• 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:

Econ101 said:
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.

Econ, in your haste to divide big from small packers how do you conclude that the smaller packers, as you claim, would out-compete larger packers if BSE testing was allowed? Do you think the large packers would not test? I submit they would test and they would do it at a lower per head cost than Creekstone. That would put Creekstone at even a greater disadvantage than they are today.

BTW, do you know where and from whom Bill Fielding gained his knowledge in the packing business; just curious?

Psst...it was Cargill.
 
agman said:
Econ101 said:
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.

Econ, in your haste to divide big from small packers how do you conclude that the smaller packers, as you claim, would out-compete larger packers if BSE testing was allowed? Do you think the large packers would not test? I submit they would test and they would do it at a lower per head cost than Creekstone. That would put Creekstone at even a greater disadvantage than they are today.

BTW, do you know where and from whom Bill Fielding gained his knowledge in the packing business; just curious?

Psst...it was Cargill.

Agman, I don't know Creekstone. It was never a stance for or against Creekstone. It was a stance against the USDA controlling BSE testing to such an extent that their decisions could and did advantage certain packers over others. On this issue I would have sided with Tyson if they had wanted to test--as long as everyone else could test and they didn't have a monopoly on the procedure. Testing did not in any way hurt the meat but it had the potential of proving to a major customer that the safety precautions for bse were adequate for food safety. I don't know anything about Creekstone other than they wanted to test for bse and the USDA was playing games with issue.

I do find it funny that the USDA is trying to circumvent companies from additional food safety measures than what the USDA has in place. That kind of govt. control is uncalled for. It allows govt. policy to pick winners and losers in the market and it stifles innovation. Heavy handed actions by USDA inspectors may have been the collapse of Hudson and those kind of actions should be carefully scrutinized. As I may have posted before, I have had one very reliable report of the USDA influencing its regulatory power in the beef inspection system to disadvantage a smaller packing plant without the same requirents to bigger packers. It seems the USDA is intent on helping consolidate the industry.

If the USDA is worried about bse being found by these private tests and that it might hurt the cattle markets, maybe they should be more concerned about bse hurting people who eat bse tainted meat. I would say they have their priorities all turned around.

This issue has nothing to do with personalities(Fielding) and everything to do with policies.
 
Mike: "Absolutely...........YES!"


Mike, this doesn't add up. Creekstone's Fielding said that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE". If Creekstone's test would reveal prions in cattle under 24 months of age, why would Fielding say that "BSE TESTED DOES NOT MEAN BSE FREE"???

Either the tests will detect BSE prions or they won't.


This whole debate is absolutely ridiculous. Japan has already accepted untested beef and you packer blamers want to turn back the hands of time and absorb the costs of unneccesary testing.

Had Tyson, Cargill, or Swift advocated BSE testing with a test that would not reveal BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age, you would have been screaming "DECEPTION" just like you are over color enhancement. This isn't about testing, this is about blame.

Since meat color enhancement is this month's "blame of the month", I can only wonder what next month's "blame of the month" will be.


~SH~
 
"BSE TESTED DOES NOT MEAN BSE FREE"

Scott, I think his quote was more along the lines of that he nor his company could not personally "guarantee" a test because the USDA has total control of procedures and tests. At that point in time the USDA had not approved any rapid tests whatsoever and he is not a scientist. He just wanted to keep his company afloat, give the customer what they wanted, and I others thought it was a very smart measure.

I know that we have all made stances on different subjects and do not want to appear to change them, but the USDA made a mistake by not allowing the tests and you need to see the other side. You are smarter than that. We could have been in Japan a long time ago and would have opened the Canadian border long ago had they approved Creekstone's proposal.

How much beef did we ship to Japan (our biggest importer) last week?
 
~SH~ said:
Mike,

What was the exact test that Creekstone wanted to use?


~SH~

The ones that the Japs used. They were the customer and the BSE experts.

Prionic's Western Blot and Bio-Rad. But a brand name means little. There are several different testing methods within companies and different strains of TSE's.

The USDA was criticized for approving the Bio-Rad first because of false positives possible. But that should not have really been an issue because they should not have announced a positive in a rapid test, period. They should have waited for the confirmatory. Then no market scare.

