WorldWatch:

[mikey]

Animal Feed & Animal Nutrition News Million-dollar farms in the new century
// 05 jan 2009

A new report from the Economic Research Service shows that small farms still represent the majority of farming in the US, but the number of million-dollar farms is increasing rapidly.

 
Small farms (those with annual sales less than $250,000) represent a large majority of US farms (92%), but account for a relatively small share of total farm production (23%).

The report from the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA examines the other end of the size spectrum, where a large percentage of farm production occurs, specifically on "million-dollar farms" whose annual sales total $1 million or more.

The 35,100 million-dollar farms reported in 2006—2% of all US farms—accounted for 48% of the sales of US agricultural products.

Shift in farm sales distribution
Major shifts occurred in the distribution of gross farm sales between the 1982 and 2002 Censuses of Agriculture, with sales measured in constant 2002 dollars.

Farms with sales of $1 million or more doubled their share of total US farm sales from 23% in 1982 to 48% in 2002. Some of these million-dollar farms are relatively recent entrants to farming, while others existed as far back as 1978. The shift in production to million-dollar farms is likely to continue. Average operating profit margins increase with sales, reflecting economies of size in farming.

As a result, million-dollar farms—and farms growing to that size—have a competitive advantage relative to smaller farms. The shift in production may eventually slow, however, once million-dollar farms’ shares of the commodities most amenable to large-scale production reach their upper limits.

No market power
Million-dollar farms do not have market power. The shift in farm production to million-dollar farms reflects a long-term concentration of farm production on fewer farms that has been underway since the beginning of the 20th century.

However, there are still too many million-dollar farms—just over 35,000—for any single farm to dominate agriculture or the production of specific commodities.

Small share in subsidies
Million-dollar farms receive a small share of Government payments. Most Government payments are commodity-related or targeted at current or past production of specific commodities, largely feed and food grains, cotton, and oilseeds. Relatively few million-dollar farms—particularly those with sales of $5 million or more—specialize in crops covered by commodity programs.

As a result, million-dollar farms received only 16% of US Government payments in 2006, a small share compared with their 48% share of gross sales, although disproportionately large compared with their 2% share of all farms.

Implications drawn
Three significant implications regarding million-dollar farms can be drawn from the information presented:

1. The shift in production to million-dollar farms is likely to continue. As long as the operating profit margin is proportional to sales class, million-dollar farms will have a competitive advantage. The shift in production may eventually slow, however, once million-dollar farms’ shares of the commodities most amenable to large-scale production reach their upper limits.
2. There are still a sufficient number of million-dollar farms to prevent individual farms’ domination agriculture or individual commodities. Concentration of production, however, may be a more significant concern when the owners of commodities—which include production contractors—are considered, rather than just the farms producing them.
3. Most million-dollar farms are family operations, although the operator and spouse supply only a small fraction of the labour. Direct ownership of million-dollar farms by non-farm corporations is infrequent, but such corporations are frequently involved with million-dollar farms through contracting

[mikey]

Animal Feed & Animal Nutrition News Aflatoxin kills hundreds of Taiwanese dogs
// 06 jan 2009

Agricultural authorities in Taiwan have ordered a local firm to destroy contaminated dog feed after it was suspected to have killed more than 300 stray dogs.

 
Ji-Tai Forage Company imported 1,500 tonnes of corn from Pakistan in November, of which 50 tonnes were used to make dog feed and 1,450 tonnes to make pig feed. The deaths of hundreds of stray dogs at two shelters in northern Taipei late last year prompted the Council of Agriculture to investigate.

Samples taken from the dog food showed it contained up to 150 ppb (parts per billion) of aflatoxin, a chemical produced by a fungus, which causes severe liver damage in animals. Dogs are very sensitive to aflatoxins. International allowable levels of aflatoxin for dogs stand at around 20 ppb.

Around 30 tonnes of the tainted dog feed were retrieved and destroyed but 20 tonnes, and 1,450 tonnes of pig feed, have been consumed. Pigs are less susceptible for the mycotoxin. Allowable levels of aflatoxin for pig feed are 200 ppb.

The council said it would step up its tests of corn imports from Pakistan to prevent any recurrence.

[mikey]

Japan study group says cloned animals safe for food
Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:20am EST  Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text

TOKYO (Reuters) - A study group for Japan's top safety watchdog said cloned animals are safe for food, the first step in a series of decisions needed before the watchdog makes recommendations to the government.

With several meetings pending by a higher-level committee of experts, it will take months before the Food Safety Commission reports its assessment on the safety of food in production using the controversial reproductive technology.

The United States in January last year opened the door to bringing meat and milk from cloned cattle, hogs and goats and their offspring into the food supply.

"The working group focused on the assessment of the health of cloned cattle and hogs. The assumption of their discussion was that if such animals are healthy, food made from them would be safe," said Kazuo Funasaka, a spokesman at the commission, said on Tuesday.

"Their conclusion is that based on the scientific knowledge and information available at present, such food is as safe as cattle and hogs bred conventionally," he said.

Cloning animals is considered a key technology to improve efficiency in livestock production.

Japan's health ministry asked the commission in April 2008 for its assessment on safety of such food.

Japan's government has had to face fierce criticism from consumers over its handling of tainted imported rice, and a series of food scandals last year have made consumers even more cautious about food from cloned animals.

But Japan was among the first countries to produce cloned animals. It bred cloned cattle in 1998 and the cumulative total of such cattle now totals more than 550. It also breeds cloned hogs and goats, all for research purposes.

(Reporting by Risa Maeda; Editing by Edwina Gibbs)

[mikey]

Wednesday, January 21, 2009Print This Page
Sadia to Reduce Work Force
BRAZIL - Brazilian meat processing giant, Sadia, is cutting jobs.



Meatingplace reports that meat processor, Sadia S.A., based in Santa Catarina state, will cut 350 administrative jobs.

Company chairman, Luiz Furlan, gave the news to local financial newspaper, Valor Economico in an interview. The cuts will save about $18 million a year.

