Market Based Trading

[Big Muddy rancher]

Sorry PPRM, when we switched to discussing the Japanese market, I thought maybe gears had been switched to testing all beef.

I see no reason why consumers shouldn't be offered the choice as long as they understand that BSE tested doesn't necessarily mean BSE free. What I'm saying is that just because our current tests don't reveal BSE in UTMs doesn't mean it isn't there. Perhaps the BSE is in a different form, and the test simply doesn't work. No-one seems to know right now.

I really am curious what it costs to test an animal, and how much more lab space would be needed to test every animal in the US and Canada.

Rod

Everything I've seen is $20, give or take a few bucks.

The test is the cheap part, Try keeping that beef and offal IDed for 24 hours all seperate . Slow down the line speed and see what the price of cattle goes to. THe old saying If you can't do it right , then don't do it at all" really fits.

 

[rkaiser]

The test is the cheap part, Try keeping that beef and offal IDed for 24 hours all seperate . Slow down the line speed and see what the price of cattle goes to. THe old saying If you can't do it right , then don't do it at all" really fits.

BMR has come up with the main reason that grssroots producers and packers battle at industry meetings over BSE testing. Of course there are the producers who beleive that the beef industry includes packers and producers working in harmony with hugs and kisses. These folks usually side with Cargill and Tyson at these same meetings and thus the current status of testing for export marketing purposes in Canada.

Every other country in the world that has had a domestic case of BSE has moved forward with testing beyond survailance - except for (bend over to the USDA) Canada and (we do everything our mutinational packers say is) right USA.

Let's have a little democracy here folks. Take it to a vote in the NCBA, the CCA, or any other group that considers itself a voice of the producer.

One vote for everyone involved in the industry.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sorry PPRM, when we switched to discussing the Japanese market, I thought maybe gears had been switched to testing all beef.

I see no reason why consumers shouldn't be offered the choice as long as they understand that BSE tested doesn't necessarily mean BSE free. What I'm saying is that just because our current tests don't reveal BSE in UTMs doesn't mean it isn't there. Perhaps the BSE is in a different form, and the test simply doesn't work. No-one seems to know right now.

I really am curious what it costs to test an animal, and how much more lab space would be needed to test every animal in the US and Canada.

Rod

Everything I've seen is $20, give or take a few bucks.

The test is the cheap part, Try keeping that beef and offal IDed for 24 hours all seperate . Slow down the line speed and see what the price of cattle goes to. THe old saying If you can't do it right , then don't do it at all" really fits.

Tested beef would be an "extra" - an option. As such, customers should be expected to pay for the extra. If they don't want to pay for it, they don't get it. That's the way it works with everything else, why not beef? Pretty simple.

 

[Jason]

The test is the cheap part, Try keeping that beef and offal IDed for 24 hours all seperate . Slow down the line speed and see what the price of cattle goes to. THe old saying If you can't do it right , then don't do it at all" really fits.

BMR has come up with the main reason that grssroots producers and packers battle at industry meetings over BSE testing. Of course there are the producers who beleive that the beef industry includes packers and producers working in harmony with hugs and kisses. These folks usually side with Cargill and Tyson at these same meetings and thus the current status of testing for export marketing purposes in Canada.

Every other country in the world that has had a domestic case of BSE has moved forward with testing beyond survailance - except for (bend over to the USDA) Canada and (we do everything our mutinational packers say is) right USA.

Let's have a little democracy here folks. Take it to a vote in the NCBA, the CCA, or any other group that considers itself a voice of the producer.

One vote for everyone involved in the industry.

Randy those who vote on BSE testing should have all the facts. Including how much packers are going to stick it back to feeders for a slower chain and more costs for segregation.

Your the guy constantly telling us how bad these corps are, then as soon as it comes to a pet subject of yours, they are pussycats gonna roll over because of a vote?

 

[Sandhusker]

Jason, "Randy those who vote on BSE testing should have all the facts. Including how much packers are going to stick it back to feeders for a slower chain and more costs for segregation."

What makes you think the extra costs would be passed to the producer and not the consumer? I don't understand that line of thinking. If you get the fancy wheels on your new pickup, you pay more for it. If you super-size at McDonalds, you pay for it. Everything you get "extra" on anything you buy, you pay for - nobody else eats the cost. Why would that be any different with the option of tested beef?

Also, none of the packers have to mess with testing if they don't want to. It's an option, not the law. If they think handling tested beef will be more hassle/cost than it's worth, they can pass.

 

[Econ101]

Jason, "Randy those who vote on BSE testing should have all the facts. Including how much packers are going to stick it back to feeders for a slower chain and more costs for segregation."

