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

MEATOUT, Meat on the Menu proclamations? Who cares, it’s all grandstanding

A couple weeks ago, it began: Yet another war of words, proclamations and stupid political and media grandstanding over whether consumers should eat meat or not. I’m growing seriously weary of these headlines crossing my news and social media feeds.

I’m also getting tired of saying the same things over and over on this, but please, spare yourself the increased blood pressure, and simply ignore the stupidity. On both sides. All sides, should there be more than two.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis declared March 20, 2021, “MEATOUT DAY” in Colorado. So what?

Colorado State Sen. Jerry Sonnenburg came out strong against the attack on the agriculture industry in response. SO WHAT?

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts then countered his neighboring state’s move by declaring a “Meat on the Menu Day” in Nebraska. SO WHAT?!?!?!?

Did any of these announcements truly move the needle either direction for or against meat production in either of these states, let alone the country? I say, “Not likely.”

For the last 15 years or so, I’ve been telling the readers of The National Provisioner that there simply is too large a silent majority of meat eaters out there who don’t care what the activists have to say or what the activists do to try and convince them to ditch the animal protein. That’s nationwide, in my opinion: from the conservative small-town and rural ag people, to those darned “lib-ruhls” in the urban areas who’ve never been on a farm. Not a single one of this silent majority would trade his or her pork chops for a new pickup or Porterhouse for a Prius, even if you think they would.

Furthermore, how many people listen to the government about what to eat, when or how? How many people cook their meats properly because the government says that’s the safest move? Does anyone even care about the Food Pyramid or whatever the government might be suggesting for daily intake of foods? Coloradans who loved the “MEATOUT” proclamation likely were already eating less meat, and Nebraskans who loved the “Meat on the Menu” proclamation likely had a big steak ready for dinner that day already.

Let’s remember that, although our form of government means we need politicians in order to represent us, they don’t always do that. And when they don’t represent you individually, you need to measure the gravity of the situation properly.

These proclamations were nothing more than grandstanding for the media and political donors — both left-wing and right-wing outlets (depending on which proclamation, of course). Nothing more, nothing less.

Carry on with your processing — whether that’s meat, poultry or other food product — and when the news starts talking about these dumb proclamations, remember that anyone can request proclamations, at least in most states.

Then, remind yourself that the quality and safety of your own product has much more bearing on whether your customers come back than what your governor says about meat or food in general.

— Andy Hanacek, vice president of Communications, andyh@werfoodsafety.com