• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

alright big dummie,here's where your "BS" belongs

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Nice diversion from the absolute stupidity of your comparison of USDA BSE SURVEILANCE TESTING of cattle over 30 months to CREEKSTONE TESTING of young cattle. Typical of your arrogance. Ignore the stupidity of your statement and divert to something else without missing a stroke.


Conman: " I would not lie to them about the accuracy of any of those tests, but it would be their decision to test in those manners and the USDA or SH have no business being involved under those circumstances."

Japan can conduct whatever tests they want. This is not about telling Japan what tests to conduct you moron. This is about testing beef in the United States for the Japanese consumers in Japan (PROVIDING THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE EVEN ALLOWED IT) with a BSE test that would not reveal prions in the cattle that were being slaughtered for this market. To allow this kind of fraudulent test sets a presidence that this test has validity, otherwise why do it? I wouldn't want to be the one to have to explain to the U.S. consumers why we were BSE testing beef to the Japanese market when we weren't for the domestic market.


~SH~
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
In Japan, they test every animal, for now. In North America, we will extrct the parts of the animal that are proven to carry BSE.

Which is more forthright and honest. Every animal that goes to Japan will have all SRM's removed, let's start educating the consumer of the safety of doing that, instead of painting a glossy picture of a testing procedure that does not work.

Our system and timing of regulations and controls have been second to none. Why are we as an industry promoting doubt!

I know why, trade issues. And it's already bitten us in the ass and will continue to, if we set a precedent.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "USDA IS TESTING CATTLE OVER 30 MONTHS OF AGE WHERE BSE PRIONS WOULD BE REVEALED IF THEY WERE THERE. DON'T YOU KNOW ANYTHING???? You are completely hopeless! Go play in the street."

Let's see what you know. I'll bet you $100 the USDA was also testing animals under 30 months.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Let's see what you know. I'll bet you $100 the USDA was also testing animals under 30 months.

Of course they were, as a survellance tool, not a food safety one.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Let's see what you know. I'll bet you $100 the USDA was also testing animals under 30 months."

Johanns was talking about BSE surveilance testing of older cattle. Everyone knows it but Conman. Conman stepped in his own pile of crap again and you are running to his rescue like the ankle biting lapdog you are.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Let's see what you know. I'll bet you $100 the USDA was also testing animals under 30 months."

Johanns was talking about BSE surveilance testing of older cattle. Everyone knows it but Conman. Conman stepped in his own pile of crap again and you are running to his rescue like the ankle biting lapdog you are.


~SH~

Really? Do you know that for a fact?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Really? Do you know that for a fact?"

Yes!


~SH~

I find that hard to believe considering the USDA's stand is that BSE is not a consumer safety issue. It seems that if that was the case, (and it is), every test by the USDA would be for surveilance.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Nice diversion from the absolute stupidity of your comparison of USDA BSE SURVEILANCE TESTING of cattle over 30 months to CREEKSTONE TESTING of young cattle. Typical of your arrogance. Ignore the stupidity of your statement and divert to something else without missing a stroke.


Conman: " I would not lie to them about the accuracy of any of those tests, but it would be their decision to test in those manners and the USDA or SH have no business being involved under those circumstances."

Japan can conduct whatever tests they want. This is not about telling Japan what tests to conduct you moron. This is about testing beef in the United States for the Japanese consumers in Japan (PROVIDING THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE EVEN ALLOWED IT) with a BSE test that would not reveal prions in the cattle that were being slaughtered for this market. To allow this kind of fraudulent test sets a presidence that this test has validity, otherwise why do it? I wouldn't want to be the one to have to explain to the U.S. consumers why we were BSE testing beef to the Japanese market when we weren't for the domestic market.


~SH~

No, it was about BSE testing so the Japanese government would allow it to be imported.

I am going to dispense with the name calling as long as you skip a little faster down the yellow brick road.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
The Japanese never said they woud take North American beef if it was tested.

