hormone usage

bob charles

Anyone have views on the usage of hormones in beef and milk? just something I have being thinking over the last few weeks. Research indicated that use a the required levels resulted in beef/milk having the hormone levels tens thousands of times lower the natural occurring levels in other foods.

greysides

Don't know about milk but ....... meat.

Banning hormones was a political correctness move not a scientific one. It was made easier to enforce by people who didn't follow the withdrawal protocols.

IMO.

IIRC, it was said there was more oestrogen in eggs or cabbage (per unit dry matter) than in animals presented for slaughter in accordance with the guidelines.

If there were serious concerns about it we'd have to ensure cull cows weren't slaughtered while in heat.

I also remember ACOT, remember them? doing and publishing research on the use of beta-agonists as growth promoters.

We later learned of beta-agonists under a different name when they became known as 'Angel Dust'.

bob charles

you have it in a nutshell Greysides, political reasons.

Estrogenic activity levels in an egg are around 100 times higher that in a sample of beef produced using hormones. Take Soya flour would be hundreds of thousands of times higher than a sample of beef produced using estrogen

ootbitb

doesn't matter about the facts it's what the the customer perceives through the media that matters.

Manoffeeling

Would you eat one?

bob charles

Manoffeeling wrote: »

Would you eat one?

sure would, have eaten plenty of beef with hormones used during production, bet you have too

Manoffeeling

bob charles wrote: »

sure would, have eaten plenty of beef with hormones used during production, bet you have too

I take pride in my ignorance :eek:

Tipp Man

We hardly want to go back to those days

If lads focused on their costs rather than pumping more stuff into their cattle they'd be better off

mf240

Tipp Man wrote: »

We hardly want to go back to those days

If lads focused on their costs rather than pumping more stuff into their cattle they'd be better off

Have to agree with you (for once:D) we will only end up over producing and playing into the hands of the processor. also consumer is king.

Having said that having seen the conconcotions people, myself included are willing to drink when out over christmas, I dont think a bit of beef would make much odds to them.

Tipp Man

mf240 wrote: »

Have to agree with you (for once:D) we will only end up over producing and playing into the hands of the processor. also consumer is king.

Having said that having seen the conconcotions people, myself included are willing to drink when out over christmas, I dont think a bit of beef would make much odds to them.

Ach it's only glanbia we disagree on😉

The thing is lads (myself included) aren't thinking healthy when we're in the pub but we (or the women) are when they are in the shop. At least they think they are thinking healthy anyway

The point about oversupply is key though

Make more money from less stock and you are better off

But that's not the way lads are being pushed by the powers that be

greysides

ootbitb wrote: »

doesn't matter about the facts it's what the the customer perceives through the media that matters.

There is a lot of truth is that.

I felt at the time that it marked a turning point. Instead of educating the consumer, he was pandered to. It hasn't stopped yet and where will it stop?

Look at this governing of agriculture by the calendar.

Edwina Curry told the truth. A truth that was well known by all the major players and she still got canned.

At what point did the truth/scientific facts no longer matter?

Okay, rant over.

freedominacup

greysides wrote: »

At what point did the truth/scientific facts no longer matter?

Around the time green tea became popular.:mad:

BTW what'sthe difference between green tea and the cup of lyons or barrys or whatever ye're having yourseld this morning?

nilhg

Tipp Man wrote: »

Ach it's only glanbia we disagree on😉

The thing is lads (myself included) aren't thinking healthy when we're in the pub but we (or the women) are when they are in the shop. At least they think they are thinking healthy anyway

The point about oversupply is key though

Make more money from less stock and you are better off

But that's not the way lads are being pushed by the powers that be

I don't get the reference to oversupply? Hormones and/or feed supplememts allow you to finish the stock you have younger (but at the same weight) and more efficiently, which should leave more money per animal in your pocket.

The thing I see is that our competitors use these technologies to compete against us in our markets, but we can't, that's one of the justifcations for the SFP, maybe we should be looking for labeling rules that says produced with Ralgro and Rumensin on those Brazilian steaks.......

