All KDWPT fisheries districts are offering a fishing newsletter that can be sent out to all that want it. The newsletters are aimed at keeping anglers informed about fishing opportunities and information in their areas of interest. The first few editions of the Cheney Fisheries District have been completed and are ready for distribution.
Zebra mussels can be found attached to rocks lakewide. Zebra mussel veligers are too small to be seen with the unaided eye and they can be found in boat livewells, minnow buckets, boat bilges, water toys, and anything else that is capable of holding even a small amount of water. Be sure to drain all equipment before leaving the lake to avoid moving veligers to other waters. THIS INCLUDES MINNOW BUCKETS, BOAT LIVEWELLS, AND BILGES!!!
Zebra mussel numbers have decreased at Cheney; however, anglers and boaters should still use caution to avoid moving adults and veligers from the lake.
Click HERE to learn how to prevent the spread of zebra mussels.
Good fall and winter spots for white bass are off of deep dropoffs near M&M point and the west toadstool shelters. Anglers also do well in the upper end in the river channel.
Fall netting results indicate excellent white bass and wiper populations. There are high densities of temperate bass and lots of quality fish. Fishing should be as good for temperate bass in 2015 as it has been in recent years.
Walleyes are tough to find in the cold water; however, fish hold on deep structure and are likely feeding on 4-6″ gizzard shad. Match your bait to the forage.
Gill net samples were encouraging for walleyes. Although numbers will be down slightly in 2015, there are still plenty of sublegal and legal-sized fish in the population. Decent numbers of of fish from the 2014 stocking were captured, which is a good sign for the future.
Channel and blue catfish can provide fun winter angling. Focus on structure and channel borders.
White Perch
Netting results this fall indicate that white perch numbers increased this year; however, there are many catchable-size white perch (10+”) in the lake.
White perch cannot be used as live bait, but they do make good cut bait. For tips on identifying a white perch from a white bass, wiper or striped bass click HERE.
All white perch in your possession must be dead. It is illegal to posses live white perch.
COMMENTS
This is a general winter fishing report. If a good bite is reported, it will be posted. Otherwise, weekly fishing reports will resume in March.
MANHATTAN, Kan. — Kansas ranks around 20th in the number of turkeys raised compared to other states. That doesn’t seem too bad until you realize that 20th is still far less than 1 percent of all the 235 million turkeys grown in the United States each year. The leading states are Minnesota, North Carolina and Arkansas, according to data from the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
At one time, Kansas was considered by many in the poultry industry to be second in total poultry production, said Kansas State University animal scientist, Scott Beyer, In the 1930s about 10 percent of all Kansas farms raised turkeys. In the 1940s, live and dressed turkey competitions were held in Wichita.
Many of the birds were hatched in the state and grown in fields with protection by pole barns, said Beyer, who is a poultry specialist with K-State Research and Extension. If Kansans wanted a turkey grown in the state, in the early 1960s that was about the best time to find one.
In the ‘70s and ‘80s, big changes came to the state and national turkey industries. Turkey growers became larger and fewer, Beyer said. Many people saw similar changes in livestock production so to protect small farms, legislation was passed to slow the change to marketing alliances where turkey growers produced birds under contract.
As the turkey industry grew enormously in other states, he said, Kansas turkey growers lost the competitive edge they had as the industry modernized into integrated production models.
“Ironically, the model for integrated turkey production used today has saved many family farms by growing turkeys on contract – but in other states, not Kansas,” Beyer said. “Farms, feed mills, hatcheries, and processing plants once in Kansas were all closed and built in other states. And the jobs and farm diversification went with them.”
Other factors like market proximity and transportation over sparse farm roads were no doubt contributing factors, but the very regulations meant to save the farm actually closed many of the turkey farms in Kansas.
By the early 1980s, virtually no turkeys were grown in Kansas, Beyer added. Even the Central Kansas Hatchery, which at one time hatched 2 million to 3 million day-old-poults a year, shipped their turkeys to neighboring states. But the cost of moving all of those turkeys to other states for feeding and processing became too much and that hatchery closed as well.
