Download (PDF) - The Western Producer

LIVESTOCK
LIVESTOCK EDITOR: BARB GLEN | Ph: 403-942-2214 F: 403-942-2405 | E-MAIL: BARB.GLEN@PRODUCER.COM | TWITTER: @BARBGLEN
ALBERTA BEEF PRODUCERS | INQUIRY REQUEST
Producers call
for inquiry
into XL Foods
Looking for answers | Producer group wants
to know what caused E. coli contamination
BY BARBARA DUCKWORTH
CALGARY BUREAU
Beef producers want to know what
went wrong at XL Foods following
Canada’s largest ever meat recall.
The beef processing company at
Brooks, Alta., was closed for a month
this fall after the discovery of E. coli
0157:H contamination. International
markets were lost, beef from 5,000
head of cattle was destroyed and
questions grew over how things got
out of hand.
Alberta Beef Producers passed a
resolution at its recent annual meeting
calling for an independent inquiry,
and the Canadian Cattlemen’s
Association is demanding answers to
a long list of questions submitted to
the federal government.
“It is a big question everywhere —
what happened?” rancher Bob Lowe
of Nanton said at the ABP meeting
held in Calgary Dec. 3-5.
“It is not a matter of laying blame,”
he said. “We just want answers as to
what happened.”
The CCA submitted its questions to
an expert advisory committee within
the federal government.
“We put together a list of 25 questions
based on things like how did the
recall end up getting expanded to
muscle cuts … questions that we
were hearing from producers,” said
CCA vice-president Dave Solverson.
There are also questions about how
communications were handled and
technical matters.
Federal agriculture Gerry Ritz said
in a Dec. 7 interview that the advisory
committee set up to look into the
matter is expected to take months,
said.
He defended the work of the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency and
the extent of the recall.
“We take it to heart and don’t want
to see those types of issues happen
but we will never apologize for the
size and the scope of the recall. If that
is what is required, that is what we
will do,” he said.
He is also confident the management
style of new owners JBS-USA
will introduce a new food safety culture
and new federal legislation for
food safety should improve future
investigations.
In the meantime, XL Foods is processing
up to 2,500 head per day. JBS
has an option to buy the troubled
company and its assets for $100 million
but said it is still evaluating the
deal.
Willie Van Solkema, a former president
of sales and operations at XL
Foods, was named president of JBS-
Canada Dec. 5.
Sterling Fox, head of cattle procurement
for XL, now holds that same job
within the new framework.
“There are a lot of positive things
with JBS coming to Canada,” Fox told
the ABP meeting. “I believe they will
drive a ton of value throughout the
Canadian market.”
As a multinational company, JBS
has a presence in 151 countries and
produces a large portfolio of branded
beef products. XL’s production
should return to 4,000 head per day
once it regains its license to export to
the United States.
“If we had access to beef in the U.S.,
we could be back up to full production,”
Fox said.
Bacterial contamination and food
safety is an ongoing challenge for
large processors.
Scott Entz of Cargill Meat Solutions
of High River, Alta., said the plant
uses practices, training and specific
interventions to reduce contamination
at every step of the process.
“Even at Cargill, I can’t stand up
and tell you we are never ever going
to have microbes,” he said.
“If the loads coming in are high
enough, with all these steps we can’t
guarantee ourselves we have eliminated
all that microbe.”
He said the company conducts
regular staff retraining, particularly
in areas where the risk of contamination
is higher.
It has also installed 120 video cameras
throughout the plant to observe
practices. Employees do not know
when the cameras are photographing
them. Entz said the cameras are
used for training and correcting mistakes
rather than for discipline.
The company installed a new
skinning line in 2005, in which carcasses
are washed to remove dirt
and manure before the hide is
removed.
One practice that is not in use is
irradiation. It is approved in the
United States, but Canada does not
allow it. Cargill is working with the
CCA for regulatory change.
However, its use is minimal in the
U.S. because of public perception.
UDDERLY GORGEOUS
TRAILING THE HERD
THE WESTERN PRODUCER | WWW.PRODUCER.COM | DECEMBER 13 , 2012
Calf weight gains are drastically aff ected if cows’
udders aren’t working well. Veterinarian Roy
Lewis gives advice on identifying udder problems
and maintaining udder health. | Page 91
Jeff Taylor follows cows up the coulee on the Flying R Ranch near Elkwater, Alta., just before sunset on Dec. 4.
| CAMILLE REESOR PHOTO
FEED | RESEARCH
Experts working to identify
more feed efficient animals
Looking for savings | The rising cost of feeding has officials looking
for genetic markers that could bring savings to producers
BY MARY MACARTHUR
CAMROSE BUREAU
RED DEER — Cattle producers can
save more than $40 per head per year
in feed costs by choosing more feed
efficient animals, says a beef cattle
management specialist.
The growing cost of feed grain will
make selecting cattle for feed efficiency
an important tool for producers,
John Basarab told producers
during the Western Canadian Grazing
Conference.
“We as a beef industry cannot
ignore that,” said Basarab, a research
scientist with the University of Alberta
and a beef cattle management and
genetics specialist with Alberta Agriculture.
“Inefficient animals eat for fun.”
Basarab has been researching feed
efficiency since the 1990s, but it is
only in recent years, as feed grain
costs rise, that producers and industry
associations have taken a closer
look at selecting feed efficient cattle.
Jeff Hyatt, beef development
co-ordinator with the Canadian
Hereford Association, said the organization
is testing 900 Hereford bulls
over the next three years to identify
the most feed efficient animals.
“We want to identify the most feed
efficient animals within the breed,”
said Hyatt.
The association then wants to
develop a marker for the feed efficiency
gene to help identify animals
that have the ability to eat less and
gain the same.
The bulls will be tested at Olds College
in Olds, Alta., and Cattleland
Feedyards in Strathmore, Alta., using
the GrowSafe Systems, which can
measure individual feed intake.
Hyatt said finding more efficient
animals is key to keeping the industry
profitable, particularly if producers
can save $40 a head in feed when
only a few years ago profit was $20
per head.
Basarab said feed efficiency is a
moderately inheritable trait. Selecting
for animals that eat less but gain
the same weight seems to have no
affect on growth rate, body size, calving
ease, birth rate and weaning
weight.
Feed costs for slaughter heifers and
steers from efficient sires could be
reduced by $16 a head over a 150-day
finishing period compared to the
offspring of inefficient sires. The
same 3.7 percent cost saving could
reduce feeding costs for efficient
89
cows by $26 a head compared to inefficient
cows, he added.
Improved feed efficiency will also
help Canadian cattle producers
compete with breeding programs
around the world, which are also
looking at feed efficiency.
“Over the years when I first started,
very few breed associations did this;
now they’re all doing this,” Basarab
said.
“Seed stock producers have already
incorporated this into their breeding
program. All of the beef producing
countries in the world are looking at
it very seriously. All they’re figuring
out is how to include it into a multitrait
selection program.”
The chicken, dairy and pork sectors
have already developed animals with
better feed efficiency, he added.
“They’ve blown our socks off.”
Basarab estimates a five percent
increase in feed efficiency would
mean $100 million in savings, even if
it were adopted by only 30 percent of
cattle producers.
He said rotational grazing, cross
breeding, improved management
and genetic selection have all
improved efficiency in cattle. The
next step is choosing cattle that eat
less.