BMR, you don't know all the things that Creekstone and the Japanese said to each other, do you? The Secretary of Agriculture should not stand in the way of allowing U.S. companies negotiating on safety issues to foreign customers that goes beyond what is required in the U.S. domestic market. It just doesn't make sense why he would do it and it shows that without good explanation, he is playing favorites in the industry or not coming clean with BSE.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,161
Reaction score
389
Location
Big Muddy valley
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
The Japanese never said they woud take North American beef if it was tested.

BMR, you don't know all the things that Creekstone and the Japanese said to each other, do you? The Secretary of Agriculture should not stand in the way of allowing U.S. companies negotiating on safety issues to foreign customers that goes beyond what is required in the U.S. domestic market. It just doesn't make sense why he would do it and it shows that without good explanation, he is playing favorites in the industry or not coming clean with BSE.


So your telling me that Governments shouldn't regulate foriegn trade but they must regulate domestic trade?

I do know the no formal request has been made to take meat if it is tested.
Many companies wanted the ability to test for foriegn markets but none surfaced that had contracts. It caused quite a rift in the industry but it looks that maybe to Governments were right in their no test policy .
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
The Japanese never said they woud take North American beef if it was tested.

BMR, you don't know all the things that Creekstone and the Japanese said to each other, do you? The Secretary of Agriculture should not stand in the way of allowing U.S. companies negotiating on safety issues to foreign customers that goes beyond what is required in the U.S. domestic market. It just doesn't make sense why he would do it and it shows that without good explanation, he is playing favorites in the industry or not coming clean with BSE.


So your telling me that Governments shouldn't regulate foriegn trade but they must regulate domestic trade?

I do know the no formal request has been made to take meat if it is tested.
Many companies wanted the ability to test for foriegn markets but none surfaced that had contracts. It caused quite a rift in the industry but it looks that maybe to Governments were right in their no test policy .

So the government's decision means that the older cattle will be consumed domestically without a BSE test. Seems like some in the government want to manage BSE knowledge instead of BSE.

That is very concerning.

Do you support that?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "I find that hard to believe considering the USDA's stand is that BSE is not a consumer safety issue. It seems that if that was the case, (and it is), every test by the USDA would be for surveilance."

You find everything you don't want to believe, hard to believe.


Conman: "No, it was about BSE testing so the Japanese government would allow it to be imported."

There was no proof that the Japanese government would have allowed BSE tested beef particularly with a test that would not reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age anyway which is what Creekstone had intended.


Conman: "The Secretary of Agriculture should not stand in the way of allowing U.S. companies negotiating on safety issues to foreign customers that goes beyond what is required in the U.S. domestic market.'

Creekstone admitted that "BSE TESTED" did not mean "BSE FREE". The BSE tests Creekstone wanted to use would not have revealed prions in cattle under 24 months of age. Creekstone wanted to sell the "PERCEPTION" of food safety.

Again, there was no proof that the Japanese government would have even allowed it and proof now that they are willing to import cattle under 20 months without the expensive unnecessary costs of testing.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Creekstone admitted that "BSE TESTED" did not mean "BSE FREE".

So where is the deception?

SH, "Creekstone wanted to sell the "PERCEPTION" of food safety."

A biased opinion stretching to the moon. The notion that Creekstone simply wanted to meet a consumer's demands makes a lot more sense.

SH, Again, there was no proof that the Japanese government would have even allowed it and proof now that they are willing to import cattle under 20 months without the expensive unnecessary costs of testing."

Creekstone (the people who were actually talking directly to the Japanese)was confident enough that they put a couple million into a testing facility.

I have to laugh at your "expensive unnecessary costs of testing". I guess that $20 test is more expensive than SRM removal, segregation, extra records, etc.... :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "So where is the deception?"

They didn't admit it to the Japanese consumer did they? The deception is implying food safety that is not there.

Why do you keep going in circles? Your arguments in defense of Creekstone are as weak today as they were the first time you made them.