Sadia, one of Brazil's largest meat processors and an international player in beef, pork, chicken and turkey, suffered large losses on foreign exchange futures positions last year when the US dollar appreciated against the Brazilian real.

Analysts are expecting the company to report its first annual net loss in 2008, according to Dow Jones.

The company's strategic focus has moved increasingly towards internationalization and producing and distributing processed frozen and chilled foods. Its web site reports exports close to 1,000 items to more than 100 countries, according to Meatingplace.

[mikey]

Thursday, January 22, 2009Print This Page
Chinese Urbanisation to Swallow up Global Grains
CHINA - Global grain markets are facing breaking point according to new research by the University of Leeds into the agricultural stability of China.



Experts predict that if China’s recent urbanisation trends continue, and the country imports just 5 per cent more of its grain, the entire world’s grain export would be swallowed whole.

The knock-on effect on the food supply - and on prices - to developing nations could be huge. This is the conclusion of the Quantifying and Understanding the Earth System (QUEST) project which has been funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). QUEST aims to look at global scale impacts of climate change across a range of areas including fisheries, agriculture, and epidemiology.

Sustainability researchers have conducted a major study into the vulnerability of Chinese cropland to drought over the past 40 years, which has highlighted the growing fragility of global grain supply, says the report. Increased urban development in previously rich farming areas is a likely cause.

“China is a country undergoing a massive transformation, which is having a profound effect on land use,” says Dr Elisabeth Simelton, research fellow at the Sustainability Research Institute at the University of Leeds, and lead author of the study. “Growing grain is a fundamentally low profit exercise, and is increasingly being carried out on low quality land with high vulnerability to drought.”

The study looked at China’s three main grain crops; rice, wheat and corn, to assess how socio-economic factors affect their vulnerability to drought. Researchers compared farming areas with a resilient crop yield with areas that have suffered large crop losses with only minor droughts.

They found that traditionally wealthy coastal areas are just as susceptible to drought as areas with poor topography in the east of the country.

“Quality land is increasingly being used for high profit crops, such as vegetables and flowers. The impact of this on local and global economies is an issue that the newly created Centre for Climate Change, Economics and Policy (CCCEP) will address,” explains Dr Simelton.

CCCEP is a partnership between the University of Leeds and the London School of Economics. Its main objectives include developing better climate change models and understanding how developing countries can adapt to climate change.

At the moment the Chinese government claims that China is 95 per cent self sufficient in terms of grain supply. If China were to start importing just 5 per cent of its grain (to make up a shortfall produced by low yields or change of land use to more profitable crops) the demand would hoover up the entire world’s grain export.

The pressure on grain availability for international grain markets could, in turn, have a huge knock-on effect. Poorer countries are particularly vulnerable, as demonstrated by the 2007-2008 food crisis.

Published in the journal Environmental Science and Policy, the study used provincial statistics of harvests and rainfall together with qualitative case studies to establish the differences between land that is sensitive to drought and land that is not.

“One aim of this research is better understanding of the socio-economic responses to difficult conditions so that we can improve models of climate change” says Dr Simelton.

“These trends of urbanisation are also happening in India, with the population predicted to keep on rising until at least 2050. Ultimately the limiting factor for grain production is land, and the quality of that land.”

The research is part of the Quantifying and Understanding the Earth System (QUEST) project and has been funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). QUEST aims to look at global scale impacts of climate change across a range of areas including fisheries, agriculture, and epidemiology.

[mikey]

Death penalty in melamine scandal
// 22 jan 2009

Two men have been given the death penalty for their involvement in China's contaminated milk scandal. The former boss of the Sanlu dairy at the centre of the scandal was given life imprisonment. They are among 21 sentences being handed down by the court in northern China, where Sanlu is based.


One of the most eagerly-awaited sentences was that of Tian Wenhua, who was chairwoman of the Sanlu Group, the largest producer of baby milk powder. She had already pleaded guilty to charges of producing and selling fake or substandard produce, and was given a life sentence by the Intermediate People's Court in Shijiazhuang.

Earlier the court sentenced Zhang Yujun and Geng Jinping to death. Zhang Yujun was accused of running an illegal workshop in Shandong province in eastern China, producing 600 tonnes of the fake protein powder - the largest source of melamine in the country. He was sentenced along with Zhang Yanzhang - accused of selling on Zhang Yujun's protein powder - who was given a life sentence. Milk producer, Geng Jinping had been convicted of producing and selling toxic food to dairy companies.

The scandal, in which melamine was added to raw milk to make it appear higher in protein, led to the deaths of six babies and made some 300,000 ill. See below the timeline of the scandal.

10 Sept: 14 babies reported ill in Gansu province
15 Sept: Beijing confirms first deaths from the contamination
22 Sept: Toll of ill babies rises to tens of thousands - and eventually will rise to almost 300,000
23 Sept: Other countries start to test Chinese dairy products or remove them from shops
31 Oct: Chinese media suggest melamine is routinely added to animal feed
24 Dec: The main dairy firm involved, Sanlu, is declared bankrupt
31 Dec: Four senior Sanlu executives go on trial
2 Jan: Firms involved ask for forgiveness in a mass New Year text message
22 Jan: A court in China begins handing down sentences

[mikey]

Zoonoses in the EU: Trends and Sources
Because zoonoses are infections and diseases that are transmissible from animals to humans, it makes it particularly important to keep these livestock diseases under surveillance and control, writes Adam Anson, reporting for ThePigSite.


In order to keep a track on the activity of these diseases within Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) monitors the prevalence in each of the EU Member States (MS).

Infection via zoonoses can be acquired either by direct contact with infected animals, or by consuming contaminated food products. Consequently, to gain a true picture of how zoonoses affect the entire animal feed sector, EFSA have analysed data in human, animals and foodstuffs.

Once EFSA can adequately identify which animals and foods are the main sources of infections, it believes it will be will be better equipped to prevent them from occuring.