The reasoning behind the false positives with the Bio-Rads is that they are super sensitive for good reason in that they wouldn't allow a false negative. In fact, the way the USDA used them and reported the false positives last year (supposedly false positives-remember they used IHC then for Confirms) only shows that they pick up minute traces. The whole point of the super sensitivity.

I want my $175.00 back. :wink:
 
Just for you Scott:

Since October 18, 2001, 'bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) examination for all cattle slaughtered at abattoirs in the country' has been mandated in Japan by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). 'Plateria' ELISA-kit (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, Calif., USA) is routinely used at abattoirs for detecting proteinase K (PK)-resistant prion protein (PrPSc) in the obex region. Samples positive according to the ELISA screening are further subjected to Western blot (WB) and histologic and immunohistochemical examination (IHC) at the National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID) or Obihiro University. If PrPSc is detected either by WB or by IHC, the cattle are diagnosed as BSE. The diagnosis is approved by the Expert Committee for BSE Diagnosis, MHLW. From October 18, 2001 to September 30, 2003, approximately 2.5 million cattle were screened at abattoirs. A hundred and ten specimens positive according to ELISA were subjected to WB/IHC. Seven showed positive by both WB and IHC, all exhibiting the typical electrophoretic profile of a high content of the di-glycosylated molecular form of PrPSc (1-3) and the distinctive granular deposition of PrPSc in neuronal cells and neuropil of the dorsal nucleus of vagus. An ELISA-positive specimen from a 23 month-old Holstein steer slaughtered on September 29, 2003, in Ibaraki Prefecture (Ibaraki case) was sent to the NIID for confirmation. The animal was reportedly healthy before slaughter. The OD titer in ELISA was slightly higher than the 'cut-off' level given by the manufacturer. The histology showed no spongiform changes and IHC revealed no signal of PrPSc accumulation typical for BSE. However, WB analysis of the homogenate that was prepared from the obex region and used for ELISA revealed a small amount of PrPSc with an electrophoretic profile different from that of typical BSE-associated PrPSc (1-3). The characteristics were (i) low content of the di-glycosylated molecular form of PrPSc, (ii) a faster migration of the non-glycosylated form of PrPSc on SDS-PAGE, and (iii) less resistance against PK digestion as compared with an authentic PrPSc specimen derived from an 83-month-old Holstein (Wakayama case) (Fig. 1). Table 1 summarizes the relative amounts of three distinctive glycoforms (di-, mono, non-glycosylated) of PrPSc calculated by densitometric analysis of the blot shown in Fig. 1. As 2.5 mg wet weight obex-equivalent homogenate of the Ibaraki case (Fig. 1, lane 4) gave slightly stronger band intensities of PrPSc than an 8 mg wet weight obex-equivqlent homogenate of a typical BSE-affected Wakayama case (Fig. 1, lane 2), the amount of PrPSc accumulated in the Ibaraki case was calculated to be 1/500 - 1/1000 of the Wakayama case. In the Ibaraki case, the PrPSc bands were not detectable in the homogenates of the proximal surrounding region of the obex. These findings were consistent with the low OD value in ELISA, i.e., 0.2 -0.3 for the Ibaraki case versus over 3.0 for the Wakayama case. The DNA sequence of the PrP coding region of the Ibaraki case was the same as that appearing in the database (GenBank accession number: AJ298878). More recently, we encountered another case that resembled the Ibaraki case. It was a 21-monthold
Holstein steer from Hiroshima Prefecture. WB showed typical BSE-specific PrPSc deposition though IHC did not detect positive signals of PrPSc (data not shown). Though the clinical onset of BSE is usually at around 5 years of age or later, a 20-month-old case showing the clinical signs has been reported (4). Variant forms of BSE similar to our cases, i.e., with atypical histopathological and/or biochemical phenotype, have been recently reported in Italy (5) and in France (6). Such variant BSE was not associated with mutations in the prion protein (PrP) coding region as in our case (5,6). The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF) announced a ban of feeding ruminants with meat bone meal (MBM) on September 18, 2001, and a complete ban was made on October 15 of the same year. According to the recent MAFF report, the previous seven cases of BSE in Japan were cattle born in 1995 - 1996 and possibly fed with cross-contaminated feed. However, the two cattle in this report were born after the complete ban. Whether contaminated MBM was implicated in the present cases remains to be investigated.
 

Latest posts

Top