Large Packing Plants Research Articles

COVID-19 and Meatpacking: A Topographic Regression Approach

In this paper, we investigate the extent to which presence of a large meatpacking (i.e., beef, pork, and broiler chicken) plant has affected county-level COVID-19 transmission dynamics. To do so, we design a topographic regression procedure that draws on the “computational model robustness” literature. We find that—within 60 days after emergence of COVID-19 in a given county—the presence of a large beef packing facility increases per capita infection rates by a staggering 800%, relative to comparable counties without packing plants. Large pork processing facilities increase transmission dynamics by almost 1000%. In aggregate, the COVID-19 mortality and morbidity associated with large packing plants have generated more than $2.5 billion in economic costs to the rural economy. Beef and pork facilities combine for about 96% of these costs.

Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Escherichia coli on Beef Trimmings Obtained from a Beef Packing Plant

The objective of this study was to determine the immediate source of Escherichia coli on beef trimmings produced at a large packing plant by analyzing the E. coli on trimmings at various locations of a combo bin filled on the same day and of bins filled on different days. Ten 2,000-lb (907-kg) combo bins (B1 through B10) of trimmings were obtained from a large plant on 6 days over a period of 5 weeks. Thin slices of beef with a total area of approximately 100 cm(2) were excised from five locations (four corners and the center) at each of four levels of the bins: the top surface and 30, 60, and 90 cm below the top. The samples were enriched for E. coli in modified tryptone soya broth supplemented with 20 mg/liter novobiocin. The positive enrichment cultures, as determined by PCR, were plated on E. coli/coliform count plates for recovery of E. coli. Selected E. coli isolates were genotyped using multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA). Of the 200 enrichment cultures, 43 were positive by PCR for E. coli, and 32 of these cultures yielded E. coli isolates. Two bins did not yield any positive enrichment cultures, and three PCR-positive bins did not yield any E. coli isolates. MLVA of 165 E. coli isolates (30, 62, 56, 5, and 12 from B6 through B10, respectively) revealed nine distinct genotypes. MLVA types 263 and 89 were most prevalent overall and on individual days, accounting for 49.1 and 37.6% of the total isolates, respectively. These two genotypes were also found at multiple locations within a bin. All nine genotypes belonged to the phylogenetic group A0 of E. coli, suggesting an animal origin. The finding that the trimmings carried very few E. coli indicates an overall effective control over contamination of beef with E. coli at this processing plant. The lack of strain diversity of the E. coli on trimmings suggests that most E. coli isolates may have come from common sources, most likely equipment used in the fabrication process.

