BSE testing

[rkaiser]

Simple question that Jason and SH will likely try to complicate.

If BSE testing for customers that asked, helped Canada and the United States to export more beef off this continent, should it be allowed.

 

[rkaiser]

Okay - how the hell do you do that poll thing?

Thought I knew all about that democracy stuff Jason????

 

[Kathy]

Randy, why I am still concerned about blanket BSE testing [especially for future sales purposes], is that a protein is being called an infectious agent.

Without the improperly balance metals, some possibly even radio-active, there would be no problem.

Instead of testing for prions, indicating a problem with all proteins, I would like to see testing for metal contaminants, that is openly addressed; not hiden behind the unknown factor X - as Prusiner puts it.

Foods should be tested for uranium and its break-down isotopes.

 

[Anonymous]

Simple question that Jason and SH will likely try to complicate.

If BSE testing for customers that asked, helped Canada and the United States to export more beef off this continent, should it be allowed.

Kaiser- Should have been allowed from minute one when Creekstone and others requested it--It would not only have sold beef- but would have tested a lot more animals- and would have helped reduce the allegations of government agencies coverups.....

I think it may now be the only answer for Canada and the 900,000 older cattle in Canada...I think any Johanns proposal for opening the border to OTM's is now going to face stiff opposition-- And this is an election year...

Might be a good way to get those new plants of yours operating.....

 

[rkaiser]

Kathy -

Randy, why I am still concerned about blanket BSE testing [especially for future sales purposes], is that a protein is being called an infectious agent.

Without the improperly balance metals, some possibly even radio-active, there would be no problem.

Instead of testing for prions, indicating a problem with all proteins, I would like to see testing for metal contaminants, that is openly addressed; not hiden behind the unknown factor X - as Prusiner puts it.

Foods should be tested for uranium and its break-down isotopes.

Two fights Kathy. One is the fight for the very survival of the beef producers of Canada. One a fight for the beef producers of the world.

The place we need to take the fight for metal testing is Japan. They are so much farther ahead of North America in the ethics department that it isn't even funny. North America is all about money. And in the current situation, that money is draining out of producers pockets. If we could possibly move this fight away from draining producers for even a short period of time, we could concentrate more on the truth which I beleive you speak.

 

[cowsense]

Randy: I definately have major problems with your comment about Japanese ethics. This is the group that continued to import and use SRM"s right up to the point of their first diagnosed BSE case. The resulting scandal almost brought their government down and the resulting BSE testing of everything was done for political reasons to survive the controversy! Check into each country that blanket tests for BSE and you will find the underlying cause of denial of infection and a huge consumer backlash against their governments. Doesn't matter if it's Japan or Europe the results were the same! European countries that have since tried to back off universal testing have met stiff consumer activist resistence. TSE research would in my opinion be a much better avenue to invest producer or taxpayer dollars!

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

feed borne or metals , lets just get it figured out. I agree with cowsense that our dollars would be better spent on research than on blanket testing.

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Simple question that Jason and SH will likely try to complicate.

If BSE testing for customers that asked, helped Canada and the United States to export more beef off this continent, should it be allowed.

Kaiser- Should have been allowed from minute one when Creekstone and others requested it--It would not only have sold beef- but would have tested a lot more animals- and would have helped reduce the allegations of government agencies coverups.....

I think it may now be the only answer for Canada and the 900,000 older cattle in Canada...I think any Johanns proposal for opening the border to OTM's is now going to face stiff opposition-- And this is an election year...

Might be a good way to get those new plants of yours operating.....

OT- Everytime I read a post of your like this one it makes my blood boil. How do you know there are 900,000 head of OTM cattle ready to go up here? Have you been driving from place to place counting them? Given the prices you recieve for cull cows in the US today if the border was to open tomorrow to OTM cattle I dont suppose there would be floods of them hitting the US line. WIth the high Cdn $ the and the higher cost of freight these cattle up here wouldnt be worth a whole lot more if the border did open. Your a typical whiney R-calfer!