Most Common Zoonoses
The latest zoonoses analysis, released in January 2009, looks at data collected in the year 2007. According to the analysis, The Community Summary Report On Trends and Sources of Zoonoses and Zoontic Agents in the European Union in 2007, campylobacteriosis was again the most frequently reported zoonotic disease in humans in the European Union with 200,507 confirmed cases. Most of the Member States reported an increased number of cases of campylobacteriosis for that year.

The report says salmonellosis was still the second most commonly recorded zoonosis accounting for 151,995 confirmed human cases. However, the incidence of salmonellosis continues to decrease in the European Union with a statistically significant trend over the last four years.

In foods, the highest proportion of campylobacter-positive samples was once again reported for fresh poultry meat, where on average 26 per cent of samples were found positive. Campylobacter was also commonly detected from live poultry, pigs and cattle. The reported proportions of Campylobacter-positive samples remained at high levels and no overall decrease was apparent.

The reported notification zoonoses rates in confirmed human cases in the EU, 2007

 
Source: EFSA
Salmonella was most often found in fresh poultry and pig meat where proportions of positive samples, on average 5.5 per cent and 1.1 per cent, were detected respectively. Some Member States reported 0.8 per cent of table eggs positive for Salmonella, while dairy products, vegetables and fruit were rarely found to contain the bacterium. In animal populations, Salmonella were most frequently detected in poultry flocks.

2007 was the first year when EU Member States implemented the new Salmonella control programmes in poultry (Gallus gallus) breeding flocks on a mandatory basis and already 15 Member States reported prevalence below the Salmonella reduction target of one per cent laid down by Community legislation.

The number of listeriosis cases in humans remained at the same level as in 2006 with 1,554 confirmed cases recorded in 2007. A high fatality rate of 20 per cent was reported among the cases, especially affecting the elderly. Listeria bacteria were seldom detected above the legal safety limit from ready-to-eat foods but findings over this limit were most often found in smoked fish and other ready-to-eat fishery products followed by ready-to-eat meat products and cheeses.

At European Union level, the occurrence of bovine brucellosis remained largely unchanged compared to 2006, while that of bovine tuberculosis and sheep/goat brucellosis seemed to slightly decrease. In humans, 542 confirmed brucellosis cases were reported but the notification rate is decreasing.

A total of 2,905 confirmed verotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC) infections were recorded in the European Union in 2007. Among animals and foods, VTEC was most often reported in cattle and bovine meat.

However, the importance of a zoonosis as a human infection is not dependent on incidence in the population alone. The severity of the disease and case fatality are also important factors affecting the relevance of the disease. For instance, despite the relatively low number of cases caused by VTEC, Listeria, Echinococcus, Trichinella and Lyssavirus (rabies), compared to the number of human campylobacteriosis and salmonellosis cases, these infections are considered important due to the severity of the illness and higher case fatality rate.

In 2007, the number of reported yersiniosis cases in humans was 8,792, and the bacterium was reported from pigs and pig meat. Two parasitic zoonoses, trichinellosis and echinococcosis, caused 779 and 834 human cases each in European Union Member States. In animals, these parasites were mainly detected in wildlife.

Salmonella
New salmonella control programmes in breeding flocks of chickens (Gallus gallus) were implemented on a mandatory basis for the first time in 2007. The aim of the programmes is to reduce the occurrence of S. Enteritidis, S. Hadar, S. Infantis, S. Typhimurium and S. Virchow to one per cent or less in adult breeding flocks comprising at least 250 birds by 31 December 2009.

The data showed that already 15 MSs reported in 2007 a prevalence of these five target serovars that was lower than the target, whereas eight MSs reported prevalence of the five serovars ranging from 1.1 per cent to 15.4 per cent

Few MSs reported data from routine monitoring on the prevalence of Salmonella in pig herds or slaughter pigs in 2007. However, an EU-wide Salmonella baseline survey was carried out in slaughter pigs in 2006 to 2007. In total, 19,071 ileo-caecal lymph node samples were collected from slaughtered pigs and the EU weighted mean prevalence in pigs was 10.3 per cent ranging between 0 per cent and 29.0 per cent in MSs. Few MSs have active monitoring of Salmonella in cattle but two MSs both reported slaughter prevalence of 0.1 per cent in cattle.

Campylobacter
In 2007, as in previous years, the majority of data on Campylobacter in animals was from investigations of broilers but data from pigs and cattle was also reported.

The recorded prevalence of Campylobacter-positive broiler flocks was generally high: 25.2 per cent at EU level ranging from 0 per cent to 82.8 per cent in MSs. Lower prevalence in broiler flocks was reported by some Nordic and Baltic countries.

High prevalence was also observed from the monitoring of pigs, 56.1 per cent at EU level (ranging from 0.9 per cent to 78.5 per cent).

In cattle, reported occurrences were somewhat lower: 5.9 per cent on average in the EU but prevalence up to 70.5 per cent was reported by some MSs. However, Campylobacter contamination rates in pig and bovine meat typically decrease sharply following slaughter and remain low at retail. This was also demonstrated by the results reported in 2007.

Tuberculosis due to Mycobacterium bovis
Eleven MSs, two non-MSs as well as 15 provinces and three regions in Italy were officially bovine tuberculosis-free (OTF) in 2007. As in 2006, only Belgium, France and Germany out of the OTF MSs, reported few positive cattle herds in 2007.

Overall, a decrease in the proportion of cattle herds infected/positive for M. bovis was observed in the non-OTF MSs compared to 2006: 0.44 per cent vs. 0.66 per cent, respectively. However, this decrease was due to the inclusion of data from Romania that has a low occurrence of bovine tuberculosis in its large cattle herd population. When excluding the Romanian data, the proportion of cattle herds infected/positive at EU level remained the same as in the previous year. Of the 15 reporting non-OTF MSs, Ireland and the United Kingdom reported the highest prevalence (4.4 per cent and 3.3 per cent, respectively) in their national herds.

