Senator’s stop at Sailer’s sparks speculation about success

Recently, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) visited Sailer’s Meats in Elmwood. Sen. Baldwin toured Sailer’s along with several other meat processors from the area — and yours truly!

During the tour, Jake Sailer pointed out equipment and explained the processes, as well as what it cost to modernize in his current location.

We then did a very short Q&A about the current location, which was designed and built out approximately 10 years ago in the heart of the small town. With the changing business environment, however, Sailer’s has outgrown the facility based on the product demand they’re seeing. At this point, we headed to “Sailer’s 3.0” — the new location near Interstate 94 — toured that location and had another Q&A with Sen. Baldwin. 

Understand, this wasn’t a “photo-op” visit; it was a chance for Sen. Baldwin to see first-hand what it takes to run a growing business in the meat industry and learn the real costs associated with modernizing a small to mid-size facility.

During the discussion, the topic of women in the workforce and in ownership/leadership roles came up. We also discussed automation and the unique position small and mid-sized meat- and poultry-processing facilities found themselves in when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. 

The challenge to grow a small meat and poultry shop into a mid-sized one really boils down to how much capital can be secured. Equipment costs are very high, and when you look at the cost of building the facility, let alone the necessary refrigeration, and the struggles to attract additional employees, acquire automation, etc., it rapidly becomes unattainable for the average small processor.

Sen. Baldwin has helped already by pushing for funding in the American Rescue Plan, which is geared to strengthening the food supply chain. She was keen to hear how the funds would be used by small plants to modernize and retain employees, and how the food supply chain is being strengthened by smaller, local facilities.

The meeting caused me to step back and really put a critical eye to our supply chain. Looking out the home-office window, I am surrounded by farmers who are the first link in that chain. I work with processors and distributors daily, and at the end of the day, I am a consumer. 

I believe we are seeing a fundamental change in how we supply food to the American public. Mega plants that maximized efficiency also have an Achilles’ heel; the pandemic shined a light on the fact that those very things that made them efficient also made them vulnerable. 

The facilities that weathered this storm the best were the small and mid-size facilities. Those that had invested in automation and employee protections early on had the least amount of disruption.

What’s the future hold? I see a need for all sizes and types of operations. Having said that, I do believe that most of the growth is going to be in the mid-size to small, multi-facility companies. Those businesses are small enough to serve the local community, but large enough to take advantage of new technology and leverage innovation. 

I applaud Sen. Baldwin for reaching out to industry, learning first-hand about the process, and investigating how she might help them grow to ultimately support the local communities, towns and cities that surround them.

This brings me to an innovator and entrepreneur we recently lost far too soon — Andy Shaw of Cypress Valley Meat Co. Andy not only believed in small, local, community meat and poultry establishments, but he proved that they could grow by providing burst capacity to larger communities, all while still supporting the local communities around them. He leaves us a great example of how small processors can win, and he will be missed!

— Andrew Lorenz, president, andrew@werfoodsafety.com

Scientists toilet-training cows: crazy or smart?

I recently read an article published by Bloomberg that caught my eye: “Scientists Are Toilet-Training Baby Cows to Cut Emissions”. I’m including the link in case you haven’t seen it.

A couple of my colleagues here at We R Food Safety! asked me, the official, professional scientist on staff, if I had any comments on the research, and if I’d write a blog about the craziness of the whole thing. Regarding the research, what more can anyone say? The title speaks for itself. My reaction to the studies, however, requires more effort.

In short, to me the toilet-training experiment does not make any sense — not scientific, economic, environmental or any other. There is a Russian witticism: “If you want your cow to eat less and give more milk, just feed it less and milk it more.” Sounds logical, no? So, basically, these scientists are at approximately the same level of pragmatism as that Russian witticism. 

That portion answered, are they crazy? The answer — maybe surprising to you — is: Not at all. They are perfectly sane, and simply taking an advantage of today’s situation, which is: Any studies done under an umbrella of saving planet Earth get funded and get public attention. Public attention is then converted to funds again. And the show goes on. 