In the late 1980s, a few commercial turkey farms, built to grow turkeys under contract with a large integrated turkey producer, opened in Cherokee County in southeast Kansas. Other large farms soon followed in the same area and a feed mill was constructed. The turkeys grown in that area today are processed across the state line in Missouri.
“Kansas remains a potential state for significant turkey production,” Beyer said. “There are a small number of growers in Kansas that produce heritage breed turkeys and some are marketed nationally. With good roads, a strong agricultural base, and feed resources, the turkey industry could one day look to Kansas to grow birds again.”
Because the industry has become ensconced in other states, Beyer said, it would take a sustained and concerted effort by local farm groups, cites, counties and the state to show that Kansas should be considered when new growth occurs in the turkey industry.
“Perhaps rural areas in need of new jobs and business would see turkey production as a way to diversity farming and brings new jobs to Kansas,” he said.
What is it about the collective soul of a nation that allows meanness and bullying to be considered an art form. There is no man ever lived, but one, that did not have faults and even have done bad things in his life. Whether the individual has redeemed themselves or not it is not our affair.
What has started this national fascination of bringing down iconic people? It is even worse when there is no proof of the occurrence of crimes and misdemeanor’s, just accusations. Seems that the longer time has gone by and there is no legal proceedings it is worse that if it happened yesterday.
There is no appeal from public opinion and if enough time goes by there is not even defense in the system to defend ones name. Yet the news media finds this type of story to be so important that they can destroy a person with no fear, to the point of even voiding the volume of lifetime accomplishments.
Finding someone will accuse 30, 40, and 50 years later seems to be a journalistic principle. If so Journalism is dead. Along with it is history. For both have to be judged with the backdrop of their times and applying todays values to a story is revisionist.
How is your soul? Well lets run some names. Martha Stewart, Clarence Thomas, Paula Dean, Bill Cosby. Were you delighted at the amounts of money and the reputation that each is left to deal with after their lives and reputations were made the subject of public ridicule?
What of the human failing of greed that will claim membership in a victim group because there is a pool of money that is at stake. I imagine after 40, 50, & 60 years, a lot of the claimants of being violated by clergy were even eligible to be there let alone make money from it. It is just fashionable to create hate and see how much a person can make out of being a victim, whether they were or not.
My opinion of the ethos of Public Radio dropped sharply when a reporter finds it so compelling that he had to bring up Bill Cosby’s allegations. Not because there was legal merit but that there is no way for Mr. Cosby to answer without putting in question his innocence.
For many years now I have had the opinion, that the opinions of Mr. Cosby will be setting him up for the attack against his character because he advises in no uncertain terms what is wrong with society and that the only cures for the wrongs is to take responsibility.
I am so sad that this is true. And the others who share the position in his community are now involved in creating a race war. If you take personal delight in any of this I fear for your soul.
According to recent surveys, a majority of consumers in the U.S. public are concerned about the welfare of beef cattle in the country. However, consumers and producers do agree on many specific viewpoints related to beef animal welfare. ~ K-State Research and ExtensionISSN: 0499-0544
Released November 20, 2014, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
Red Meat Production Down 4 Percent From Last Year
Commercial red meat production for the United States totaled 4.32 billion
pounds in October, down 4 percent from the 4.51 billion pounds produced in
October 2013.
Beef production, at 2.17 billion pounds, was 6 percent below the previous
year. Cattle slaughter totaled 2.64 million head, down 9 percent from
October
2013. The average live weight was up 28 pounds from the previous year, at
1,355 pounds.
Veal production totaled 7.7 million pounds, 22 percent below October a year
ago. Calf slaughter totaled 43,300 head, down 38 percent from October 2013.
The average live weight was up 59 pounds from last year, at 304 pounds.
Pork production totaled 2.13 billion pounds, down 2 percent from the
previous
year. Hog slaughter totaled 9.95 million head, down 4 percent from October
2013. The average live weight was up 8 pounds from the previous year, at
286 pounds.
Lamb and mutton production, at 13.4 million pounds, was up 2 percent from
October 2013. Sheep slaughter totaled 207,700 head, slightly below last
year.