What makes you think the extra costs would be passed to the producer and not the consumer? I don't understand that line of thinking. If you get the fancy wheels on your new pickup, you pay more for it. If you super-size at McDonalds, you pay for it. Everything you get "extra" on anything you buy, you pay for - nobody else eats the cost. Why would that be any different with the option of tested beef?

Also, none of the packers have to mess with testing if they don't want to. It's an option, not the law. If they think handling tested beef will be more hassle/cost than it's worth, they can pass.

So packers support voluntary Cool but not voluntary BSE testing? They support M-ID and not voluntary ID? Sounds like they are pretty consistent to supporting whatever is in their personal interests regardless of anything else. Too bad the USDA gives them the chain on their nose ring.

 

[rkaiser]

Randy those who vote on BSE testing should have all the facts. Including how much packers are going to stick it back to feeders for a slower chain and more costs for segregation.

Your the guy constantly telling us how bad these corps are, then as soon as it comes to a pet subject of yours, they are pussycats gonna roll over because of a vote?

What on earth do you mean "Stick it to the feeders" Jason. These ethical community supportive packers that you speak of never Stick anyone do they? If what you say is a FACT, you must be slipping down the slippery packer blamer slope eh. :lol:

Did I say that they are going to be pussy cats Jason. No, I said that they have the greatest tool since the bread slicer to control the marketing of beef. "NO TO TESTING." Nothing but another power play to control marketing.

They will not be pussy cats, but no communist regime ever is. If democracy were allowed to work in this corporate communist example, the packers may actually not have a choice for once. Of course there will always be folks like yourself, or the packer infiltrated leadership ass kissers in our CCA who will try to intimidate producers and relay fear into their minds about testing. For what? To enable the market control we currently see, and hold the entrepreneur's back from making these new plants in Canada become viable?????

Testing COULD bring our 25 cent cows up to the global prices received in by countries like Australia, Brasil, etc. I will say could Jason, because everything is debatable. Ad the cost that the Packers are GOING TO STICK US WITH FOR TESTING, and there is likely still a profit for you. :wink:

 

[rkaiser]

Okay Macon, I meant Kitty Cats.

 

[mrj]

1. Have you testing promoters done your market surveys and ASKED consumers if they will accept a test that does NOT PROVE the animal does not have BSE?

2. Who will be first to file a lawsuit when the first "tested" cow in this "Tested Beef Program" is found to actually have BSE, and who will be sued?

Reading the posts here, it doesn't appear this "BSE testing, but no guarantee" proposal has been thought out very well, from my point of view, first as a consumer, and secondly as a cattle/beef producer.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

1. Have you testing promoters done your market surveys and ASKED consumers if they will accept a test that does NOT PROVE the animal does not have BSE?

2. Who will be first to file a lawsuit when the first "tested" cow in this "Tested Beef Program" is found to actually have BSE, and who will be sued?

Reading the posts here, it doesn't appear this "BSE testing, but no guarantee" proposal has been thought out very well, from my point of view, first as a consumer, and secondly as a cattle/beef producer.

MRJ

MRJ, why don't you suggest that at your next NCBA meeting and ask that the checkoff dollars be spent on that research.

 

[Mike]

1. Have you testing promoters done your market surveys and ASKED consumers if they will accept a test that does NOT PROVE the animal does not have BSE?

I disagree. Your post here is about the least thought proposal here.

1-Do you even know what the efficacy rates are for some of the different tests? Let me give you a clue. Some are 100% accurate if there are mis-folded prions present in a properly prepared sample. The problem is not the lack of testing technology, it's the sample collecting that the USDA hasn't quite mastered yet. (Then again, their technology sucks too!)

2-Now how in the heck would somebody prove that a test missed a diagnosis in the first place? You think they are going to ship a portion of the obex along with each piece of meat for cross-reference?

I'm ashamed of you MRJ. Go back to bed!! :lol: :wink:

Prionics®-Check WESTERN - Evaluation
english deutsch francais italiano

First BSE test officially recognised


The Prionics®-Check WESTERN was the first rapid BSE test officially recognized by the Swiss authorities in 1998. It was also the only test approved by the EU in 1999 which scored 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with no repetition of tests required. The Prionics®-Check WESTERN scored excellent results in all the evaluation studies. The test also allowed easy and clear-cut discrimination between positive and negative samples taken from fallen stock and therefore largely autolyzed (decaying). As the most frequently used rapid BSE test in the world, the Prionics®-Check WESTERN has also demonstrated its outstanding suitability for use under practical conditions. Under such field conditions, the test has furthermore proven to be able to detect a subclinical BSE infection even before the occurrence of pathological changes in the brain, i.e. the test is able to identify true BSE cases that are negative in histology.

 

[Mike]

Sound science or the best available scuence once said the earth is flat. I guess to say anything else was fraud......


