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

I'm so confused, SH

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Murgen said:
and they would rather that the Cargills and Tysons of the world maintain a captive hold on our over 30 month animals

Okay, I need someone to explain to me why any packer would want to limit their market to North America, when the beef they are shipping to Japan grosses about $10/kg and within North America a kg shipped to the US from Canada grosses about $4/kg.

Econ, what is the packer gaining by the so-called captive supplies, on an OTM?

Actually, that was me Murgen.

As for the big guys shipping to Japan from Canada, its because they can ship from other countries with even lower cost beef (Australia, Brazil), and still sell for about the same price as Canadian beef. They've already taken care of Japan's total demand, so the only place left for Canuck beef is Canada and the US. They can sell all the over 30 stuff right here because our consumers are supporting us, so they have no reason to try and force it into the US.

And I apologize for the use of the term 'captive'. I don't mean to imply packer owned beef by the use of that term, but rather captive to a border. Our over 30 stuff can't go anywhere, and our between 20 and 30 month stuff is limited to one or two export customers.

Rod
 

Tam

Well-known member
don said:
so you're saying that by voluntarily testing my product i am not establishing its safety status. good one, tam. you prove the point of everybody who disagrees with you. keep it up; i didn't realize you were on our side. i also don't need you questioning my business ethics. just because i want to sell my cattle doesn't mean i want to sell an unsafe product and i fail to see how your untested product can make your business ethic any better than mine. why don't you want your product tested? that's it for me on this thread.

:shock: THE TEST IS NOT FOR FOOD SAFETY BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF ALL APPROVED TESTS!!!!!!!!!! :shock: SRM REMOVAL IS SO WHY NOT MAKE SURE THE SRM'S ARE PROPERLY BEING REMOVED SO THE BEEF IS SAFE DON?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Tam -
THE TEST IS NOT FOR FOOD SAFETY BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF ALL APPROVED TESTS!!!!!!!!!! SRM REMOVAL IS SO WHY NOT MAKE SURE THE SRM'S ARE PROPERLY BEING REMOVED SO THE BEEF IS SAFE DON?

Were you stomping your feet like a three year old when you typed this bold text as well Tam?

Get over it. :roll: SRM's are being removed and no one is going to stop that. Push for more inspections if you like Tam, but quit the BS about deception. The Japanese consumer is asking for testing and the democratic government of Japan is trying to satisfy their voters.

Scotty has all but given up on the deception thing - follow Scotty Tam -again. :wink:

You talk about Rcalf using scare tactics to get their way? :roll: :roll:
 

Denny

Well-known member
I can see all you folks worry just to worry.Sure am glad I don't care.You see all the pissing and moaning you all do, does no good anyhow.Why not go fix that fence you know the one, thats something you can control.Quit whineing ALL of you.
 

Tam

Well-known member
don said:
it's your story; tell it your way. yesterday you said you weren't against voluntary testing; isn't that for market access? is testing animals between twenty and thirty month animals a food safety measure? why not testing nineteen month animals?? how many animals slaughtered today cannot be determined whether they are eighteen or twenty-one months old? why not just test and that eliminates all the uncertainties that you want to fiddle with? if an animal is tested how risky are the 'srm's'? can you honestly say we know enough about bse to allay every anxiety some prospective customers might have? if you meet their import (or domestic) requirements you are giving them the assurance they want or require. my point is that usda can say they are going to set the rules for world trade of beef. they can also pass a regulation ordering grass to grow without moisture. the japanese don't really care because they can get australia to supply beef and the grass doesn't give a rip what usda thinks, either.


I see you left out the part where I said but I feel the money would be better spent on the inspections to assure the SRM removal rule is not be violated so all beef is safe. :wink:

Have you not read anything about the limitations of the approved tests? and why they are only recommends by the OIE as a BSE MONITORYING TOOL? :? Don the USDA tested the Texas cow and the confirmitory test came back Negative But surprise the retest seven months later came back POSITIVE are you going to tell us there was no risk to those SRM's? :roll: The reason the test is not used for Food safety assurances is just the same reason we have been telling you for months THE TEST CAN BE WRONG JUST LIKE IT WAS IN THE TEXAS COW . It can be WRONG on ninteen month old animals as they don't have enough prions to be detected. AND it can be WRONG in OTM cattle when there is not enough prions in the brainstem to be detected. Which can happen only months before the animal would be showing clinical signs of the disease. I can not believe you think that we could eliminate the SRM removal if we tested. That is the one internationally recognised measure that makes the beef safe to eat IF THE TEST IS WRONG AND AN ANIMAL DOES SLIP THOUGH BECAUSE SHE IS NOT SHOWING SYMPTOMS.

I can honestly tell you that the agencies that work with the approve tests have proven without a doubt the test can't be trusted enough to be used for a food safety measure and that is why we HAVE TO REMOVE THE SRM's. So if they don't trust it to assure food safety why not educate the consumer to what the food safety measures are and then make sure those measure are not being violated????
 

Mike

Well-known member
Tam:Don the USDA tested the Texas cow and the confirmitory test came back Negative But surprise the retest seven months later came back POSITIVE

Dearest Tam, This has been explained over and over and over. The USDA used the antiquated IHC test as the confirmatory test on the first pass and had everyone convinced it was the "Gold Standard" of BSE tests.

When Phyllis Fong ordered the retest she requested and got the Western Blot analysis. (You know, the one that Dr. Gary Weber of the NCBA said that was not as accurate as the IHC and that they were just trying to sell test kits :???: ) It was also the one that caught the 21 and 23 month (numbers 8 and 9) positives in Japan which WAS, by the way, confirmed by the OIE as Atypical BSE.

Well anyway, the USDA was also using an experimental antibody for their IHC also, which by most scientists meant that everything they had tested up until that date meant absolutely nothing. Nada.

Did you hear about the 20 month old positive in the UK? Didn't think so.

Why don't they just TEST the SRM's?
 

Latest posts

Top