The average live weight was 129 pounds, up 3 pounds from October a year ago.
January to October 2014 commercial red meat production was 39.5 billion
pounds, down 4 percent from 2013. Accumulated beef production was down
6 percent from last year, veal was down 14 percent, pork was down 1 percent
from last year, and lamb and mutton production was down slightly.
October 2013 contained 23 weekdays (including 1 holiday) and 4 Saturdays.
October 2014 contained 23 weekdays (including 1 holiday) and 4 Saturdays.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
Commercial Red Meat Production – United
States………………………………….. 4
Federally Inspected Red Meat Production – United
States………………………….. 4
Livestock Slaughter, Number of Head and Average Live Weight – United
States………… 5
Commercial Red Meat Production – States and United
States………………………… 6
Commercial Cattle Slaughter – States and United States: October 2013 and
2014………. 7
Commercial Calf Slaughter – States and United States: October 2013 and
2014………… 8
Commercial Hog Slaughter – States and United States: October 2013 and
2014…………. 9
Commercial Sheep and Lamb Slaughter – States and United States: October 2013
and 2014.. 10
Livestock Slaughtered Under Federal Inspection, By Class – United
States…………… 11
Federally Inspected Slaughter, Average Dressed Weight, By Class – United
States…….. 11
Federally Inspected Slaughter – Regions and United States: October
2014……………. 12
Federally Inspected Slaughter – Regions and United States: January to
October 2014….. 13
Federally Inspected Slaughter, Percent of Total Commercial Slaughter –
United States… 13
Statistical
Methodology……………………………………………………….
14
Terms and Definitions Used for Livestock Slaughter
Estimates……………………… 15
Information
Contacts………………………………………………………….
16
Commercial Red Meat Production – United States
[Totals, accumulated totals and percentages based on unrounded data]
—————————————————————————-
—————————-
: : : : October 2014 as % of :
January to October
: October :September : October
:—————————————————-
Type : 2013 : 2014 : 2014 : October : September :
: :2014 as %
: : : : 2013 : 2014 :
2013 : 2014 : of 2013
—————————————————————————-
—————————-
: ——- million pounds —— — percent —
million pounds percent
:
Total red meat …: 4,510.2 3,958.8 4,319.3 96 109
40,919.9 39,450.8 96
—————————————————————————-
—————————-
Federally Inspected Red Meat Production – United States
[Totals, accumulated totals and percentages based on unrounded data]
—————————————————————————-
—————————-
: : : : October 2014 as % of :
January to October
: October :September : October
:—————————————————-
Type : 2013 : 2014 : 2014 : October : September :
: :2014 as %
: : : : 2013 : 2014 :
2013 : 2014 : of 2013
—————————————————————————-
—————————-
: ——- million pounds —— — percent —
million pounds percent
:
Total red meat …: 4,460.1 3,919.3 4,272.1 96 109
40,504.2 39,061.2 96
—————————————————————————-
—————————-
Livestock Slaughter, Number of Head and Average Live Weight – United States
[Totals, accumulated totals and percentages based on unrounded data]
—————————————————————————-
———————————————————-
: : : :
October : January to October
: October : September : October :
2014 as % :——————————————–
Species : 2013 : 2014 : 2014 :
of 2013 : : : 2014 as %
: : : :
: 2013 : 2014 : of 2013
—————————————————————————-
———————————————————-
:
percent percent
:
Cattle :
Number of head :
Federally inspected ..1,000: 2,851.1 2,489.8 2,590.5
91 26,901.9 25,076.5 93
Other …………….1,000: 53.2 39.9 50.2
95 429.5 405.6 94
Commercial ………..1,000: 2,904.3 2,529.6 2,640.8
91 27,331.3 25,482.1 93
Live weight per head :
Commercial Red Meat Production – States and United States
[Includes total beef, veal, pork, lamb, and mutton. Totals and percentages
based on
unrounded data.]