So, we are 100% sure we know better than the Japanese Consumer as to what they should want???? Hmmm....Now where does the term ugly American come from????? I wouldn't want to be on record calling them ignorant. They have been dealing with BSE longer than us.

This is more about tolerance to risk than absolute right or wrong. The Japanese tend to want to be more thorough. We can trade or not trade, but it is up to them as to how they buy it,


PPRM

The public got a big scare over there when a meat distibutor got caught switching labels on outdated and uninspected meat. The USDA hasn't helped the situation either by telling them what they should be eating.

I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in the USDA, and it doesn't look like it's any better with Johanns.

 

[Mike]

R2 wrote

The statement that current tests don't reveal BSE in UTMs is several years out of date. Tests have been able to detect it in 24 month old animals for at least a year and the tests are getting more sensitive all the time.

Since 1998

Check this out.

quote] Prionics®-Check WESTERN - Evaluation
english deutsch francais italiano

First BSE test officially recognised


The Prionics®-Check WESTERN was the first rapid BSE test officially recognized by the Swiss authorities in 1998. It was also the only test approved by the EU in 1999 which scored 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with no repetition of tests required. The Prionics®-Check WESTERN scored excellent results in all the evaluation studies. The test also allowed easy and clear-cut discrimination between positive and negative samples taken from fallen stock and therefore largely autolyzed (decaying). As the most frequently used rapid BSE test in the world, the Prionics®-Check WESTERN has also demonstrated its outstanding suitability for use under practical conditions. Under such field conditions, the test has furthermore proven to be able to detect a subclinical BSE infection even before the occurrence of pathological changes in the brain, i.e. the test is able to identify true BSE cases that are negative in histology.

 

[Anonymous]

I always get a laugh when SH or someone critiques the Japanese lack of knowledge and/or what Japan and Europe have done for safeguards...These are the labs that OIE lists as the top BSE labs which they use as reference experts and reference labs:

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

Dr Danny Matthews
VLA Weybridge
New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: (44.1932) 35.95.12 Fax: (44.1932) 35.49.29
Email: [email protected].


Prof. Andreas Zurbriggen
Institute of Animal Neurology, University of Bern
Bremgartenstrasse 109A, 3012 Bern
SWITZERLAND
Tel: (41.31) 631.25.09 Fax: (41.31) 631.25.38
Email: [email protected].


Dr Takashi Yokoyama
Prion Diseases Research Unit, National Institute of Animal Health, National Agricultural Research Organization
3-1-5 Kannondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0856
JAPAN
Tel: (81.298) 38.77.57 Fax: (81.298) 38.77.57
Email: [email protected]


I don't see any US Labs listed....[b][/b]

 

[Mike]

OT, I think some people (knowingly and unknowingly) make wrong statements sometimes............and keep saying it enough that they actually start to believe it themselves.

 

[PPRM]

MRJ,

I am consistently saying keep with one simple principle......Do the test the customer (in this case, the Japanese) uses. Again, I am saying take the role of giving the customer what they want. That not only includes the testing, but also the type of test,

I am not saying we make any claims other than it has been tested according to the standards they ask for......

PPRM

 

[mrj]

MRJ,

I am consistently saying keep with one simple principle......Do the test the customer (in this case, the Japanese) uses. Again, I am saying take the role of giving the customer what they want. That not only includes the testing, but also the type of test,

I am not saying we make any claims other than it has been tested according to the standards they ask for......

PPRM

And you do not believe consumers will believe that "BSE tested", at the least, implies "free of BSE"?

MRJ
MRJ

 

[rkaiser]

Why don't you ask the Japanese consumer MRJ?

 

[Anonymous]

MRJ,

I am consistently saying keep with one simple principle......Do the test the customer (in this case, the Japanese) uses. Again, I am saying take the role of giving the customer what they want. That not only includes the testing, but also the type of test,

I am not saying we make any claims other than it has been tested according to the standards they ask for......

PPRM

And you do not believe consumers will believe that "BSE tested", at the least, implies "free of BSE"?

MRJ
MRJ

Afterall, consumers think USDA Inspected means the beef is from the USA :wink:

In any case, if USDA can stamp USDA tested on all sorts of imports and not be sued, they have no liability with BSE Tested... There can be caveats of course but as I said (sadly) it's pretty damn hard to link human deaths to food eaten 10 - 30 years earlier :lol:

Or link political liability- which gives all these bureaucrats and politicians a free hand to follow the "economic science" rather than what the scientists are advising them for safety.....They know they'll mostly all be long out of the picture if/when people start dying......

 

[mrj]

Why don't you ask the Japanese consumer MRJ?

Guess I could ask Phil Seng. He probably has checked that out.

MRJ