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

Oldtimer admits MCOOL is a crock

I never saw anyone die from e coli or avian flu. Maybe that's the difference. I said you could call it whatever you wanted so why bother attacking me AGAIN? Wow, are you ever hard-headed

Have you never heard of Walkerton, Ontario? I believe it was 17 dead and many more that are using kidney machines for the rest of their lives. Maybe empathy only comes into play when their is a family member involved. That's the difference between ranchers and non-ranchers, we do know that we feed the world, and want to take responsibilty for it, but are not willing to take blame for unproven and conspracy theories!

Walkerton source was unknown, but once again, it was blamed on manure, from a Veternarian's farm. I guess it didn't help that the two brothers running the water treatment plant were fudging test results and not treating the water properly! Blamed on cutbacks, not dishonesty. But hey, dishonesty is never used when it comes to politics) Standards were in place, not followed, who took the hit? Farmers!

Side note: only townsfolk got sick, the rural people seemed to have a natural immunity, from not living so "clean" and their exposure to manure and farm animals.
 
MURGEN, Excellant Quote :If Labelling is used as a food safety and auditing system, then you must have traceback to individual animal and premises.

Individual traceback will ensure a quick method of tracing animals back throughout different sources and allow for followup to other ranches and sources of origin.

For example, FMD, if we had individual traceback and it was computerized, in minutes we could have access to records of source, region, herd etc. that the animal was exposed to.

Murgen I agree and just seen on SSI site that Canada has SSI rep. out in Saskatchewan ,Wonder who's next ?
 
Murgen I agree and just seen on SSI site that Canada has SSI rep. out in Saskatchewan ,Wonder who's next

That depends on how many people they "rub" the wrong way with their promoting and marketing.

"sell the science, not the company"
 
You're right it's hard to have empathy unless you've walked in those shoes. I certainly had less empathy for many things before my life altering experience. I'll be more tolerant. Well, I'll try. The widowed are a bit cantankerous. Thanks

I believe you have the right to be cantankerous, but also have some empathy for those that feel that we feed the world and are being attacked for providing the most essential of needs.

This is a way a business and a lifestyle for all of us. To have it attacked by unproven theories, just because we produce meat is an insult. We follow the most up-to date science that is available.

There are a lot of factors that affect the image in that we are making our way of living.

We believe that we are producing a safe and essential product, to have it attacked by animal activists is one thing, by having it attacked by someone who also uses our product and attacking the safety of that product is a little hypocritical.

I would hope that when you are at all these meetings that you go to, that you are also expressing your new found knowledge about how we produce our product and our concern for standards and auditing of our product that makes it safe.

We wouldn't be doing it, if we did think it was going to cause harm in any manner!

And yes, we argue against the 1% of unsafe meat, because when activist groups talk about 1%, they only talk about the 1% and not the 99%.
 
reader (the Second) said:
Tam said:
reader (the Second) said:
Murgen - I don't know and there's the rub. We don't know what feed the beef we consume was fed. We don't know where it came from. We don't know how old it was. Do you know the answer or is there any finding out the answer? I doubt it.

I'd prefer to eat beef from younger cattle (under 20 months) that were not fed questionable feed. Call it an abundance of caution or call it paranoia or whatever you want.

I do eat non-grass fed when I have no choice such as when I am fed beef as a guest. I'm as fond of a good steak as you all are, believe me.

I also got really really tired of chicken and fish. And I'm tired of only having "organic" ground beef at my local market. Once the Whole Foods Market opens near me, I'll be buying Coleman beef.

Reader you say you eat Chicken do you read what state the chicken comes from before you eat it? When we import chicken from the US in our groceies we are to know what state it comes from as some states have diseased chicken and it is not allowed into Canada. Then there is the Avian flu in chickens what do you think of that? You also say you eat fish with all the water poplution in the world are you sure the fish you are eating is healthy. your statement "Call it an abundance of caution or call it paranoia or whatever you want. " I'm just wondering does your abundance of caution or paranoia also effect your buying when it comes to these meats. Or does it effect your habits when you buy fresh fruits and vegs. that may have not been harvested in the more sanitary conditions.