—————————————————————————-
———-
State : October : September : October :
October 2014 as
: 2013 : 2014 : 2014 : %
of 2013
—————————————————————————-
———-
: ———– million pounds ———-
percent
:
Washington …………: 74.4 74.4 78.4
105
West Virginia ………: 1.1 0.7 1.0
92
Wisconsin ………….: 115.8 92.3 94.3
81
Wyoming ……………: 0.2 0.5 0.2
106
:
United States ………: 4,510.2 3,958.8 4,319.3
96
—————————————————————————-
———-
1/ New England includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
Commercial Cattle Slaughter – States and United States: October 2013 and
2014
[Data may not add to totals due to rounding]
—————————————————————————-
———–
: Number slaughtered : Total live weight : Average
live weight
State
:——————————————————————–
: 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : 2013
: 2014
—————————————————————————-
———–
: —- 1,000 head — — 1,000 pounds — —-
pounds —-
:
United States ….: 2,904.3 2,640.8 3,846,407 3,570,938 1,327
1,355
—————————————————————————-
———–
(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.
1/ New England includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
Commercial Calf Slaughter – States and United States: October 2013 and 2014
[Data may not add to totals due to rounding]
—————————————————————————-
———–
: Number slaughtered : Total live weight : Average
live weight
State
:——————————————————————–
: 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : 2013
: 2014
—————————————————————————-
———–
: — 1,000 head — — 1,000 pounds — —
pounds —
:
United States ….: 69.4 43.3 16,940 13,074 245
304
—————————————————————————-
———–
(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.
(X) Not applicable.
(Y) Less than level of precision shown.
1/ New England includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
Commercial Hog Slaughter – States and United States: October 2013 and 2014
[Data may not add to totals due to rounding]
—————————————————————————-
———–
: Number slaughtered : Total live weight : Average
live weight
State
:——————————————————————–
: 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : 2013
: 2014
—————————————————————————-
———–
: —- 1,000 head —- — 1,000 pounds — —
pounds —
:
United States ….: 10,420.0 9,953.1 2,898,550 2,842,390 278
286
—————————————————————————-
———–
(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.
(X) Not applicable.
(Y) Less than level of precision shown.
1/ New England includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
Commercial Sheep and Lamb Slaughter – States and United States: October 2013
and 2014
[Data may not add to totals due to rounding]
—————————————————————————-
———–
: Number slaughtered : Total live weight : Average
live weight
State
:——————————————————————–
: 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : 2013
: 2014
—————————————————————————-
———–
: — 1,000 head — — 1,000 pounds — —
pounds —
:
United States ….: 208.3 207.7 26,176 26,758 126
129
—————————————————————————-
———–
(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.
(X) Not applicable.
(Y) Less than level of precision shown.
1/ New England includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
Livestock Slaughtered Under Federal Inspection, By Class – United States
[Data may not add to totals due to rounding]
—————————————————————————-
——————————————————–
: : : : January to October :
: : : January to October
Class : October :September : October :———————–:
October :September : October :———————–
: 2013 : 2014 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 :
2013 : 2014 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014
—————————————————————————-
——————————————————–
: ——————– 1,000 head ——————-
—————– percent of total —————-
:
Federally Inspected Slaughter, Average Dressed Weight, By Class – United
States
[Data may not add to totals due to rounding]
—————————————————————————-
——
: : : : January to
October
Class : October :September : October
:———————–
: 2013 : 2014 : 2014 : 2013 :
2014
—————————————————————————-
——
: pounds
Sheep ……………. : 64 65 66 69
69
Mature sheep 3/ ………: 61 65 65 64
66
Lambs and yearlings 3/ ..: 64 65 66 70
69
—————————————————————————-
——
1/ Included in cattle average dressed weight.
2/ Included in hog average dressed weight.
3/ Included in sheep average dressed weight.
Federally Inspected Slaughter – Regions and United States: October 2014
[Data may not add to totals due to rounding]
—————————————————————————-
———-
: Cattle
: Calves
Standard
:———————————————————————–
federal : : : : Cows :
:
regions 1/ : Total : Steers :Heifers :————————–: Bulls
: Total
: : : : All : Dairy : Other :
:
—————————————————————————-
———-
: 1,000 head
United States : 9,880.3 9,588.4 259.9 32.0 186.8 13.2
173.6
—————————————————————————-
———
(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.