Environmental Health Impacts of CAFOs

I am concerned about the development and content of the Mini-Monograph on Environmental Health Impacts of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) (Bunton et al. 2007; Burkholder et al. 2007; Donham et al. 2007; Gilchrist et al. 2007; Heederik et al. 2007; Thorne et al. 2007). Although I believe that the process of developing these reports was flawed, I will limit my comments to the content of the reports. It is difficult to comment on six separate articles within the word limitations of a letter; therefore, I will make some general comments followed by a few specific examples. Overall, there was a wide variation between the six articles (Bunton et al. 2007; Burkholder et al. 2007; Donham et al. 2007; Gilchrist et al. 2007; Heederik et al. 2007; Thorne et al. 2007) in both tone and scientific rigor. However, generally the authors did not differentiate between potential risks associated with general animal production—regardless of facility type—and risks associated with CAFOs. Their default was to assign any potential risk to the attribute “CAFO” rather than the attribute “animal.” For example, Burkholder et al. (2007) gave the impression that pathogens in manure would not exist in manure from animals raised in facilities that do not meet the definition of a CAFO. The authors of these articles generally referred to risk as the presence of potential pathogens or toxic substances. A true assessment of potential risk requires an assessment of exposure as well as volume or presence (National Research Council 1994), something that was not addressed to any extent in these reports. Additionally, Burkholder et al. (2007) did not in any way differentiate between the normal operation of a CAFO and potential impacts on water quality versus the results of a single catastrophic event, such as failure of a lagoon wall. Repeated reference to a single catastrophic event involving a single lagoon does not aid scientists or the public in understanding how CAFOs are operated on a daily basis, or how the typical handling of manure under daily operation may impact water quality. The authors did not attempt to document regulatory oversight or best management practices that have been implemented to minimize potential negative impacts on the environment (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002). Indeed, there was no mention of the relative rarity of lagoon failure, leaving the impression that this is a common event. In some cases, where the authors attempted to assign risk to CAFOs rather than to animals, they presented biased opinion rather than fact. For example, Gilchrist et al. (2007) stated that Pathogens tend to be amplified in animals raised in CAFOs and, thus, are more difficult to eliminate in meat packing processes. This blanket statement does not specify a type of pathogen, but studies indicate that—among the more important pathogens—this is an inaccurate statement. For example, pathogens such as Trichinella spiralis, formerly one of the most prominent pork-associated pathogens, have largely disappeared with the movement of pigs to indoor production (Roy 2003). Furthermore, pork carcass contamination with bacterial pathogens such as Salmonella is consistently lowest in the large packing plants, which because of the large volume of production are most likely to acquire animals from large producers (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service 2006). This clearly invalidates the argument that these pathogens are more difficult to eliminate in the packing process. Gilchrist et al. (2007) also referred to Denmark as a country that has experienced a successful transition to antibiotic-free production. This is incorrect, and indeed the latest DANMAP report (Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Program 2006) indicates that therapeutic antibiotic use in agriculture now exceeds the amount of antibiotics that were used to promote feed conversion before a ban on antibiotic growth promotion. Additionally, pig mortality in Denmark has risen 25% in the last 10 years (Agence France-Presse 2005). Gilchrist et al. (2007) suggest that industry leaders should take a leadership role in antibiotic use, but they apparently were unaware or intentionally overlooked the fact that the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (2004), and the National Pork Board (2000) have had prudent use guidelines for 7 years, and that in 2005 the pork industry launched the Take Care — Use Antibiotics Responsibly program (National Pork Board 2005). More than 50 million pigs are marketed each year by producers who recognize the importance of protecting public health and animal health and welfare through the responsible use of antibiotics by pledging their support for the Take Care program. The topics covered by EHP are important and worthy of public discussion and scientific investigation. However, we do the public, producers, and the research community a disservice when that discussion is driven by misinformation and subjective opinion.

Captive supplies and cash market prices for fed cattle: The role of delivery timing incentives

AbstractThe use of non‐cash methods of procuring fed cattle for slaughter has led to concern about the effect of these so‐called “captive” supplies on cash market prices. Some empirical evidence suggests that there is a negative short‐run relationship between the two: Cash market prices tend to be low in weeks in which captive supply shipments are high. We advance a different perspective on the relationship between captive deliveries and cash prices, arguing that the incentives that influence cattle delivery‐scheduling decisions could lead to a negative relationship, not between the contemporaneous levels of captive shipments and price, but between the volume of captive deliveries, on the one hand, and an ex ante expectation of a week‐to‐week price change, on the other. Econometric testing provides some evidence of this empirical regularity in the cattle procurement activities of four large packing plants in Texas in the mid‐1990s. [EconLit citations: Q130, L140.] © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Agribusiness 20: 347–362, 2004.

Captive supplies and the spot market price of fed cattle: The plant‐level relationship

AbstractNumerous articles in the agricultural economics literature investigate the empirical relationship between the spot market price of fed cattle and the volume of packers' precommitted, or “captive,” supplies of cattle. In this article, we use an extensive data set on the cattle procurement activities of four large packing plants in the Texas Panhandle from early 1995 through mid‐1996 to examine this relationship at the plant‐level. We find evidence to support the hypothesis that plants that anticipate near‐term future deliveries of captive supply cattle that are high relative to their regional‐market rivals' degrees of reliance on captive supplies tend to pay spot market prices that are below average. The effect, while statistically significant, is relatively small in magnitude, however. [EconLit citations: Q130, L200] © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Agribusiness 19: 489–504, 2003.