Brucella
In 2007, 12 MSs were officially free of brucellosis in cattle (OBF) and 16 MSs were officially free of brucellosis in sheep and goats (ObmF). Furthermore, 20 provinces and seven regions in Italy as well as four Azores islands in Portugal and Great Britain in the United Kingdom were OBF, whereas 64 departments in France, five provinces and eight regions in Italy, all the Azores islands in Portugal and two islands in the Canaries in Spain were ObmF.

At EU level, a marked decrease was observed in the proportion of existing cattle herds positive for, or infected with bovine brucellosis from 2006 to 2007. However, this decrease is only caused by the inclusion of data from Romania (MS since 2007), which has a large cattle population with no positive herds. In the Community co-financed non-OBF MSs, the prevalence of bovine brucellosis increased compared to 2006. This was specifically observed for Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland).

In the case of small ruminant brucellosis, the proportion of existing herds either positive or infected at EU level has decreased from 2004 to 2007 even though the trend is not statistically significant.

Listeria
In 2007, 18 MSs reported data on L. monocytogenes in animals and the bacterium was reported from various animal species. In some MSs the detected proportion of positive samples reached a moderate level in cattle and in small ruminants.

VTEC
In bovine animals, the average VTEC prevalence in reporting MSs was 3.6 per cent and the proportion of VTEC O157-positive animals was 2.9 per cent. The reported occurrence of VTEC ranged from 0 per cent to 22.1 per cent in MS investigations.

[mikey]

When Will US, EU Accept Irradiated Food?
GLOBAL - Following a number of highly publicised outbreaks of food-borne infections in people in recent years, the prospects of food irradiation are looking better than ever. But just how near are the US and European Union to using the process widely for meat? Currently, meat may be irradiated in the US but rarely is, and new guidelines will be proposed in the EU later this year.



Before the recent revelation that tainted peanut butter could kill people, even before the spinach scare of three summers ago, the food industry in the United States made a proposal. It asked the government for permission to destroy germs in many processed foods by zapping them with radiation, according to International Herald Tribune.

That was about nine years ago, in the twilight of the Clinton administration. The government has taken limited action since.

After spinach tainted with a strain of E. coli killed three people and sickened more than 200 others in 2006, the US. Food and Drug Administration gave permission for irradiation of spinach and iceberg lettuce. The industry has yet to start using it. Meat irradiation is permitted but rarely used. Among common items on the grocery shelf, only spices and some imported products, like mangoes from India, are routinely treated with radiation.

The technology to irradiate food has been around for the better part of a century. The US government says it is safe, and many experts believe that it could reduce or even eliminate the food scares that periodically sweep through society.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
"Meat irradiation is permitted but rarely used [in the US]" 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
It might even have killed the salmonella that reached grocery shelves in recent weeks after a factory in Georgia shipped tainted peanut butter and peanut paste, which wound up in products as diverse as cookies and dog treats. But irradiation has not been widely embraced in the United States.

In the European Union, irradiation is approved for bloc-wide use only for 'dried aromatic herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings', and such foods must be clearly labelled as having been so treated. But Haravgi-Nina Papadoulaki, a spokeswoman for the EU health commissioner, Androulla Vassiliou, said on 2 February that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) hopes to propose new guidelines by the end of 2009.

In December 2002, the European Parliament voted against expanding the list, citing tests on laboratory rats that suggested a possible cancer risk from a chemical called 2-ACB created when meat is irradiated.

But because of the common market, if a country approves irradiation for a particular food, the company making that product can still market it throughout the EU, which comprises 27 countries. Thus, for example, poultry can be irradiated in France or Belgium, where the process is allowed under national law, and sold in other countries, unless it is specifically banned.

Food manufacturers in the United States worry that the apparent benefits do not justify the cost or the potential consumer backlash. Some consumer groups complain that widespread irradiation of food after processing would simply cover up the food industry's hygiene problems. And some advocacy groups question the long-term safety of irradiation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
"In the European Union, irradiation is approved for bloc-wide use only for 'dried aromatic herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings'" 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
With all these doubts, one thing is certain - food poisoning continues. The cases that rise to public attention are only the tip of the iceberg. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are 76 million cases of food-borne illness each year in the United States. The vast majority are mild, but the agency estimates there are 5,000 deaths from food-borne disease and 325,000 hospitalizations each year.

This situation upsets advocates of irradiation. "Our society is running around with our head in the sand because we have ways to prevent illness and death that aren't being used," said Christine Bruhn, director of the Center for Consumer Research at the University of California at Davis. "The rules are so tight on irradiation that you can't pull it out and use it when a new problem arises, and that's to the detriment of the American public."

Suresh Pillai, director of the National Center for Electron Beam Research at Texas A&M University, likened fears of irradiation to early phobias about the pasteurization of milk.

"It's unnecessary for people to be getting sick today with pathogens in spinach or pathogens in peanut butter," Dr Pillai told International Herald Tribune. "We have the technologies to prevent this kind of illness."

Food is irradiated by brief exposure to X-rays, gamma rays or an electron beam. The process is intended to reduce or eliminate harmful bacteria, insects and parasites, and it also can also extend the life of some products.

Advocates say it is particularly effective at killing pathogens in things like ground beef and lettuce, where they might be mixed into the middle of the product or hiding in a crevice that is hard to clean by traditional means.

Food and Water Watch, an advocacy group, has long maintained that irradiation would be too expensive, impractical and sometimes ineffective because it might hide filthy conditions at food processing plants. Patty Lovera, the group's assistant director, said irradiation not only killed bacteria but could also destroy nutrients in food.

She pointed out that irradiated beef was offered at many grocery stores across the United States at the beginning of the decade but it did not last long. Customers were turned off by the higher price and by the extended shelf life of irradiated beef. "People that did the shopping, they would look at the date and be freaked out at how long it would be good for," Ms Lovera said.

Food industry officials, meanwhile, remain wary of irradiation because of the up-front costs and the potential public reaction to any technique with the word 'radiation' in it.

One potential test of the American public's acceptance could come with the marketing of irradiated spinach and lettuce. After the E. coli outbreak in 2006, the spinach industry lost 30 per cent of its business. The food agency approved irradiation for spinach and iceberg lettuce in August.