I never saw anyone die from e coli or avian flu. Maybe that's the difference. I said you could call it whatever you wanted so why bother attacking me AGAIN? Wow, are you ever hard-headed. :roll: :roll:

I buy kosher chicken now. There are stricter laws about diseased animals in kosher meat slaughtering. They are inspected and not allowed to be eaten if they show signs of disease.

You are correct about the fish and about the vegetables. On the other hand, mercury doesn't kill you outright and neither does e coli most of the time.

Let's not get into this discussion again in the future, o.k.? Your equating salmonella, e coli, or too much mercury with someone dying because their brain is eaten away in a matter of 3 - 6 months -- and at the same time being able to infect other people through blood and tissue donations and having surgery or colonoscopy or tonsillectomy or endoscopy or dental implants or even infect the funeral home staff -- is too much for me to take. Knock, knock.
Touchy touchy How is asking you "does your abundance of caution or paranoia also effect your buying when it comes to these meats" an attack. You seem to have problems with Beef and you have told us all about them so I have to wonder if these other meats also worry you.

You say
"mercury doesn't kill you outright"
.Results of a google search
The population of Minamata Bay ate contaminated fish from this harbor. As a result, 397 people were infected. Of these, 68 people died, including 22 unborn children.
and rest of the article states the harbor was contaminated with Mercury. Just because you didn't see them die doesn't make them any less dead.

neither does e coli most of the time.
another google search
The Center for Disease Control estimates that 73,000 cases of E-Coli occur every year in the United States 2,100 people are hospitalized and 61 people die as a direct result from infections.
good thing you put most of the time Reader but I think I would fear something that takes 61 US citizens lives annually over something the has been blamed for taking 150 lives in all the world since it was discovered almost 2 decades ago.

And just because you haven't seen anyone die from Avain Flu doesn't make it any less deadly. 1997 Hong Kong 6 die, 2004 Vietnem 6 die, 2005 Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand 42 die.
WHO has warned that millions of people could die when the bird flu spreads between humans.
When a similar bird-human flu struck nearly a century ago, about 20 million people died.
and all three cases, avian flu, E-coli and mercury the death can be instant no time to say your good byes.

I find it funny that when Murgen pointed out Walkerton you act decent towards him but when I ask if you use an abundance of caution towards other meats you blow. I guess this will teach me for asking your opinion on the other food safety issues that you face when buying meat won't it? :oops:
 
I think that the approach that people take on this forum is largely a matter of how their responses affect certain readers. I have found Kathy or Tam to be quite tactful and deserving of all respect in their posts.

Why should they not respond in kind after suffering constant juvenile attacks and rude rebuttals from those who do not agree with them and find their accuracy, tenacity and veracity threatening?

On the other hand, we have those who drop the big hammer, send chips flying in all directions and then cry, wounded, in their beer by the reactions to their remarks.


Take your pick.
 
PORKER said:
MRJ,START an account in scoringAg for $10.00 bucks and you will see what I mean.

{Porker, why didn't you answer my question? Again: from a different angle via a hypothetical case: There is a very serious food borne illness, causing some deaths. The source of the cattle needs to be traced to stop this very communicable cattle disease and to prevent further human illnesses and deaths. Authorities are successful in tracing to the feedlot, but the identical brands in various states and the fact that the feedlot did not require premise ID on incoming cattle makes it impossible to identify the source without DNA. Precious time is lost. WITHOUT requiring individual, herd sourcing via premises ID, how can this situation be prevented?

MRJ}
 
I think that the approach that people take on this forum is largely a matter of how their responses affect certain readers. I have found Kathy or Tam to be quite tactful and deserving of all respect in their posts.

Why should they not respond in kind after suffering constant juvenile attacks and rude rebuttals from those who do not agree with them and find their accuracy, tenacity and veracity threatening?

On the other hand, we have those who drop the big hammer, send chips flying in all directions and then cry, wounded, in their beer by the reactions to their remarks.


Take your pick.

I thought I was the only totally philosophical lunatic in this place. Good post Maple Leaf, couldn't have said it better myself and I'm sure many are glad I didn't!!!
Still using my 'puter lesson on cut n paste SH, thank you very much again. Am I harrassing the hell out of you yet? Don't really mean too but I suppose I figure that you are the most responsive to someone saying something that you don't consider to be accurate or truthful. If I accuse you of being cold, I'm only looking for a rebuttal and "facts" that show otherwise. Have a good night all!
 