Egg Carton Field Tests

A study was conducted to evaluate the protective capability of 10 commonly used 12-egg foam (F) and pulp (P) cartons when packed and shipped in 15-dozen wire or plastic baskets and 30-dozen fiberboard cases.The study included 42 truck shipments in seven states. Eggs were graded for shell damage in 8 large packing plants, 9 central distribution warehouses, and 11 retail supermarkets.Range of damage was greater among foam cartons than among pulp cartons, although damage rate differences between the two groups were generally minimal. Test cartons F1 (foam flattop) and F2 (foam posted) had significantly less total eggshell damage than three other cartons (two F and one P) when the effect of master container was not considered.When cartons were packed in 30-dozen cases, there was no significant difference in total eggshell damage rates between F and P; however, test carton F1 had significantly less total damage than four other cartons (two F and two P).When cartons were packed in 15-dozen baskets, however, eggs in the pulp group had significantly less total damage than eggs in the foam group, and test carton F2 had significantly less total eggshell damage than four other cartons (three F and one P).Throughout the study, cartons F1, F2, P1, and P2 consistently performed at or above average and did not differ significantly from each other.

Survey of Brucellosis in Slaughtered Hogs

Submaxillary lymph nodes were obtained from hogs slaughtered in one of the large packing plants in Chicago. Samples were obtained each week for a period of 6 months. The lymph nodes were removed from the carcass immediately after the initial Bureau of Animal Industry inspection of head glands. Each specimen was removed with sterile instruments and placed in an individual sterile screw-capped glass jar. Upon return to the laboratory, the samples were promptly cultured. Each node was trimmed of fat and excess tissue, seared in a flame, sectioned, and the cut surface serrated and streaked directly on the surface of trypticase-soy agar medium. Sterile instruments were used throughout. The inoculated plates were incubated at 370 C. in an atmosphere of 10 percent added C02. In cultures heavily overgrown with other organisms, Brucella cannot be detected. Hence, all plates showing an overgrowth were discarded and not included in the series. During the entire investigation, 152 plates were discarded for this reason. Plates streaked with nodes from which Brucella was not recovered have in most instances remained sterile or contained only scattered colonies of ubiquitous bacteria. Plates yielding Brucella have uniformly contained numerous colonies of the organism.

Incidence and Distribution of Brucella abortus in Slaughtered Bang's Reactor Cattle

In considering the occurrence of brucellosis in packing-house workers, the Bang's reactor cow has received inadequate attention. It has been frequently stated that in reactor cattle the organism is found mainly in the uterus and the udder; hence, the remainder of the carcass provides little or no exposure hazard to the worker. The prevalence of this view is somewhat surprising. It has long been known that early in the course of the disease the organism may be widely disseminated (1). Brucella has been isolated from the blood stream of cattle in a number of studies (2, 3, 4). Recently, Manthie and Carter performed blood cultures on artificially infected cattle (5). Of 270 cows, Brucella abortus was recovered from the blood of 172 animals. In 18 animals studied over a prolonged period, bloodstream infection persisted in over 80 percent for 5 months and in one animal for almost 2 years. These studies suggest an exposure hazard greater than that usually recognized. More definitive information seemed to be needed on the extent of infection in a substantial number of animals actually sent for slaughter. In this study the carcasses of 100 Bang's reactor cattle were examined. Materials and Methods To conduct the study, arrangements were made with one of the large packing plants in the Chicago area. Over a period of 6 months, 100 Bang's reactor cattle sent for slaughter were examined. They were unselected except for the known positive Bang's reaction. They were all of dairy breeds. The series comprised 88 cows, 9 heifers, 2 calves, and 1 bull. They were derived from herds in five Midwestern States. During bleeding, a blood sample was obtained for an agglutination test. At various stages of the dressing process, tissues were obtained for culture. Accessible lymph nodes in widespread areas of the carcass, tonsil, and sections of liver, spleen, uterus, and membranes and fetus, if present, were obtained. Under plant conditions, the