"There's no shortage of people who are looking at it," said Hank Giclas, vice president for strategic planning, science and technology for the Western Growers Association. "I don't know of anyone who is moving forward with it at this time."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
"Irradiation typically does not work so well on products with high amounts of fat or oil ...because they can turn rancid during the process" 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
It remains an open question if peanut butter or products with peanut paste would be likely candidates for the technique, according to the International Herald Tribune article. Irradiation typically does not work so well on products with high amounts of fat or oil like peanut butter because they can turn rancid during the process. A spokesman for the American Peanut Council said irradiation was tested but found unacceptable because it degraded the taste of the nut.

Nonetheless, Dr Pillai said a low dose of radiation might be effective in killing traces of salmonella in peanut butter – or manufactured products with peanut paste – without ruining the taste. But he said it would not work as a substitute for basic hygiene and food safety measures.

Similarly, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association said food companies should make sure that plants were clean and follow good manufacturing and food safety practices. If problems remain afterward, then irradiation could be an option, provided it is permitted by the government.

Nine years ago, the association, then called Grocery Manufacturers of America, was among the sponsors of the application that was filed with the food agency seeking approval to irradiate ready-to-eat meat and poultry products and fruit and vegetable products.

Now that spinach and iceberg lettuce have been approved, it is focusing on persuading the FDA to permit irradiation of hot dogs and deli meats. An FDA spokesman declined to comment, saying the agency does not comment on open petitions, the International Herald Tribune report concludes.

[mikey]

Friday, February 06, 2009Print This Page
Understanding Phosphorus in Soils is Vital
GLOBAL - A study has revealed no evidence of phytate-phosphorus accumulation in soils receiving animal manure. However, the scientists warned that this form of phosphorus may not be biologically and environmentally benign.



Phosphorus is one of the key nutrients that can cause algal blooms and related water quality problems in lakes, rivers and estuaries worldwide, according to a report in Science Daily. Phosphorus entering waters originates from a variety of sources.

Agricultural land receiving long-term applications of organic by-products such as animal manure is one of the major contributors. Such soils often become enriched with phosphorus, leading to elevated phosphorus, loss through erosion and run-off. Information on the chemical characteristics of phosphorus in these soils is essential to improving our understanding of how phosphorus behaves in soils and how it is transported in run-off to devise better management practices that protect water quality.

A group of scientists in the USA and Australia have identified the chemical forms of phosphorus, using 31P nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, in soils receiving organic by-products for at least eight years (treated) as compared with soils not receiving phosphorus application (untreated).

Regardless of the type of organic materials applied (dairy, swine, poultry or spent mushroom compost), orthophosphate (inorganic phosphorus) was the single dominant phosphorus form – more so in treated soils (79 to 93 per cent of total phosphorus) than in untreated soils (33 to 71 per cent).

Orthophosphate was also the only phosphorus form that differed dramatically between paired soils – three to five times greater in treated than untreated soils. Other phosphorus forms included condensed inorganic phosphorus and various organically bound phosphorus groups. However, their amounts were relatively small and differences between each paired soils were insignificant.

Surprisingly, the study revealed no evidence of phytate-phosphorus accumulation in any of the soils receiving organic wastes. Phytate is an organic storage form of phosphorus that is known to be present in animal manures, in particularly large proportion (up to 80 per cent of total phosphorus) in poultry manure. Phytate-phosphorus is generally considered to be recalcitrant in the agro-ecosystem because of its chemical structure. However, the lack of phytate-phosphorus accumulation in several soils receiving poultry manure in this study indicates that manure-derived phytate-phosphorus may not be biologically and environmentally benign.

Zhengxia Dou, the lead author, stated, "In terms of potential phosphorus loss in the long run, organic materials containing large amounts of phytate-phosphorus such as poultry manure may not differ from other material containing mainly inorganic phosphorus."

Andrew Sharpley, a collaborating scientist, further explained to Science Daily, "When the soils' phosphorus sorption capacity was nearly saturated after years of manure application, phytate or other organic phosphorus forms could be exposed to breakdown and potential loss. Therefore, it is important to strive towards balancing phosphorus inputs with outputs and to prevent phosphorus from building up in soils to which manure is applied."

Reference
Dou Z. et al., 2009. Phosphorus speciation and sorption-desorption characteristics in heavily manured soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 73 (1): 93 DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2007.0416.


 

[mikey]

Tuesday, February 17, 2009Print This Page
Eat Less Meat to Go Green
US - Delegates at the prestigious meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have heard that we could cut our carbon footprint by eating more poultry and pork, and less beef - or better still, reduce our intake of all meats.



The livestock sector is estimated to account for 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. When it comes to global warming, hamburgers are the Hummers of food, scientists said at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago, reports Straits Times.

Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.

That is because beef is such an incredibly inefficient food to produce and cows release so much harmful methane into the atmosphere, said Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada.

Dr Pelletier is one of a growing number of scientists studying the environmental costs of food from field to plate.

By looking at everything from how much grain a cow eats before it is ready for slaughter to the emissions released by manure, they are getting a clearer idea of the true costs of food. The livestock sector is estimated to account for 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and beef is the biggest culprit.

Even though beef only accounts for 30 per cent of meat consumption in the developed world, it is responsible for 78 per cent of the emissions, Dr Pelletier said on 15 February at the AAAS meeting.

A single kilogram of beef produces 16 kg carbon dioxide equivalent emissions: four times higher than pork and more than ten times as much as a kilogram of poultry, Mr Pelletier said.

If people were to simply switch from beef to chicken, emissions would be cut by 70 per cent, Dr Pelletier added.

People eating more meat than they need
Another part of the problem is people are eating far more meat than they need to, according to Straits Times.

"Meat once was a luxury in our diet," Dr Pelletier said. "We used to eat it once a week. Now we eat it every day." If meat consumption in the developed world was cut from the current level of about 90 kg a year to the recommended level of 53 kg a year, livestock related emissions would fall by 44 per cent.

