fabricate junk science to prove their point.

The real shame is that advocates on both sides of the issue are spending millions of dollars cancelling each other out on a noisy battleground. What if, instead of dirty tricks and PR stunts, companies on both sides pooled that campaign money and put it to better use – like investing in credible cancer research, or delivering healthy food programs to people in need?

 

Share

Posted by FFC on October 22nd, 2012 :: Filed under Activism,Food,Innovation and technology,Research
Tags :: , , ,

Meet the face of September in the Faces of Farming calendar

 by Patricia Grotenhuis

Farming is just in the blood for some people, as is the case with Jim Patton, a sixth-generation farmer from near Alliston.

Patton was not always sure he was going to farm.  He decided to attend the University of Guelph after doing a project on the importance of agriculture in his final year of high school.  He graduated with a diploma in agricultural business, and returned to the farm. 

Broiler breeder farmer Jim Patton

Once Patton returned to the farm, he began making changes to modernize the family’s business.  Patton is featured as the month of September in the 2012 Faces of Farming Calendar, published by the Farm Care Foundation, because of his dedication to making improvements. 

In 1998, Patton began keeping broiler breeder chickens. These are roosters as well as the hens who lay fertilized eggs that will hatch into chickens raised for meat. In 2000 he added raising pullets (young hens) to the farm.  In addition to the birds, Patton also grows corn, soybeans and wheat.  He makes it a point to go to as many industry conferences and workshops as he can, including a three-day training course at the University of Alberta and a no-till(age) conference in Cincinnati.  He sets a personal goal to bring at least one idea home to implement on the farm from each event that he attends. This interest has also led him to the Innovative Farmers of Ontario association – where he now serves as a director.

Share

Posted by FFC on September 19th, 2012 :: Filed under Broiler Breeders,Chickens,Education and public awareness,Environmental Farm Plan,Family vs factory farming,Farm life,Innovative Farmers of Ontario,Pullets,Uncategorized
Tags :: , , , , ,