 

[PPRM]

Manitoba,


I sat and talked to two Canadian Truckers at the Pasco Tyson Plant. Nice enough guys, but frieght and Dollar hasn't kept them from trucking calves. Cows are cheaper now, but I have every reason to think they may hit $60.00 soon.


Go back and read my post, "Pull The Scab". I have held these opinions about the benefits of a market based testing program for awhile. It goes to the economic side of the issue, the uncertainy side, but also the side that if I were to produce a product that hurt another person, especially a child, that would be very emotionally painful for me,

Lets pursue something different than what we are doing, cause it isn't working....

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

I think you have a good point there PPRM but I really think our OTM cattle problem up here is slowly sorting its self out. People have been marketing them and the numbers are getting current.

 

[rkaiser]

Cowsense -

Randy: I definately have major problems with your comment about Japanese ethics. This is the group that continued to import and use SRM"s right up to the point of their first diagnosed BSE case. The resulting scandal almost brought their government down and the resulting BSE testing of everything was done for political reasons to survive the controversy! Check into each country that blanket tests for BSE and you will find the underlying cause of denial of infection and a huge consumer backlash against their governments. Doesn't matter if it's Japan or Europe the results were the same! European countries that have since tried to back off universal testing have met stiff consumer activist resistence. TSE research would in my opinion be a much better avenue to invest producer or taxpayer dollars!

Wasn't talking about government when refering to ethics cowsense. I was talking about the people. The PEOPLE of North America are too busy trying to figure out the best way to make a buck from BSE to look at it practically. PPRM talks of testing to the standards of the customer. What on earth could be wrong with that?

I agree with your denial statements fully. What on earth do you think that the US is doing right now?

You make it sound like testing will be money spent. Your opinion. Mine is that it will be money invested in potential profit.

 

[PPRM]

I see MR, your point was in regards to if there are truly that many cows sitting there. Mine was on if the market would be tradable.....

I have said before, Ialmost wish Canada would jump on the testing deal. The exports would go to Japan, you'd be less dependent on us, seems like a win win....

PPRM

 

[rkaiser]

You know cowsense, the funny part about this discussion is that every one of us has a little different angle.

I KNOW that Cargill and Tyson will not test for Japan. Great. That is what makes a free country a good place to do business. However, just because they think it is the wrong move (for what ever reason). Why should others who think it may help be punished?

When you talked of costs to our industry cowsense, have you and your camp ever considered the costs to producers of this country due to the power exerted by Cargill and Tyson? Or are you like Scott, and beleive that two companies are all that is needed to create the necessary competition.

Our new plants need to be able to access foreign markets. If that access is denied due to the decision of Cargill and Tyson and those who beleive their rhetoric, our new palnts have an even harder row to hoe.

If it works for Ranchers Beef, Cargill will likely follow. But holding things back benefits no one but Cargill, Tyson, and Xcel here in Canada.

 

[Econ101]

kaiser is right on this on. The Japanese have been burnt politically after not doing the right thing. It just seems that the "right thing" is always pushed aside due to big industry player considerations. Testing will likely be in the future for all that want an export market, but it will only happen when the big boys position themselves for it and want it to take back the Japanese market from the Aussies, similar to the "natural programs" they are pushing. BSE should not be as political as it is. It has hurt producers in Canada a lot. It will hurt producers in the USA a lot also. If we do not get an honest USDA, the benefits of honesty will be lost in the costs of political and industry scandal. That is exactly what happened in Brittain and Japan. BSE needs to be confronted, not bounced around like a political football. All the plays are being called by the big boys. Everyone else is just a small time player.

Why shouldn't the small teams have the right to call plays?

 

[cowsense]

Randy: Providing a way was found around the liability insurance issues and a smaller packer started testing.......who could better afford the financing of testing .......a high thru-put plant with a higher margin or a smaller higher slaughter cost plant? My whole concern is that any testing beyond surveillance needs will plunge our entire industry into a totally unnecessary and unrecquired expense that will be there for ever. Margins are already too tight in our industry and the cow-calf producer to whom any extra costs are pushed down to will lose that much more value out of their product!