Sandbag: "The notion that Creekstone simply wanted to meet a consumer's demands makes a lot more sense."

To a deceiver like you, it would!


Sandbag: "Creekstone (the people who were actually talking directly to the Japanese)was confident enough that they put a couple million into a testing facility."

Not a very wise investment when you didn't have proof of the Japanese government even allowing BSE tested beef from the U.S.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "They didn't admit it to the Japanese consumer did they? The deception is implying food safety that is not there."

You scream to high heaven that the Japanese are affected by R-CALF's comments, but they don't read Creekstones? Why does their selective reading follow your bias? :lol:

SH, "To a deceiver like you, it would!"

That is the best comment you have? Why is it so hard for you to recognize a company following the first rule of business - give the customer what they want? OK - dumb question - we've seen you're not a businessman. You're always looking for "lies and deception". :lol:

Sh, "Not a very wise investment when you didn't have proof of the Japanese government even allowing BSE tested beef from the U.S. "

Who put the kabash on the deal, the Japanese or the US Government agency who's job it is to promote US ag. products?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,161
Reaction score
389
Location
Big Muddy valley
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ101 said:
BMR, you don't know all the things that Creekstone and the Japanese said to each other, do you? The Secretary of Agriculture should not stand in the way of allowing U.S. companies negotiating on safety issues to foreign customers that goes beyond what is required in the U.S. domestic market. It just doesn't make sense why he would do it and it shows that without good explanation, he is playing favorites in the industry or not coming clean with BSE.


So your telling me that Governments shouldn't regulate foriegn trade but they must regulate domestic trade?

I do know the no formal request has been made to take meat if it is tested.
Many companies wanted the ability to test for foriegn markets but none surfaced that had contracts. It caused quite a rift in the industry but it looks that maybe to Governments were right in their no test policy .

So the government's decision means that the older cattle will be consumed domestically without a BSE test. Seems like some in the government want to manage BSE knowledge instead of BSE.

That is very concerning.

Do you support that?



Your getting in deep water Econ, BSE testing tells the prevelence of BSE within the herd. SRM removal makes the beef safe to eat. Yes some will disagree but a cow that tests positive should be safe to eat with SRM removal.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
So your telling me that Governments shouldn't regulate foriegn trade but they must regulate domestic trade?

I do know the no formal request has been made to take meat if it is tested.
Many companies wanted the ability to test for foriegn markets but none surfaced that had contracts. It caused quite a rift in the industry but it looks that maybe to Governments were right in their no test policy .

So the government's decision means that the older cattle will be consumed domestically without a BSE test. Seems like some in the government want to manage BSE knowledge instead of BSE.

That is very concerning.

Do you support that?



Your getting in deep water Econ, BSE testing tells the prevelence of BSE within the herd. SRM removal makes the beef safe to eat. Yes some will disagree but a cow that tests positive should be safe to eat with SRM removal.

If this is true, are you willing to eat all of the BSE positive testing animals after the SRM removal? Maybe you could get a bar-b-que going for your friends SH and Agman.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,161
Reaction score
389
Location
Big Muddy valley
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ101 said:
So the government's decision means that the older cattle will be consumed domestically without a BSE test. Seems like some in the government want to manage BSE knowledge instead of BSE.

That is very concerning.

Do you support that?



Your getting in deep water Econ, BSE testing tells the prevelence of BSE within the herd. SRM removal makes the beef safe to eat. Yes some will disagree but a cow that tests positive should be safe to eat with SRM removal.

If this is true, are you willing to eat all of the BSE positive testing animals after the SRM removal? Maybe you could get a bar-b-que going for your friends SH and Agman.


Most cattle that have been found with BSE have other problems ie Downer with other health problems .chronic Pnemonia ect so they are condemed before slaughter. I imagine that cows around the world have been eaten that have had BSE just some cultures eat more high risk material then we do in North America.
 

Latest posts

Top