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: What is so hard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PORKER wrote:
brands and have recorded info far back into the 30's and 40's-- Used ear tags to correspond with the recorded info starting in the 60's- along with brands for true permanent ID's......

BRANDS ARE PREMISES CODES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RANCHERS that BRANDED or tattoed an ANIMAL ALWAYS had TRACEBACK !!


{Are you saying there is no possibility that calves carrying the identical brand in the identical location, each legal in states SD, ND, TX, OK, WY, as an example, could be co-mingled in the same feedlot in KS?

SSI's scoringag system has record movement plus all ID's of the animal including eyescan and DNA.

It would take quite some time to determine which ranch one calf out of that bunch came from.
TAKES about 3-4 seconds on wireless laptop to recover 1 animal record when I ues the SSI database

It might well be impossible without DNA to trace it back to the cow.
Our 4H fair uses nose prints,just like finger prints.

What would be the cost of that "system"?
.55cents
Who would bear the cost?
You would as you own the record until animal is sold like cattlerange.com does it.

{Porker, why didn't you answer my question? Again: from a different angle via a hypothetical case:
There is a very serious food borne illness, causing some deaths. The source of the cattle needs to be traced to stop this very communicable cattle disease and to prevent further human illnesses and deaths. Authorities are successful in tracing to the feedlot, but the identical brands in various states and the fact that the feedlot did not require premise ID on incoming cattle makes it impossible to identify the source without DNA. Precious time is lost.
System does record movement automatically plus does accounting of truck deliverys in real time as it shows on my records page.
WITHOUT requiring individual, herd sourcing via premises ID, how can this situation be prevented?
Not sure whatyou mean?but if their tags and brands being recorded at every location their isn't much to fub up.

MRJ,Hadn't much time as grandkids were over and they all want horse rides.You can sign up like I did ,took about 7 mimutes and at that time didn't even have a Mi. premises code.The Boys down at SSI are one smart bunch and you can't go wrong.They have got a code for every place on the face of the earth.
 
Maple Leaf Angus said:
I think that the approach that people take on this forum is largely a matter of how their responses affect certain readers. I have found Kathy or Tam to be quite tactful and deserving of all respect in their posts.

Why should they not respond in kind after suffering constant juvenile attacks and rude rebuttals from those who do not agree with them and find their accuracy, tenacity and veracity threatening?

On the other hand, we have those who drop the big hammer, send chips flying in all directions and then cry, wounded, in their beer by the reactions to their remarks.


Take your pick.

Thank you MLA but you can bet if I were to have said
Maybe empathy only comes into play when their is a family member involved. That's the difference between ranchers and non-ranchers, we do know that we feed the world, and want to take responsibilty for it, but are not willing to take blame for unproven and conspracy theories!
Reader would have not thought it was quite so tactful. It is not what is said it is who says it that makes her react. I have come to notice if I were to wish her a great day she would take it as an attack of some kind. That is just the chances I take when I ask a question of her. :?
 
MRJ said:
PORKER said:
MRJ,START an account in scoringAg for $10.00 bucks and you will see what I mean.

{Porker, why didn't you answer my question? Again: from a different angle via a hypothetical case: There is a very serious food borne illness, causing some deaths. The source of the cattle needs to be traced to stop this very communicable cattle disease and to prevent further human illnesses and deaths. Authorities are successful in tracing to the feedlot, but the identical brands in various states and the fact that the feedlot did not require premise ID on incoming cattle makes it impossible to identify the source without DNA. Precious time is lost. WITHOUT requiring individual, herd sourcing via premises ID, how can this situation be prevented?

MRJ}

How do they know the cattle didn't get it at the feedlot and not the ranch?

What is the role of cattle as a reservoir of E. coli O157:H7?

Cattle have been implicated as the most important source of E. coli O157:H7. Prevalence estimates vary, but it appears that although a substantial percentage of both dairy herds and beef feedlots have infected animals, the actual number of individual infected animals at any one time is relatively low.