(Y) Less than level of precision shown.
1/ States included in regions are as follows: 1 – Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; 2 – New Jersey, New
York; 3
– Delaware-Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia; 4 – Alabama,
Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee; 5 –
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin; 6 – Arkansas,
Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; 7 – Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska; 8-
Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming; 9 – Arizona,
California,
Hawaii, Nevada; 10 – Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington.
Federally Inspected Slaughter – Regions and United States: January to
October 2014
[Data may not add to totals due to rounding]
—————————————————————————-
———-
: Cattle
: Calves
Standard
:———————————————————————–
federal : : : : Cows :
:
regions 1/ : Total : Steers :Heifers :————————–: Bulls
: Total
: : : : All : Dairy : Other :
:
—————————————————————————-
———-
: 1,000 head
United States : 87,580.4 84,986.9 2,309.7 283.8 1,764.4 116.0
1,648.4
—————————————————————————-
———
(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.
(Y) Less than level of precision shown.
1/ States included in regions are as follows: 1 – Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; 2 – New Jersey, New
York; 3
– Delaware-Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia; 4 – Alabama,
Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee; 5 –
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin; 6 – Arkansas,
Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; 7 – Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska; 8-
Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming; 9 – Arizona,
California,
Hawaii, Nevada; 10 – Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington.
Federally Inspected Slaughter, Percent of Total Commercial Slaughter –
United States
—————————————————————————-
—-
: : : : January to
October
Species : October : September : October
:————————
: 2013 : 2014 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014
—————————————————————————-
—-
: percent
:
Cattle …….: 98.2 98.4 98.1 98.4 98.4
Calves …….: 98.7 98.5 98.3 98.5 98.6
Hogs ………: 99.2 99.2 99.3 99.2 99.3
Sheep ……..: 89.5 90.0 89.9 91.2 91.0
—————————————————————————-
—-
Statistical Methodology
Data Sources: Primary data for the Livestock Slaughter publication are
obtained from electronic reports completed by inspectors from the Food
Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS), USDA, which provide daily counts of animals
slaughtered in Federally Inspected (FI) plants, in addition to total live
and
dressed weights. These counts are combined with data from State-administered
Non-Federally Inspected (NFI) slaughter plants to derive total commercial
slaughter estimates.
There are nearly 800 livestock slaughter plants in the United States
operating under Federal Inspection and over 1,900 Non-Federally Inspected
(State-inspected or custom-exempt) slaughter plants. Slaughter from State-
inspected Talmedge-Aiken plants is included in FI totals (see Terms and
Definitions, page 15). To prevent duplication in reporting between FI and
NFI
plants and assure all FI plants are included, certificates prepared by FSIS
identifying operating status are constantly monitored.
Revision Policy: Number of head slaughtered, live weights, and dressed
weights are subject to revision the following month after the monthly
release. Annual totals are published in the slaughter summary each April
which includes any revisions made to current and previous year’s published
data. Revisions are generally the result of late reports received from
slaughter plants and are usually less than one-half of one percent. No
revisions will be made to the previous year’s data after the publication of
the annual summary in April.
Procedures and Reliability: The livestock slaughter data is obtained
electronically on a daily basis and summarized approximately two weeks after
the week of slaughter. A computer program compares each plant’s data with
the
historical data for that plant. Data are checked for unusual values for head
kill, patterns of kill, average weights, and dressing percent, based on each
plant’s past operating profile. In addition, the computer program provides a
listing of missing reports for follow-up contact with FSIS. Average live and
dressed weights and dressing percentages by State are compared with the
previous weeks as an additional check. Fluctuations are frequently the
result
of plants permanently or temporarily closing and a shift in the species
reported.
The FSIS District Veterinary Medical Specialists (DVMS) are contacted by e-
mail or telephone for missing or potentially erroneous slaughter data. This
assures that plants slaughtering a large number of head or several species
are accounted for each week. Any corrections FSIS makes to the slaughter
data
are included in the summary.
