Agman, you stated:
Packers do work for their best interest but explain how destroying the producer base is in their best interest
Go to Alberta Beef Producers webpage:
http://www.albertabeef.org/cabidf/02resource/molecbio/molecl.html
(taken from: "Will molecular biology strengthen beef breeding programs?"
There are five fundamental steps involved in genetic improvement, Kemp says. He feels the most important consideration is to define goals and targets. Creating genetic change is next.
"Once we decide what we're going to do, then we need to create that genetic change," he says. "In the past, we focused strictly on the purebred side. Unfortunately, in that case, we didn't do a very good job of number one, defining our goals and targets."
The third step in the chain towards genetic improvement is multiplying the improved genetics, followed by transferring the new genetics to the commercial industry. The final step is monitoring the performance of the cattle in the purebred and commercial populations. This gives breeders real-world feedback, from both their own herds and those of their customers, on their selection and breeding decisions.
One answer to your question: With the small family ranches gone, the resistance to the cloned beef industry will be minimized. Instead of buying bulls from a neighbor; you'll be buying sperm from a dealer. The vets will be busy, the artificial inseminators will be busy and the rancher will be faced with more costs, just like the GE grain farmers that are tied to using a certain companies herbicides. Vertical integration.
It's the ball and chain effect. Tell us we can't live with out it, give it to us slow, and before long, we won't remember what things were like before.
All progress is not good. Sometimes we have to use balance or we will soon destroy ourselves.
I personally believe that anyone that thinks cloning our animals for consumption is "a nut with a few screws loose".
Selecting our cattle with a narrow vision for tenderness and taste will only lead to the loss of generations of genetics which have adapted to change in the best manner out there.
Mans' God complex has given us enough to deal with already. We need to leave the production of food as natural as possible.
I will remind you that Tyson's and Cargill's goals are not necessarily my goals. Yet, my cattle organization listens to the feeders and the packers, and ignores the unrest of the cow-calf producer. Packers sell beef and beef byproducts. I convert grass to beef. How does the tenderness gene improve my bottom-line? I suppose if I am forced to subject my cattle to tenderness testing they could push me in that direction. They said cattle with no brands would earn you more money - but there is not evidence of that. If my genetically tender cow is handled wrong at the packer, no gene will guarantee tenderness or taste.
I am very concerned that by altering the diverse genetic base we have into a monoculture of beef, we will have huge winners and huge losers, just as Randy stated. I don't want to use GMCs - Genetically Modified Cows. I will campaign hard to make the consumer realize that they are being fed a load of crap. The evidence for natural verses synthetic is out there. Don't p*** off Mother Nature, I'm afraid she'll kick our @sses.