Grecco

I think we are better off without them and promoting a "Clean green image"

Blanchguy

Tipp Man wrote: »

We hardly want to go back to those days

If lads focused on their costs rather than pumping more stuff into their cattle they'd be better off

Tipp Man wrote: »

Regarding your seeing of hormones and angel dust being administered to cattle - can you back that up with evidence? Where did a self proclaimed townie come across this? How did the farmer manage to by pass the tests which were carried out on the carcase at the factory? I'm going to call it now - you are talking ****

;-)

bbam

Grecco wrote: »

I think we are better off without them and promoting a "Clean green image"

I think this is key.
We should be looking at producing what the customer perceives to be a premium product at best possible costs.
Going back down the hormone route brings us into the cheap and nasty perception and then we'd have to compete with beef from everywhere, and we simply couldn't.

We should play to our strengths, quality grass based systems and focus on efficiency. No point in lads looking for hormone improvements when chances are they have no decent grasp of their true production costs, chances are they'll loose further grip on costs and make no more money.

bob charles

bbam wrote: »

I think this is key.
We should be looking at producing what the customer perceives to be a premium product at best possible costs.
Going back down the hormone route brings us into the cheap and nasty perception and then we'd have to compete with beef from everywhere, and we simply couldn't.

We should play to our strengths, quality grass based systems and focus on efficiency. No point in lads looking for hormone improvements when chances are they have no decent grasp of their true production costs, chances are they'll loose further grip on costs and make no more money.

but how many customers want a premium product at a premium price, a high majority of customers just want cheap food. If you look at current world beef prices we aren't that far ahead of the nations were such practices are allowable

This grass based efficiency stuff is constantly beat on the drum, if we went fully down this road then we could only be able to supply product for 6 months of the year, unfortunetly I fail to see how cheap this grass is when properly costed when allowing for nutrient off-take etc. For the guys who have a true grip as you say on production costs, should we not be investigating on where to next to reduce our costs, be that GM, hormones, additives, whatever.

Personally I would be against the re-introduction of hormones but when you do some research it amazing the levels were so so tiny in hormone fed beef compared with other foods. the use of hormones this would reduce the amount of scarce resources needed to produce meat. Are we also on a slippery slope regarding the use of other feed additives. There is one particular product that is currently being held up due to the EU not allowing a particular strain of yeast. Will all yeast's be consigned to history in the near future.

just to be clear

Hormone use was banned in 1989 for using in animal production within the EU

freedominacup

bob charles wrote: »

but how many customers want a premium product at a premium price,



Hormone use was banned in 1989 for using in animal production within the EU

Not that many they talk a good fight but that's it.

Was it as late as that. I would have thought '84/'85. There was one of those multi-dose injector yokes brand new in a box around here up to a few years ago. I think the oul fella thought they were going to see the error of their ways.

That said consumer pressure does have an effect. BST is not banned in the U.S. but it's use has almost completely discontinued due to consumer pressure through non BST labelling on dairy products.

pakalasa

What I rememebr most from hormones was, they caused bullocks to get agressive, like bulls.:rolleyes:

freedominacup

pakalasa wrote: »

What I rememebr most from hormones was, they caused bullocks to get agressive, like bulls.:rolleyes:

What I remember is getting my Christmas holidays and going home to put on the work gear because the big cattle were due a hormone shot. I was put standing in a shed door and given a brush handle as a stick. Always remember this big f**ker rearing over me and I flailing mad with the brush handle trying to keep him out and other cattle in. Great sport altogether.:rolleyes:

Dont be daft

I wouldnt be to worried about it at the moment.

If we all started using hormones then we'd all be back to square one with our profit. Any economic advantage would be stripped from the farmer pretty quick.

If change is to come from this let it come from the top down i.e. the consumer
I would be all for a proper public debate where people were actually informed. I suppose the spark that would trigger this debate would be massive beef prices on the shelf. Something which is still years away.