With this in mind, I would suggest (free of charge!) a few similar scientific topics that these researchers might use as a follow-up to their toilet-training study: 

1. Scientists Train Baby Cows to Lift Weights to Improve Digestion and to Cut Emissions. (for bonus fun, replace weightlifting with dancing, singing, hopping, etc.) 
2. Scientists Are Sauna-Training Baby Cows to Sweat More and Urinate Less to Cut Emissions.
3. Scientists Teach Yoga to Baby Cows So They Breathe Less to Cut Emissions.

If you haven’t figured out by now, the algorithm is clear. The key for researchers is to Cut Emissions from cows. I patiently await the mainstream media articles covering these crucial, potential, Earth-saving studies.

To return to the matter at hand, however: The idea to help the environment and save the planet remains important, for certain. However, I wonder how much funding that could be used for real research is wasted on studies like these, which appear crazy or ridiculous, but are a product of the publicity and funding mechanisms in place?

— Andrei Gindilis, senior scientist, andrei@werfoodsafety.com

Cultured, 3D-printed ‘Frankenmeat’ has a long road ahead, but can’t be ignored

When I first heard of 3D-printed and “cultured meat,” I was once again thankful that when I die, I will not be leaving behind any children to live in this crazy world. Having had so many years of experience in the plant-based, meat-alternative business, however, I also decided that I still should educate myself on these matters.

The companies selling these meat alternatives have some very trendy arguments for why they are a good idea. They say these products can be created with a smaller footprint, meat protein can be grown in an incubator much faster than on the hoof, animals are not put down for the process, and well, gosh golly darn it, we just have so many more people that need to be fed nowadays.

I can see how these products could be considered useful in some of those respects: For example, if you lived on a small island or perhaps a space station, that all sounds good. However, lots of things look good on paper until they hit the real world. You can find people who all thought Communism, extended warranties and New Coke sounded good at one time or another — just saying.

To create 3D-printed meat, you start by removing stem cells from an animal, placing them in a petri dish and putting them in an incubator to replicate. Once enough cells are present, they are then made into a paste, which is put into a printer cartridge then placed in the printer — much like a typical ink cartridge — and printing begins.

The process of “printing meat” reminds me of cake decorating. As a matter of fact, the process can create some interesting shapes, but so far, I haven’t seen any that look like a chicken breast or steak. So, perfection/improvement of appearance and texture are still on the drawing board. The first finished product printed was a breaded chicken nugget. Did I fail to mention that Kentucky Fried Chicken is championing this research? No word yet on whether Colonel Sanders is rolling in his grave.

Anyhow, taste testers reported that it tasted just like a traditional chicken nugget, but when cut open you could see that it was a mass of goo that had bubbled during the cooking process. I do not think that alone would deter chicken nugget fans though, because it really doesn’t look all that different from a cooked, meat-taken-from-the-bird McDonald’s McNugget.

When it comes to beef, they would likely follow the same process to make a paste and are working on a beef burger. As you might imagine, the companies competing for this market share are very protective of their processes, so I was unable to find footage on how they were trying to achieve the coarse-ground look.

Naturally, printing burgers isn’t the only target for these entrepreneurs. (Writer’s note: Naturally? Printing burgers? I’m not sure those go together!)  Some companies are already growing steaks. At the point of this writing, it had been reported that the cost of a piece of cultured steak the diameter of a credit card and about twice as thick is around $60,000 — and doesn’t feature the fibrous muscle tissue look of real steak. The ultimate goal would be to produce Wagyu in a lab setting, which clearly is going to be a few years away.

None of these products are ready to hit the market yet, nor are they approved for sale in the United States. On March 7, 2019, the USDA and the FDA agreed to jointly share regulatory oversight of these products. Two years later, the details are still being ironed out. What I do know is that my own state, Missouri, passed a law saying that meat cannot be called meat unless it comes from a traditionally raised animal. This gives me hope. What the labels on these cultured-meat products will say in the future is anyone’s guess at this point. My only concern is that it must be clear to the consumer. 

This new technology could prove to be a challenge for the meat industry, although I do not see that happening very soon. I also see that there could come a time when traditionally raised meat is much more expensive and sought after. Whatever happens, this is an issue to keep an eye on, and it is important that each state get on the Missouri bandwagon and pass laws now that require meat to be defined as traditionally raised.

— Martha Gore, food safety consultant, We R Food Safety!