The 2002 USDA NAHMS study found that 38.5% of dairy farms had at least one cow that was culture [+] when sampled, but only 4.3 % of individual cows were shedding the organism.
Infection with O157:H7 is, however, subclinical in cattle and the duration of shedding may be quite variable and intermittent, making test and removal control programs impossible at this time.
Dairy calves and heifers appear to shed the organism more often than adults. The peak time of infection is thought to be 3-18 months of age.
Recovery of O157:H7 from beef feedlots is highest in pens from which the cattle had been in the feedlot for the shortest periods of time.
 
Reader,

Why not just come clean and admit that Tam just hammered your speculative based "theories" regarding mercury, ecoli, and avian flu human deaths in contrast with your "BSE FEAR MONGERING".

You couldn't be proven any more wrong on your position.

The only thing missing was the slap of a latex glove.

Unlike me, Tam did it with tact too. Nice job Tam!

Reader, if I was you I would at least show the decency to admit how wrong you were.

Athough sympathetic to your loss, I have a real problem with you from the standpoint that you want to find a justification for your husband's death in the safety of our product with no solid proof to back your "theory". While you are continually drumming up "theories" that might support your "suspicions", you continue to eat beef. Says a lot about your convictions.

Based on your experiences with ecoli. WHICH I HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED, you would be far more justified in not eating beef from that experience than any chance of getting vCJD from eating beef FROM CATTLE YOUNGER THAN 24 MONTHS OF AGE.

Carry on with your conspiring ways Reader!

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!


Robert Mac's statements regarding "organic" and "natural beef" has absolutely nothing to do with generic Country of Origin labeling that prohibited the only means to accomplish it's goal of proving where beef was "born, raised, and slaughtered".

The popularity of "organic beef" has absolutely nothing to do with the flawed "M"COOL law.


~SH~
 
I am not sure why some members of this forum prefer "theory", "opinion" and "speculation" over FACT.

I guess that will be puzzling scientists for years.

What is wrong with admitting that you were proven wrong again Reader, pray tell?



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Robert Mac's statements regarding "organic" and "natural beef" has absolutely nothing to do with generic Country of Origin labeling that prohibited the only means to accomplish it's goal of proving where beef was "born, raised, and slaughtered".

The popularity of "organic beef" has absolutely nothing to do with the flawed "M"COOL law.


~SH~

SH, it is proof(that even the major players in the food industry have recognized) that there is market share that wants to know where their food come from and how it was raised! Now you can stick your head back in ...well...the sand!
 
reader (the Second) said:
I'm not sure why some of the members of this forum love to pile on someone. Tam and I were having a nice debate -- heated -- and she did not need hoards to come to her rescue.

In spite of Kathy and Randy and I disagreeing vehemently, we debate and we also sometimes are in agreement. And they teach me things which I admit.

What is wrong with saying that Tam is direct, praytell?

Also, Murgen really does have a lot of tact, which he has shown various times.

When I YELL at Tam, it's cuz she keeps bringing up the same arguments over and over and I get tired of typing the same responses.

Nice debate, :wink: calling me names and telling me to never bring it up again is not a debate Reader. Asking a direct question and proving each side with facts is a debate. You seem to be lacking on your side, alot of heated name calling and opinions but scientific facts no.
As tactfully as I can ask. How is asking about your concerns of Ecoli, Avain Flu and mercury poisoning when buying meat and veg the same argument as asking you if you have proof that eating beef causes what your husband died from which was CJD? On one hand you claim your kids will not eat beef because they saw their dad died. When I asked for proof of beef having anything to do with his death, you blow and claim I'm not sensative to your kids feeling and i'm just to drop the question of proof that the product I happen to make a living at is what cause his death. The truth is you have no proof as the experts have no scientific proof eating beef causes CJD, and you just don't want to admit it. The other you say the different is because you have never seen anyone died from them. so you keep eating them without knowing anything about where they come from and how they were raised. The proven scentific fact is that many have died from direct result of them and they are far more of a threat to you and your kids. But you keep eating them with probably less concerns about your health than eating beef. So I guess in some respect they are the same, They are both your food buying habits. Pretty weak reasoning on both counts. and you blow up on both counts. and you don't care to debate them ever again.

I wouldn't care at all about what you feed yourself and your kids if you weren't on here everyday trying to convince us that way we raise our beef is wrong and could cause someone someday to die from CJD when there is no proof it causes it. And they are far more likely to die from one of these other problems which have nothing to do with the way we raise beef.