For the time being, make ourselves as effecient as we can and let the market decide when it wants Hormones, not us as producers.

Tipp Man

Blanchguy wrote: »

;-)

WOW

Its amazing the lengths some people go to on the internet - you must be stalking me - which is a bit weird

I hope you understand that both posts you quoted are in agreement with each other - because it seems you want to give the impression that they don't

bob charles

Tipp Man wrote: »

WOW

Its amazing the lengths some people go to on the internet - you must be stalking me - which is a bit weird

I hope you understand that both posts you quoted are in agreement with each other - because it seems you want to give the impression that they don't

I saw that aswell, Take care out there tippman with this person lurking. Has this member forwarded the names and location yet of where he administrated or "saw" hormones being administrated?

We have a good share of animals every year of cattle tested for hormones after being slaughtered, its standard procedure. As far as I know the dept vet have to collect X amount of samples at slaughter houses each day. Also the dept call here ever few years to randomly select a 3 or 4 animals for sampling, which I have to agree with, always get a pile of info out of them when there here:).

Biggest fear I have is what product will be banned next.

Tipp Man

nilhg wrote: »

I don't get the reference to oversupply? Hormones and/or feed supplememts allow you to finish the stock you have younger (but at the same weight) and more efficiently, which should leave more money per animal in your pocket.

.

What is efficiency??

You know i see this word bandied about all the time in farming now and quite frankly it is a rubbish term - what it means is that stupid farmers are working harder to produce more beef, milk, corn per acre so that the price can be kept down - it's an absolute con. You see the "better farms" suckler write up and you see phrases like KG of animal sold per acre and crap like this.

If we want words that we should all be focusing on - then lets make that word PROFITABILITY - because that has very little or nothing to do with efficiency

mf240

He most likely seem some lad giving cattle a worm dose or a mineral bolus when down in da sticks and put 2+2 together and got 5

Tipp Man

bob charles wrote: »

I saw that aswell, has this member forwarded the names and location yet of where he/is or "saw" hormones being administrated?

.

No still waiting for those gems to come along

Isn't a bit freaky the way some people would be practically stalking you

Blanchguy

Which is it - Irish farmers used to give hormones or Irish farmers didn't used to give hormones? Simple question.

bob charles

Tipp Man wrote: »

No still waiting for those gems to come along

Isn't a bit freaky the way some people would be practically stalking you

they probably spend their day roaming the internet waiting for you to post again about hormones, eventually after 3 years their waiting has paid off. I would watch my back if I were you tippman

Blanchguy

Just remembered being told I was talking ****. There's 5 letters in truth....

Tipp Man

mf240 wrote: »

He most likely seem some lad giving cattle a worm dose or a mineral bolus when down in da sticks and put 2+2 together and got 5

bob charles wrote: »

they probably spend their day roaming the internet waiting for you to post again about hormones, eventually after 3 years their waiting has paid off. I would watch my back if I were you tippman

and now he is sending me bloody PM's and everything

You have to wonder about people

bob charles

Blanchguy wrote: »

Which is it - Irish farmers used to give hormones or Irish farmers didn't used to give hormones? Simple question.

Hormone use was banned in 1989 for using in animal production within the EU
obviously before it was banned there was usage, if there wasnt there wouldnt have being a need to ban them in the first place

Tipp Man

bob charles wrote: »

Hormone use was banned in 1989 for using in animal production within the EU
obviously before it was banned there was usage, if there wasnt there wouldnt have being a need to ban them in the first place

He was told that 18 months ago - but for some obscure reason choose continually to ignore it

Blanchguy

You said I was talking **** when I said I'd seen it in the 80's...

bob charles

Blanchguy wrote: »

You said I was talking **** when I said I'd seen it in the 80's...

go away our that, you didnt say you had seen it in the eighties but you had seen it recently in the thread we were referring to. If you had said you had seen it in the eighties we would all have said you most probably could have. Your a bull**** merchant, when your in a hole, stop digging mate

Tipp Man

Blanchguy wrote: »

You said I was talking **** when I said I'd seen it in the 80's...

