Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
BQA audit
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ky hills" data-source="post: 1806552" data-attributes="member: 24816"><p>After reading the article, I agree with [USER=14175]@M.Magis[/USER] it's vague.</p><p>It seems more like an agenda driven study with vague conclusions that don't really matchup with logic.</p><p>In my 30 yrs of being in the cattle business, I have had two, a few month old calf and a bred heifer killed by gunshot. My belief is that my experiences with having two cattle get shot are a higher percentage than average, and neither of mine went into the food chain as they were found dead.</p><p>I have heard of someone apparently intentionally using bird shot on a bull that was getting out many years ago, I would certainly think that is a very isolated incident. Definitely not a good way to handle cattle.</p><p>I would think the incidence of maliciously targeting livestock would be fairly low industry wide as well though it does obviously happen from time to time.</p><p>Seems very odd to me that issue of finding that in the carcasses would even be a high enough incidence to be noticed on such a scale as claimed.</p><p>The part stating about bruising seems suspicious. The article acknowledges that injection site scarring has decreased, and I find it odd that bruising due to loading, handling has increased as no doubt cattle handling practices at the farms and ranches along with feedlots should have logically improved at the same rate as the injection site issues.</p><p>Is it possible that there are a lot of new inexperienced cattle producers that are not aware of the BQA stuff?</p><p>Is the bruising a result of careless hired help at stockyards and trucking?</p><p>The part of the article about thin cows is obvious, the packers would rather have cows in good condition as it it means more pounds of beef.</p><p>No surprise there they want us to feed out the pound cows and wait to sell until they have dried up.</p><p>Is all of this going to be a new reason to lower prices?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ky hills, post: 1806552, member: 24816"] After reading the article, I agree with [USER=14175]@M.Magis[/USER] it’s vague. It seems more like an agenda driven study with vague conclusions that don’t really matchup with logic. In my 30 yrs of being in the cattle business, I have had two, a few month old calf and a bred heifer killed by gunshot. My belief is that my experiences with having two cattle get shot are a higher percentage than average, and neither of mine went into the food chain as they were found dead. I have heard of someone apparently intentionally using bird shot on a bull that was getting out many years ago, I would certainly think that is a very isolated incident. Definitely not a good way to handle cattle. I would think the incidence of maliciously targeting livestock would be fairly low industry wide as well though it does obviously happen from time to time. Seems very odd to me that issue of finding that in the carcasses would even be a high enough incidence to be noticed on such a scale as claimed. The part stating about bruising seems suspicious. The article acknowledges that injection site scarring has decreased, and I find it odd that bruising due to loading, handling has increased as no doubt cattle handling practices at the farms and ranches along with feedlots should have logically improved at the same rate as the injection site issues. Is it possible that there are a lot of new inexperienced cattle producers that are not aware of the BQA stuff? Is the bruising a result of careless hired help at stockyards and trucking? The part of the article about thin cows is obvious, the packers would rather have cows in good condition as it it means more pounds of beef. No surprise there they want us to feed out the pound cows and wait to sell until they have dried up. Is all of this going to be a new reason to lower prices? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
BQA audit
Top