"Given the projected doubling of (global) meat production by 2050, we're going to have to cut our emissions by half just to maintain current levels," Dr Pelletier said.

"Technical improvements are not going to get us there." That is why changing the kinds of food people eat is so important, said Chris Weber, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania.

Food is the third largest contributor to the average US household's carbon footprint after driving and utilities, and in Europe - where people drive less and have smaller homes - it has an even greater impact.

"Food is of particular importance to a consumer's impact because it's a daily choice that is, at least in theory, easy to change," Professor Weber said.

"You make your choice every day about what to eat but once you have a house and a car, you're locked into that for a while." The average US household contributes about five tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by driving and about 3.5 tonnes of equivalent emissions with what they eat, he said.

"Switching to no red meat and no dairy products is the equivalent of (cutting out) 8,100 miles driven in a car that gets 25 miles to the gallon," Professor Weber said in an interview later.

Buying local meat and produce will not have nearly the same effect, he cautioned, because only five per cent of the emissions related to food come from transporting food to market.

"You can have a much bigger impact by shifting just one day a week from meat and dairy to anything else than going local every day of the year," Professor Weber told Straits Times.

[mikey]

San Miguel to create 10,000 new jobs 19 Feb 2009
With investments equalling $208 million San Miguel Corp., the Philippines' largest food and beverage conglomerate, would create about 10,000 new jobs.
San Miguel President Ramon Ang said the company plans to invest PHP9.93 billion ($208 million) to expand production of poultry and pigs, animal feed, ice cream and others.
 
Ang said San Miguel's joint venture with the Kuok Group will kick off in September, aiming to create 500,000 direct and indirect jobs for every one million hectares devoted for food production.
 
He said 3.8 million hectares have already been identified for the project.
 
San Miguel Chairman Eduardo Cojuangco assured that the conglomerate doesn't have any plan to retrench its work force as other companies are doing.
 
Last year San Miguel announced it will spend up to $1 billion in a joint venture with Hong Kong's Kuok group to develop farm land.
 
The project, in collaboration with the Philippine government, entailed the development of 1.0 million hectares of land and that the two companies were willing to spend up to $1,000 per hectare.
 
The two companies will offer financial assistance, technical expertise and a guarantee to buy all agricultural produce. All land will remain in the ownership of the Philippine government.

[mikey]

Tuesday, February 24, 2009Print This Page
A Lesson in Parasite Infections on Livestock
INDIA - Experts from Queen's University are in India today to advise the country on how it can reduce parasitic infections which destroy plants and animals.



The biotechonology experts from the Belfast-based University are at the forefront of research into the infections which cost the world economy around $200 billion in lost crop production and $5.3 billion in animal health each year.

A delegation led by Dr Gerry Brennan from the School of Biological Sciences at Queen’s has been invited to Alagappa University in Tamil Nadu in southern India to share its expertise at the International Colloquium on Emerging Biotechnologies in Agriculture, Animal Health and Productivity which runs from today until Friday.

Dr Brennan has collaborated with Indian universities, including Alagappa, on research and teaching for almost 30 years. He will address the conference on the management of drug resistance in livestock.

He said: “India is now a world-leading nation in terms of social, technological and economic development, so it urgently needs to modernise and expand agricultural productivity, particularly in the livestock sector, to maximise self-sufficiency in food supply and to raise gross domestic product for a rapidly expanding and increasingly urbanised population.

“In response to this need, corporate farming enterprises in poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, buffalo, dairy, meat and aquaculture production are developing rapidly and modern production methods are being used across India.

“The current field of research at Queen’s into veterinary and agricultural parasite control serves to showcase the application of biotechnology in modern agricultural practice.”

Alagappa University has recently established a Department of Animal Health Science and Management which aims to help India expand its agricultural development, especially in the livestock sector.

The conference aims to focus the attention of national policy-makers, academics and industry leaders in India on the new facility as well as providing a forum for Indian scientists to hear from overseas experts about biotechnology and livestock-based agriculture.

The Vice-Chancellor of Alagappa, Professor P Pamasamy, who was once a research fellow at Queen’s University, asked Dr Brennan to act as overseas organiser for the event.

Other Queen’s delegates addressing the conference include Professor Aaron Maule and Dr Ian Fairweather from the School of Biological Sciences and Professor Bob Hanna and Dr Colin Fleming from AFBI, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute.

[mikey]

Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing
Every year nearly 360 million pigs, sheep, goats and cattle as well as more than four billion poultry are killed in EU slaughterhouses, writes TheMeatSite senior editor Chris Harris.
The European fur industry also kills 25 million animals, while hatcheries kill 330 million day-old-chicks.

At the same time, the control of contagious diseases may also require the killing of millions more animals.

However, the European Commission is concerned that the levels of animal welfare in abattoirs and slaughterhouses across the EU is not equal and it has now drawn up new regulations to ensure that welfare standards are raised and are consistent through all states.

These new proposals have recently been sent out for consultation before they are drawn up into new regulations to be approved by the European Parliament and the Commission.

"The present situation is not satisfactory in relation to the objectives pursued," the Commission says.

"The level of animal protection is unequally enforced in the Member States, with sometimes very unsatisfactory results.

"Discrepancies in requirements in the Member States for slaughterhouses and manufacturers of stunning equipment do not ensure a level playing field for them, although they compete on a global market.

"This situation does not encourage innovation either."

The Commission said that the present regulations for handling animals at slaughter - Directive 93/119/EC1 - have never been updated.

Since the directive was adopted, new technologies have been introduced making some standards obsolete.

In 2004 and 2006 two scientific opinions from the European Food Safety Authority suggested revising the Directive. At the same time, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in 2005 adopted two guidelines on the welfare of animals at slaughter and killing leading to similar conclusions.

Over recent years, animal welfare concerns have also grown in society and the legal environment has changed for slaughterhouses with the adoption of a series of EU acts on food safety, which emphasises the responsibilities of processing plant operators.

Mass killing during animal epidemics has also raised questions about the methods used to carry them out.

