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

Here's your "lie" and "illusion", SH

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You didn't change your tune on Creekstone? It's a lie? An "illusion".

EXHIBIT A: The news article;

U.S. packer Creekstone to test all cattle for BSE
2004-02-20 22:09:35 GMT (Reuters)

WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - Meatpacker Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, with an eye on the export market, will test all of its slaughter cattle for mad cow disease, its president said on Friday at a U.S. Agriculture Department forum.

Dozens of nations banned imports of U.S. beef following the Dec. 23 announcement of the first U.S. case of mad cow disease. While testing of all slaughter cattle has been suggested as a way to assure food safety, U.S. officials say the step is not needed because the disease is found in older animals.

"We will be BSE-testing every animal that comes through our facility," said Creekstone Farms president John Stewart, using the abbreviation for the disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Speaking during USDA's annual outlook forum, Stewart appealed to the USDA for speedy approval of the BSE testing method that would be used at Creekstone Farms' beef plant in Arkansas City, Kansas.



EXHIBIT B) YOUR RESPONSE;

Good for Creekstone!

Seize the opportunity!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH, can you do your circus chicken dance again?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hahaha! Another empty tree!

No Sandbag, I didn't change my tune. If Creekstone was going to use legitimate BSE tests today that would reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age, I would still say, "good for Creekstone, seize the opportunity".

Little did I know that they planned to dupe the Japanese consumer with tests that would not reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age.

My attitude towards creekstone changed when I found out that they were not going to use legitimate BSE tests on younger cattle.

You got nothing here either, ankle biter!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
"Little did I know" is the only truthful and factual thing you've posted, SH. I expected a line of crap excuse from you. I'll let the board decide. You are treed again. Why do you continue? You've given yourself 0 credibility, what is the point of further posting?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Little did I know that they planned to dupe the Japanese consumer with tests that would not reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age.

That's funny. Creekstone was going to use the tests that the Japs themselves used. And..........I might add, the one they wanted Creekstone to use.

How could that be a dupe?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag,

A packer blaming illusionist like you is hardly the judge of my credibility.

The only point I will concede to you here is that I obviously didn't know that Creekstone had planned to dupe Japanese consumers at the time.

You support this fraud, I don't. That's one difference between us.

You got nothing here either. Another of your never ending empty trees you bark up.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "Creekstone was going to use the tests that the Japs themselves used. And..........I might add, the one they wanted Creekstone to use."


Mike, would the BSE tests that Creekstone planned to use reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age IF THEY WERE THERE.

YES OR NO?

Simple question Mike!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You said I lied and brought an "illusion" and I proved it with your very own words, SH. You're caught. Deal with it, settle down, and learn from your mistakes.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
~SH~ said:
Mike: "Creekstone was going to use the tests that the Japs themselves used. And..........I might add, the one they wanted Creekstone to use."


Mike, would the BSE tests that Creekstone planned to use reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age IF THEY WERE THERE.

YES OR NO?

Simple question Mike!


~SH~

Absolutely...........YES!


Principle of the Bio-Rad Test

The purpose of the PLATELIA BSE test, developed in collaboration with the French Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique (CEA), is the specific detection of PrPres contained in bovine brain samples. This test has two stages: During the first stage, PrPres is selectively purified through a special process involving, in particular, treatment with proteinase K under such conditions that normal PrP (PrPsens) undergoes total degradation, whereas most of the PrPres immunoreactivity is retained. A patent application for this process has been filed by the CEA. The soluble PrPres is then measured using the DAS-ELISA immunometric assay.
Performance

The results obtained by the European Commission project indicated 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity on the 1,300 samples tested; i.e., all infected animals were detected (no false negatives) and there were no false-positive results on uninfected animals. The published results (EC June 1999) indicate that the PLATELIA BSE test was the most sensitive. It is even more sensitive than the official biological reference test by inoculation of mice.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
The real questions are:

1) Did Japan ever agree to take beef based solely on a BSE test?

2) Does the test mean no SRM removal?

3) What is the real cost of testing, not just the test, but the holding and seperating of animals?

I answer those questions as NO NO and unknown.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
The real questions are:

1) Did Japan ever agree to take beef based solely on a BSE test?

2) Does the test mean no SRM removal?

3) What is the real cost of testing, not just the test, but the holding and seperating of animals?

