rkaiser said: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.
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.
Oldtimer said:rkaiser said: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.....
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!
cowsense said: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!
cowsense said: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!
Econ101 said:cowsense said: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 said:Econ101 said:cowsense said: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?
Oldtimer said:Big Muddy rancher said:Econ101 said: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.....