In 2006 the Commission adopted the first Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals, introducing new concepts such as the welfare indicators and centres of reference on animal welfare.

"Specific problems have been identified with the EU legislation such as the lack of harmonised methodology for new stunning methods, the lack of clear responsibilities for operators, the insufficient competence of personnel or insufficient conditions for the welfare of animals during killing for disease control purposes," the Commission says.

"In light of this, the proposal provides substantial added value compared to the status quo."

"In particular by changing the legal instrument from a directive to a regulation, the proposal provides for uniform and simultaneous application, avoiding the burden and inequalities due to national transpositions."

"The form of a regulation is also suitable for faster implementation of changes due to technical and scientific progress. It also provides for a single set of rules making them more visible and easier to apply both for EU operators and trading partners."

The Commission has identified problems such as the lack of harmonised methodology for stunning methods and a lack of clear responsibilities for slaughtermen.

The Commission has also identified problems with a lack of competence in the personnel and a need for training employees in welfare practices. They also identified a lack of confidence in the people employed to slaughter animals in disease situations.

The Commission says that the new proposals will help to speed up the implementation of future changes to keep pace with the changes in technology and progress in science.

They provide a single set of rules making them more visible and easier to apply both for EU operators and trading partners.

The proposal also contains greater flexibility for operators through the adoption of guidelines on detailed technical matters.

At the same time it requires operators to take real ownership of animal welfare through self-checks on stunning procedure and standard operating procedures and it contributes to a better enforcement of animal welfare at slaughter.

The proposal also aims to develop learning mechanisms based on sound science including a certificate of competence and a centre of reference, to make animal welfare better understood and integrated in the daily tasks of animals handlers, slaughtermen and official inspectors.

The proposal will make it compulsory for personnel handling and/or slaughtering animals to possess a certificate of competence.

The proposal will require each Member State to establish a national centre of reference that will provide technical assistance to officials on animal welfare at killing. The centre will provide scientific assessment for new stunning methods/equipment and newly built slaughterhouses, and will accredit bodies delivering certificates of competence concerning animal welfare.

The proposal will increase operators' responsibility for animal welfare. This is in line with the "hygiene package", a raft of food safety legislation adopted in 2004 obliging operators to integrate food safety into their operations and to demonstrate that they are implementing procedures for that purpose.

The main objectives of the proposal are aimed at:

Improving the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.
Encouraging innovation in relation to stunning and killing techniques.
Providing a level playing field within the internal market for the operators concerned.
In addition, this proposal will aim to achieve the following specific objectives:

Develop a common methodological approach to encourage new stunning methods.
Ensure better integration of animal welfare concerns into the production process through the requirement of Standard Operating Procedures and the appointment of Animal Welfare Officers in slaughterhouses.
Upgrade the standards governing slaughterhouse construction and equipment.
Increase the level of competence of the operators and officials concerned.
Improve the protection of animals during mass killing operations.
LIST OF METHODS OF STUNNING AND KILLING AND RELATED SPECIFICATIONS
Mechanical Methods
No Name Description Category of animals Key parameters
1 Penetrative captive bolt pistol Severe and irreversible damage of the brain provoked by the shock and the penetration of a captive bolt. All species. Position and direction of the shot.
Appropriate velocity and diameter of bolt according to animal size and species.
2 Non-penetrative captive bolt pistol Severe damage of the brain by the shock of a captive bolt without penetration. Ruminants up to 10 kg, poultry and lagomorphs. Position and direction of the shot.
Appropriate velocity and diameter of bolt according to animal size and species.
3 Firearm with free projectile Severe and irreversible damage of the brain provoked by the shock and the penetration of one or more projectiles. All species. Position of the shot.
Power of the cartridge.
4 Maceration Immediate crushing of the entire animal. Chicks up to 72 hours and egg embryos. Maximum size of the batch to be introduced.
Measure to prevent overloading.
5 Cervical dislocation Manual stretching and twist of the neck provoking cerebral ischemia. Birds up to 3 kg. Not applicable.

LIST OF METHODS OF STUNNING AND KILLING AND RELATED SPECIFICATIONS
Electrical Methods
No Name Description Category of animals Key parameters
1 Head-only electrical stunning Exposure of the brain to a current generating a generalised epileptic form on the Electro-Encephalogram (EEG). All species. Minimum current (A or mA).
Minimum voltage (V).
Maximum frequency (Hz).
Minimum time of exposure.
Maximum stun-to-stick interval (s).
Frequency of calibration of the equipment.
Optimisation of the current flow.
Prevention of electrical shocks before stunning.
2 Head-to-Back electrical killing Exposure of the body to a current generating at the same time a generalised epileptic form on the EEG (stunning) and the fibrillation or the stopping of the heart (killing). All species except lambs or piglets of less than 5 kg live weight and cattle. Minimum current (A or mA).
Minimum voltage (V).
Maximum frequency (Hz).
Minimum time of exposure.
Frequency of calibration of the equipment.
Optimisation of the current flow.
Prevention of electrical shocks before stunning.
3 Electrical waterbath Exposure of the entire body through a waterbath to a current generating a generalised epileptic form on the EEG (stunning) and possibly the fibrillation or the stopping of the heart (killing). Poultry. Minimising pain at shackling.
Optimisation of current flow.
Maximum shackle duration before the waterbath.
Immersion of the birds up to the base of the wings.
Maximum stun-to-stick interval for frequency over 60 Hz.