I answer those questions as NO NO and unknown.

Jason, those are the"real" questions for you. Here are the real questions for the market:

1. Does the bse testing that Japan wanted hurt anything?

2. Would the testing have opened the Japanese market for U.S. beef?

I answer those questions no, and probably. If the USDA hadn't stepped in with their ridiculous policies that only help ensure the business practices of the big packers were not outcompeted by a small innovative, customer oriented packing plant like Creekstone. Jason, you have to stop espousing the benefits of the free market while at the same time supporting policies that stop it from working. That is the status quo big packer view.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Jason said:
The real questions are:

1) Did Japan ever agree to take beef based solely on a BSE test?

2) Does the test mean no SRM removal?

3) What is the real cost of testing, not just the test, but the holding and seperating of animals?

I answer those questions as NO NO and unknown.

Yes Jason, these are real questions for someone who obviously hasn't been paying attention.

1-Yes
2-Depends on which SRM's you are talking about.
3-Depends on how many tests are administered.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
There were some Japanese companies that indicated an interest in accepting BSE tested beef. The Japanese government never put it on the table as a done deal.

If the Japanese did accept tested beef but the SRM ban was broken as it just was the end result would be the same, no beef to Japan.

How can a test be said to be cost effective if the answer to what it will cost is unknown or depends on how many are tested? The real answer is we wanted to try it and if it panned out we look good, if not oh well back to square one.

Good thing government agancies don't play rusian roulette.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
There were some Japanese companies that indicated an interest in accepting BSE tested beef. The Japanese government never put it on the table as a done deal.

If the Japanese did accept tested beef but the SRM ban was broken as it just was the end result would be the same, no beef to Japan.

How can a test be said to be cost effective if the answer to what it will cost is unknown or depends on how many are tested? The real answer is we wanted to try it and if it panned out we look good, if not oh well back to square one.

Good thing government agancies don't play rusian roulette.

The Japanese know the cost of the test.

They are playing russian roulette with the beef industry, bse and other diseases.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Jason said:
There were some Japanese companies that indicated an interest in accepting BSE tested beef. The Japanese government never put it on the table as a done deal.

If the Japanese did accept tested beef but the SRM ban was broken as it just was the end result would be the same, no beef to Japan.

How can a test be said to be cost effective if the answer to what it will cost is unknown or depends on how many are tested? The real answer is we wanted to try it and if it panned out we look good, if not oh well back to square one.

Good thing government agancies don't play rusian roulette.

How do you know the Japanese Government never put testing on the table? Considering existing law and consumer sentiment, I would think it was probably the first item on the list.

Why would SRMs need to be removed on an animal that tested negetive?

Creekstone said it would cost around $20. The Japanese have already been testing, don't you think they know what it costs?

Speaking of costs, SH could not answer my question - he only could make smart-ass comments. Maybe you can do better; What is the cost of the deal the USDA got? We've got a lot of hoops to jump thru - each hoop has a cost. What about the costs of the lost business that has occurred while the USDA was "negotiating" (threatening and belittleing). We're in the billions here, Jason - and the meter is still running.

Don't be like our good trapper buddy and take the packer's side just to be contrary. This one is a no-brainer.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
I'm not being contrary Sandhusker. Just think about the chain of events.

If the Japanese government had placed BSE testing on the table as the only stipulation to resume US beef imports, and the cost was only $20 per, why wouldn't all the packers back testing?

If the Japanese government had put BSE testing on the table as the only stipulation to resuming US beef imports, why wouldn't Creekstone announce that to the US public to gain support for their plans?

Why would SRM's be removed from negative tested animals? 2 reasons I can think of; 1) the test isn't 100% trustworthy 2) it lessens the chance of passing higher risk materials to the consumers if a test were to be missed or an animal is shipped before the test is complete or re-tested whatever happens.

From what I can gather, Japan tests 100% but still is removing SRMs. They would require the US to do the same.

As for costs, the industry is moving to animal ID so age ID on the animals allowed for Japan isn't costing much. The Japanese are trying to move away from 100% testing, so maybe they do know it costs too much.

As many have pointed out, Australia is selling beef to Japan, if they sell beef without the cost of testing do you think for a second the Japanese are going to add the cost of the test to what they pay for US beef? If US beef has to compete on a dollar vs pound cost against Australia, it won't fly anyway as US product costs more to produce.