 

[Mike]

Randy: Providing a way was found around the liability insurance issues and a smaller packer started testing.......who could better afford the financing of testing .......a high thru-put plant with a higher margin or a smaller higher slaughter cost plant? My whole concern is that any testing beyond surveillance needs will plunge our entire industry into a totally unnecessary and unrecquired expense that will be there for ever. Margins are already too tight in our industry and the cow-calf producer to whom any extra costs are pushed down to will lose that much more value out of their product!

But if consumer confidence was raised and the gains in marketshare offset the costs it could be worth it. "COULD" is the operative word here and we'll never know if we don't try it.

 

[Econ101]

Randy: Providing a way was found around the liability insurance issues and a smaller packer started testing.......who could better afford the financing of testing .......a high thru-put plant with a higher margin or a smaller higher slaughter cost plant? My whole concern is that any testing beyond surveillance needs will plunge our entire industry into a totally unnecessary and unrecquired expense that will be there for ever. Margins are already too tight in our industry and the cow-calf producer to whom any extra costs are pushed down to will lose that much more value out of their product!

To erradicate a problem like BSE, you first have to understand the transferrance mechanisms. After that you might have to spend a little money up front for erradication efforts over a time period, but then you can go on surveillance afterwards. Sometimes these up front costs are a lot less than the future costs of not dealing with the problem honestly.

When I get a splinter, I like to hurry up and dig it out. This problem has been festering long enough. It is time to get the splinter out, no matter how much it hurts in the short run. This industry will be better off in the long run.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Randy: Providing a way was found around the liability insurance issues and a smaller packer started testing.......who could better afford the financing of testing .......a high thru-put plant with a higher margin or a smaller higher slaughter cost plant? My whole concern is that any testing beyond surveillance needs will plunge our entire industry into a totally unnecessary and unrecquired expense that will be there for ever. Margins are already too tight in our industry and the cow-calf producer to whom any extra costs are pushed down to will lose that much more value out of their product!

To erradicate a problem like BSE, you first have to understand the transferrance mechanisms. After that you might have to spend a little money up front for erradication efforts over a time period, but then you can go on surveillance afterwards. Sometimes these up front costs are a lot less than the future costs of not dealing with the problem honestly.

When I get a splinter, I like to hurry up and dig it out. This problem has been festering long enough. It is time to get the splinter out, no matter how much it hurts in the short run. This industry will be better off in the long run.

But if you have a splinter in one finger do you cut off the rest to solve the problem?

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: Providing a way was found around the liability insurance issues and a smaller packer started testing.......who could better afford the financing of testing .......a high thru-put plant with a higher margin or a smaller higher slaughter cost plant? My whole concern is that any testing beyond surveillance needs will plunge our entire industry into a totally unnecessary and unrecquired expense that will be there for ever. Margins are already too tight in our industry and the cow-calf producer to whom any extra costs are pushed down to will lose that much more value out of their product!

To erradicate a problem like BSE, you first have to understand the transferrance mechanisms. After that you might have to spend a little money up front for erradication efforts over a time period, but then you can go on surveillance afterwards. Sometimes these up front costs are a lot less than the future costs of not dealing with the problem honestly.

When I get a splinter, I like to hurry up and dig it out. This problem has been festering long enough. It is time to get the splinter out, no matter how much it hurts in the short run. This industry will be better off in the long run.

But if you have a splinter in one finger do you cut off the rest to solve the problem?

You do when the splinter is not cared for and it gets infection and the hand turns gangrenous..... Right now is the time to erradicate it when its centered in one finger.....

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

To erradicate a problem like BSE, you first have to understand the transferrance mechanisms. After that you might have to spend a little money up front for erradication efforts over a time period, but then you can go on surveillance afterwards. Sometimes these up front costs are a lot less than the future costs of not dealing with the problem honestly.

When I get a splinter, I like to hurry up and dig it out. This problem has been festering long enough. It is time to get the splinter out, no matter how much it hurts in the short run. This industry will be better off in the long run.

But if you have a splinter in one finger do you cut off the rest to solve the problem?

You do when the splinter is not cared for and it gets infection and the hand turns gangrenous..... Right now is the time to erradicate it when its centered in one finger.....

So how many cows have you had the Feds come to test?