LIST OF METHODS OF STUNNING AND KILLING AND RELATED SPECIFICATIONS
Gas methods
No Name Description Category of animals Key parameters
1 Carbon dioxide at high concentration Exposure of conscious animals to a gas mixture containing more than 30% carbon dioxide. Pigs, poultry and fur animals. Carbon dioxide concentration.
Duration of exposure.
Maximum stun-to-stick interval (pigs).
2 Carbon dioxide at low concentration Exposure of conscious animals to a gas mixture containing less than 30% of carbon dioxide. Pigs and poultry. Carbon dioxide concentration.
Duration of exposure.
Maximum stun-to-stick interval in case of stunning (pigs).
3 Inert gases Exposure of conscious animals to a inert gas mixture such Argon or Nitrogen containing less than 2% of oxygen. Pigs and poultry. Oxygen concentration.
Duration of exposure.
Maximum stun-to-stick interval in case of stunning (pigs).
4 Carbon monoxide (pure source) Exposure of conscious animals to a gas mixture containing more than 4 % of carbon monoxide. Fur animals and piglets. Quality of the source of the gas.
Carbon monoxide concentration.
Duration of exposure.
Temperature of the gas.
5 Carbon monoxide associated with other gases Exposure of conscious animals to a gas mixture containing more than 1 % of carbon monoxide associated with other toxic gases. Fur animals. Carbon monoxide concentration.
Duration of exposure.
Temperature of the gas.
Filtration of the gas produced from engine.

[mikey]

"Global food and energy crisis by 2030" 20 Mar 2009
The growing world population will cause a "perfect storm" of food, energy and water shortages by 2030, the UK government chief scientist has warned.
By 2030 the demand for resources will create a crisis with dire consequences, Prof John Beddington said. Demand for food and energy will jump 50% by 2030 and for fresh water by 30%, as the population tops 8.3 billion, he told a conference in London. Climate change will exacerbate matters in unpredictable ways, he added.

Water shortages
The United Nations Environment Programme predicts widespread water shortages across Africa, Europe and Asia by 2025. The amount of fresh water available per head of the population is expected to decline sharply in that time.

Use GM crops
Prof Beddington said the concern now - when prices have dropped once again - was that the issues would slip back down the domestic and international agenda. Improving agricultural productivity globally was one way to tackle the problem, he added. At present, 30-40% of all crops are lost due to pest and disease before they are harvested. Professor Beddington said: "We have to address that. We need more disease-resistant and pest-resistant plants and better practices, better harvesting procedures. "Genetically-modified food could also be part of the solution. We need plants that are resistant to drought and salinity - a mixture of genetic modification and conventional plant breeding.

New EC science adviser
Prof Beddington said the problem could not be tackled in isolation. He wants policy-makers in the European Commission to receive the same high level of scientific advice as the new US president, Barack Obama. One solution would be to create a new post of chief science adviser to the European Commission, he suggested.

[source: BBC]

[mikey]

Market Preview: Meat Demand is Risky Business
US - Weekly US Market Preview provided by Steve R. Meyer, Ph.D., Paragon Economics, Inc.



I remain very concerned about meat demand, in general. I have believed for some time that this is far and away the largest risk factor for the US pork industry in 2009. So far, I have seen nothing that would change my mind.

The current data is rather mixed. This week’s production and price tables suggest that demand is indeed soft – especially for beef and chicken. Note the shaded cells in this week’s table (please see bottom of this page). The year-on-year percentage changes in slaughter and production are almost all negative. Lower output and constant demand would suggest that prices should be higher. But the vast majority of product prices are actually lower than last year. Lower output and lower wholesale prices can only mean lower wholesale meat demand.

Does that mean retail demand and hog demand are lower? No. These relationships do not always change at the same time and the hog slaughter (down from last year) and hog price (up from last year) suggest a roughly stable hog demand. Professor Glenn Grimes at the University of Missouri reports that retail pork demand was actually higher for the period from November through January, the most recent three months for which we have all of the necessary data. Preliminary calculations indicate that the year-on-year change for December through February will be positive as well. February cold storage stocks will not be available until this afternoon.

But wholesale markets are very important. Checkoff-funded research conducted in 2000 by Kansas State University indicated that the wholesale market was the primary point of price discovery for pork and hog prices. One reason is that all of the players – packers, retailers, foodservice operators, and exporters – are involved in that market and all of them bring information, needs, knowledge, etc. to the table. This is not to say that producers aren’t “players,” but producers take part in the wholesale market only through packers and both are only involved on the supply side of this process in the short run.

Exports a Bright Spot
We did get one piece of positive information this week when the Department of Commerce and USDA released January export data. Product-weight pork exports were 4 per cent lower than in January 2008, but were 2 per cent higher in total value at $295.8 million. Quantity is important, but value is what pays the bills, so this increase is very important.

Exports to Japan increased 18 per cent vs. last year, while shipments to Mexico were up 65 per cent from last year. The latter was inflated a bit by the fact that January 2008 was at the tail end of a period of very soft shipments to Mexico. Still, the size of January shipments was surprising given the near-50 per cent devaluation of the peso since 1 October 2008.

Shipments to Canada (-9 per cent) and Korea (-8 per cent) were marginally lower, while those to China/Hong Kong and Russia were sharply lower at -66 per cent and -70 per cent, respectively. A chart of carcass-weight equivalent exports, by destination, appears in Figure 1.


I have also included an updated version of the monthly pork export graph I used in the 5 March edition of North American Preview. Note that the January observation, though lower than one year ago, is above the 2004-2007 trend line. As I noted in the 5 March edition: If 2009 exports can stay near that longer-term trend, I think it will be a victory in spite of the fact that 2009 exports will be about 15 per cent lower than last year.


Be Ready for a Rally
Finally, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Lean Hogs (LH) futures are endorsing the idea of a spring rally. Every contract has gained $4 to $6 from the spike lows of 24 February, and has stayed consistently above the 10-day moving average. In addition, every contract for the remainder of 2009 has penetrated the 50-day moving average and every contract from June onward has closed above the 50-day moving average – normally a strong confirmation of a trend change.

Based on Iowa State University’s Estimated Costs and Returns parameters, this week’s corn and soybean meal futures prices put breakeven costs for the rest of 2009 in the $66 to $69/cwt., carcass, weight range. LH futures are offering profits from May through August at those cost levels, with October and December getting closer.

Selling into a rally is hardly ever a bad idea, especially if the prices are profitable. But, I still wouldn’t get in a hurry. Historical seasonal patterns suggest that this rally will continue into late April or early May. But be ready to pull the trigger when your return-on-investment goals are met or when the charts indicate that the rally has run out of steam.