Even if the Japanese added $20 to each carcass equivilant shipment of beef, it wouldn't even come close to the costs associated with testing. The test might cost $20, but what about the lab fees, the tech to take the sample, the paperwork, the extra cooler space etc etc etc.

I don't know the costs, other than they will be more than $20.

Your right it is a no-brainer, why cave to an unreasonable demand?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Jason, since when is it the government's call to decide for us all if the request is unreasonable? Shouldn't that be up to the individual businesses? If Tyson or even Creekstone thinks the Japanese are unreasonable, they can bow out. They're not forced to do anything they don't want to. I handle what I consider are unreasonable requests on a regular basis - it's part of any business. I can tell them "no" or I can accomodate, whichever I feel benefits me the most. Private enterprise is supposed to be valued in our system. The USDA is blocking private enterprise - they're supposed to support it.

If you remember, all the smaller packers WERE backing testing - Creekstone wasn't the Lone Ranger here. It was the big boys who didnt' want it, and they got their way. That's crap. Like I said before, nobody would have to do anything. The big packers just said "We don't want to and we don't want you to do it, either", and the USDA towed the line.

You may be right about still removing SRM's from tested beef, but think if it this way; If the test is supposed to work, why remove SRMs? Wouldn't that be "unreasonable"? The test works or it doesn't work. If you believe in the tests but consider SRM removal a "feel good just-in-case" effort, then how can you fault the Japanese for wanting 100% tested beef?

I'm not real worried about the costs of testing allowing the Aussies to run us out. It's a $20 test - do you realize how much beef costs over there? Besides that, Creekstone and their suppliers had obviously decided it wasn't a problem for them, and they should know better than us two guessers.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
The request becomes the governments descision as soon as a disease is involved.

BSE is classed (right or wrong) as a disease. This means the government has agencies that are supposed to lead in this area.

Much is said about the FDA being lax about new drugs, how much worse would it be if there were no FDA? Would Vioxx be pulled yet? Maybe, but what if there were no recourse on Merck?

The whole world is based on checks and balances. Sometimes they fail but usually they are pretty good. It's like the lock on your door. It is really only there to keep honest people honest. A criminal wanting in will get in. Its a good thing most people are honest.

Creekstone might have been able to make their deal work. Most likely because they were trying to get nearly all their production to Japan. Thus no sorting none of the costs plants that just ship parts or some cuts.

However, the fact that it is BSE means the government has to be the ones that deal with disease to remove the economic incentive to cheat (keeping the honest people honest). To open the door to BSE testing, what happens with e-coli testing? A new plant can say they will test their own. Good idea? Same as Creekstone.

Why do you trust Creekstone (a packer) on this (an economic issue), but not Tyson when they say they have economic reason to pull out of a Nebraska town?

You often bring up organic production, but who is the watchdog over organics to make sure it relly is grown with no chemical imputs? (The USDA who has the authority to do the testing, they don't just trust a company because they say it is organic.)
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You're right, the government needs to be involved in disease issues, but Jason, Japan has their own government and they are involved. Creekstone wanted to test beef for JAPAN. What business does the USDA have in deciding what is good and not good for Japan? Isn't it their call? Testing for them does absolutley nothing to us - US consumers are not effected, the US herd is not effected.

This whole thing is just a line of flimsy excuses. It's a perfect example of agency capture.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Jason, "Why do you trust Creekstone (a packer) on this (an economic issue), but not Tyson when they say they have economic reason to pull out of a Nebraska town?"

I don't doubt Tyson had an economic reason to pull out. The economic reason was their own pockets. The problem I have, and it appears I'm in the majority, is that Norfolk and Madison County bent over backwards for Tyson to accomodate them and their workers. You can bet they would not of done that if they were led to believe this was not a long-term deal. Tyson violated their trust and showed no concern in doing so. They just said "Thanks, honey, I've got to be moving on." Norfolk is now sitting there holding the bag.

Trusting Creekstone is not the issue. The issue is they wanted meet the needs of a customer, but were blocked under the flimsiest of pretenses. What Creekstone wanted to do placed no burden on anybody else, created no health problems for us or our herd, and would of actually been positive for our trade situation and economy. They wouldn't of harmed a dang thing over here and would of helped us all by creating more demand for our product.
 

Latest posts

Top