Computer imputation may be necessary for incomplete reports. The imputation
of live and dressed weights is based on the current week reported data of
plants of similar size and location. Imputation for live and dressed weight
data for cattle and hogs is less than 10 percent and 7 percent,
respectively.
The imputation for calves and sheep is more frequent and variable. If no
data is received electronically or by other means, for plants slaughtering
fewer than 50 total head weekly of only one species, data are imputed. The
imputation of head for any plant is based on the historical data for that
particular plant. The imputation of head slaughtered is rare but when
necessary, the imputed head kill for missing plants usually is less than 1
percent of the United States head kill totals.
FI data are summarized weekly and accumulated to a monthly total for this
release. These weekly totals are published by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) in Livestock, Meat, Wool Market News, Weekly Summary, and
statistics are also available on the NASS website. NFI data are summarized
monthly only.
Livestock slaughter estimates are based on a census of operating plants and
therefore, have no sampling error. However, they may be subject to non-
sampling errors such as omissions, duplications and mistakes in reporting,
recording and processing the data. These errors are minimized through rigid
quality controls in the computer edit program and summarization process, and
a careful review of all reported data for consistency and reasonableness.
No data are published when an individual plant’s data could be divulged. If
not published, as indicated with a (D), these data are still included in
United States and region totals. A review of the data is made annually to
determine the publishable data.
Terms and Definitions Used for Livestock Slaughter Estimates
Average Live Weight: The weight of the whole animal, before slaughter.
Excludes post-mortem condemnations.
Commercial Production: Includes slaughter and meat production in federally
inspected and other plants, but excludes animals slaughtered on farms. Based
on packers’ dressed weights.
Custom-Exempt Plants: Plants that do not sell meat but operate on a custom
basis only are custom-exempt. The animals and meat are not inspected, but
the
facilities must meet health standards. These are considered NFI plants and
head kill is included in NFI totals.
Dressed Weight: The weight of a chilled animal carcass. Beef with kidney
knob
in; veal with hide off; lamb and mutton with pluck out; pork with leaf fat
and kidneys out, jowls on and head off.
Dressing Percent: Usually expressed as a percentage yield of chilled carcass
in relation to the weight of the live animal on hoof. For example, a live
hog
that weighed 200 pounds on hoof and yielded a carcass weighing 140 pounds
would have a dressing percentage of 70.
Federally Inspected (FI) Plants: Plants that transport meat interstate must
employ federal inspectors to assure compliance with USDA standards. Any
state
whose commercial plants operate entirely under federal inspection may still
have custom-exempt establishments for which NFI estimates are made.
Food and Meat Inspection: Includes examination, checking, or testing of a
carcass and/or meat against established government standards and involves
checking the facility for cleanliness, health of animals, or parts of
animals
and quality of the meat produced.
Non-Federally Inspected (NFI) Plants: Plants which sell and transport only
intrastate. State inspectors assure compliance with individual state
standards for these NFI plants. Mobile slaughtering units are excluded and
are considered farm slaughter.
Number of Head: Includes post-mortem condemnations.
Plant, Slaughter: An establishment where animals are killed and butchered.
Red Meat: Red meat production is the carcass weight after slaughter
excluding
condemnation and is comprised of beef, veal, pork, and lamb and mutton. The
FI red meat production is equal to the total carcass weight after slaughter.
The NFI meat production formula is (NFI head kill) X (live weight) X (FI
dressing percentage) = NFI red meat production.
Slaughter: Killing and butchering of animals primarily for food.
Slaughter, Farm: Animals slaughtered on farms primarily for home
consumption.
Excludes custom slaughter for farmers at commercial establishments, but
includes mobile slaughtering on farms. These estimates appear only in the
annual slaughter release.
Talmedge-Aiken (TA) Plants: Slaughter plants in which USDA is responsible
for
inspection. However, federal inspection is carried out by State employees.
These plants are considered to be federally inspected.
Total Live Weight: The total weight of live animals, before slaughter.
Excludes post-mortem condemnations.