No i didn't - and you are some bloody chancer to try to pull that 1.

I hate going back over old ****e like this but just to clear - here is what i wrote - note the word in BOLD

Tipp Man wrote: »

What is your fascination with twins calves? some kind of fetish or something?

Look to show you have some bit of credability in this discussion please supply me with those names of farmers in Meath and Laois that are currently putting Ireland's agri reputation on the line - so that I can get the department of agri to take immediate action - my neighbour is one of the top vets in the department so I can ensure this gets dealt with immediately. Your allegations are very serious and will be investigated. What is even more amazing is that they have managed to give hormones/angel dust to animals - get them killed and it not show up on the test? Truely amazing

Can you supply the details to me please?

Tipp Man

bob charles wrote: »

go away our that, you didnt say you had seen it in the eighties but you had seen it recently in the thread we were referring to. If you had said you had seen it in the eighties we would all have said you most probably could have. Your a bull**** merchant, when your in a hole, stop digging mate

Thanks bob - I can't believe the ****er tried to pull that 1 - like we are some kind of fools or something

Tipp Man

Tipp Man wrote: »

In what year did you see these actions?

What's even more amazing is that as can be seen above I specifically asked him when he had seen hormones and/or angel dust being administered to cattle in Ireland and no response

And then the cheeky bugger tries to bull**** his way out of it

mama mia

leg wax

is every animal in this little country of ours including the north tested for hormones,if so who takes the sample,what is the sample,when is it taken, and where is it sent to be tested.how long do hormones stay in the animals system that they can be found,is it a case that a weanling given it and is killed lets just say 24 months afterwards will they still find it? sorry for all the questions.

bob charles

leg wax wrote: »

is every animal in this little country of ours including the north tested for hormones, No, just sample of a few each and every day at slaughter housesif so who takes the sampleDept official,what is the sample tissue sample at slaughter house, blood samples onfarm and probably blood test if there was a suspect farm,when is it taken, and where is it sent to be testeddont know but I would be think Belgium or Holland as this is where most hormones produce in the EU was manufactured, they were also to the fore in stamping out use.how long do hormones stay in the animals system that they can be found The levels are so so tiny that they are checking for I presume they are in the system for quite some time, Months I would be thinking but Im only guessing,is it a case that a weanling given it and is killed lets just say 24 months afterwards will they still find it doubt it, but it would be pointless as you wouldnt get the added performance from such a young animal? sorry for all the questions.

hope above answers your questions to the best of my knowledge

freedominacup

bob charles wrote: »

Your a bull**** merchant, when your in a hole, stop digging mate

Throw him in a track machine and have the dozer handy for when he's in deep enough.

mf240

freedominacup wrote: »

Throw him in a track machine and have the dozer handy for when he's in deep enough.

Ah lads give give him a break it's probably just his hormones playing up!!!!!

bogman_bass

pakalasa wrote: »

What I rememebr most from hormones was, they caused bullocks to get agressive, like bulls.:rolleyes:

You were physically turning a bull to a bullock and chemically turning him back again.

We are producing a product thats being exported and anything that makes said peoduct easier to market (hormeone free in this case) should be grabbed onto with both hands.

Farmer Pudsey

With no access to byproducts we have an issue with winter finishing. Costs are huge and factory returns do not allow for costs. My own view in that in an ideal situtation we should remain without hormones. However even though grass is cheap and bullocks are best for safty reasons, they are highly inefficent to finish indoors. I cannot see hormone returning however quid quo pro should be that no meat is imported from countries that allow the use of hormones

When you look at the costs involved where contenintal bulls are breaking even at best while all other cattle are costing more to finish than they are putting on in carcase weight you wonder how long that it can go on for.

Most people in the grain industry reckon that high prices are here for this year and next and after that are unsure.