Wholesome Meat Act: Legislation that specifies that all meat produced for
sale in the United States must be inspected. Meat that is transported
interstate must be inspected in compliance with Federal (USDA) Standards.
Information Contacts
Listed below are the commodity specialists in the Livestock
Branch of the National Agricultural Statistics Service to
contact for additional information. E-mail inquiries may be sent
to [email protected]
Dan Kerestes, Chief, Livestock Branch ……….. (202) 720-3570
Scott Hollis, Head, Livestock Section ……….. (202) 690-2424
Travis Averill – Cattle, Cattle on Feed …… (202) 720-3040
Sherry Bertramsen – Livestock Slaughter …… (202) 720-3240
Doug Bounds – Hogs and Pigs ……………… (202) 720-3106
Donnie Fike – Dairy Products …………….. (202) 690-3236
Mike Miller – Milk Production and Milk Cows .. (202) 720-3278
Childhood memories of Thanksgiving all revolve around my Grandmother Pearl. Every Thanksgiving, the whole family would congregate at her home for dinner. I could hardly wait for my parents to get up so we could be on our way to her house. I knew there would be so many good things to eat. Plus I would get to be with my favorite Grandmother for the day.
There would be around 50 of us in her very small house even though her house was no more than 800 square feet. It had a living room with a big archway that opened into what should have been the dining room, but she used it as their bedroom. Then the small kitchen had only 8 feet of counter and cabinet space, but there was a dining table in there to work on. There was a small bathroom and one small spare bedroom.
When a holiday came around and it was time to feed the whole family they had to take down her bed so they could set up at least 10 feet of tables in the living and dining room. They would take the two mattresses into the other bedroom and pile them on top of the old iron frame bed. Then there was room for the tables to run from the dining (bed) room into the living room.
Her house always had such a wonderful aroma when you came in the door. She had been up at 2:00 A.M to get the turkey in the oven, so by the time we arrived at 10:00 AM .it was ready to carve. She had baked the pumpkin, mincemeat, and cherry pies the day before.
Her stove was an apartment size, so small it was lucky to hold the large turkey she bought for the dinners. When the turkey came out of the oven I was always right there, because I wanted the liver and gizzard. I would try to talk her out of them before she added them to the dressing, and Grandmother rarely denied me something I wanted.
By 11:30 one of my aunts would be busy mashing about 15 pounds of potatoes; while on the stove a large pan of gravy was cooking. As Grandmother was carving the turkey, the sweet potatoes would be warming in the oven, along with the dressing, minus the giblets of course.
Then the kids were enlisted to help set the table, which I never understood. Why did we have to set the table when we were not allowed to sit at it? There was just enough room for the adults, and the kids had to fill their plates from the dishes on the table and hunt for a space in the house to sit.
If the weather was nice, some of the older boys would go out and sit on the back porch. That was ok with the 3 girl cousins and the younger boys; we wouldn’t have to deal with their teasing.
So we would go into the spare bedroom and climb up on the 4 mattresses. But we had to have a system since it was so high. The largest kid would climb up first and then hold the plates of the others while they scrambled up on a chair and then onto the bed. It was so high that it seemed like we were eating in a tree house.
We had our own dining room in the sky. We could act as silly as we pleased, until someone got to loud. Then we would hear one of our parents yell at us to quiet down.
Going back for seconds was a real obstacle course. We had to walk around the table to find what we wanted, because it was never where it had been before.
Then it was a game of dodge the elbows or someone trying to tickle us, to get in and get the spoon for another helping. I always had to have a piece of Grandmother’s pumpkin pie, and then before we went home a piece of REAL mincemeat pie. It was the best.
Grandmother’s small inviting home would welcome all of the family and swell with love, but somehow managed not to split at the seams. Most cousins today do not have the opportunity to become as close as we did. We were together every holiday, and for most birthdays during the year so we were almost like brothers and sisters.
We lost Grandmother when I was 15. The family dinners ended and the family drifted apart. Each family had their own dinners for their children and grandkids. I had not managed to get old enough to eat at the adult table with my Grandmother, but the childhood memories of her Thanksgiving dinners are still vivid. To email Sandy: [email protected]