I find it funny you get upset when someone piles on you because you avoid answering my direct question by bad monthing me, but you don't think anything of it when someone comes to your rescue. If you would just answer me without all the drama there would be no need for the rescue as you call it. The rescue only shows me they would like an answer too and they don't appreciate your avoidance any more than I do. :roll:
 
Robert Mac,

Country of Origin labeling to label 5% of our beef as imported IS NOT SOURCE VERIFICATION.

"SOME" consumers want "SOURCE VERIFICATION" not an unenforceable "M"COOL law to label 5% of our beef as imported.

THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME.

Regardless, there is nothing to stop the "organic" or "all natural beef" markets from being met without another stupid, worthless government mandate.


~SH~
 
reader (the Second) said:
Now, why do you care about how good or bad a job the USDA and the FDA do since BSE is so harmless? Why did you get so outraged at the mistakes of the USDA and FDA?

I am very puzzled about this. A true conundrum.

I guess I can understand why you don't get it. You have no chips on the table in this game and therefore it would be quite a challenge for you to grasp the risks and threats involved. It would probably take a little more personal involvement, proximity and investment on your part to know what it feels like to be subjected to the incredible financial, emotional and psychological stresses that the Canadian cattleman and woman have endured as the result of someone else's fumbling ineptness and hypocrisy.

Therefore, it should be no surprise that the bungling of the American regulatory system is regarded with the same level of suspicion and contempt that many of us in Canada hold for the childish posturing of the radical, imbalanced group that purposefully managed to help keep the CDN. cattle industry in a vise controlled by a handful of processors that were possessed by a rapist mentality.

And yes, BSE is a relatively minor threat to consumers in North America. Indeed, it is quite likely that more real harm has been done to the people who produce beef in this country than BSE will ever do to the consumers. But how much press does that get?

But we are to sit back and let some "civil" servants criticize or vilify us at their whim . . .

Don't get me started . . .
 
What I meant to say as well (but forgot) is that IF the USDA had been as efficient as the CFIA (which was even too lax), the CDN. producers would not have had to suffer as much as they did. It could very well be that if the US had proportionately tested as many cattle as did Canada, and with a test that actually would show positives, they could have and likely would have found the first "native" positive in North America.

We will never know if the results would have been much different for the CDNs.
 
reader (the Second) said:
Now, why do you care about how good or bad a job the USDA and the FDA do since BSE is so harmless? Why did you get so outraged at the mistakes of the USDA and FDA?

I am very puzzled about this. A true conundrum.

Since the prevalance of BSE is very low in both the US and Canada I feel the risk is very very minimal but that doesn't mean we can play around with the precautionary measures that we have in place to protect our consumers. On the other hand my complaining about the USDA testing really has nothing to do with the consumers safety or did you forget the testing is not done for food safety. It is done to find the true prevalance of the disease. Canada is doing the recommended testing and being bad mouthed by some in the US because we are finding additional cases. All while the US is not doing the recommended testing and therefore not finding addition cases?
I don't ever remember saying it was completely harmless Reader What I have said is if the precautionary measures are followed the risk is minimal. Yes I have questions about how the US is handling BSE as their credibility on the matter could damage consumer conifdence more than the lies R-CALF tells. But the fact is that the chance of contracting BSE is minimal, and that fact has been proven by the number of human cases compared to animals cases worldwide. I would like to see everything possible done to assure our consumers that they are safe. But I don't think we should have to shoulder the blame for a disease we have nothing to do with. Yes that old saying does fits you if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen or if you can back you claims don't make them. . Where is your the proof that eating beef causes CJD. You have posted over 580 more post than I have and you still haven't brought anything to this board that proves there is a scientifically proven link from Beef to CJD.
 
Statement: Negative Test Result on Non-Definitive BSE Case
BILLINGS, MONT. (August 5, 2005) Regarding this week's announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that the recent 'non-definitive' bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) test result has been determined as negative for the disease, please attribute the following statement to R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard:

"R-CALF USA is pleased with this result, as it reinforces our belief that the single case of BSE detected in June was an extremely isolated case and likely resulted from an early failure of the United States' first line of defense against BSE – the 1989 ban on imports from countries affected by BSE. However, given the tremendous amount of confusion and uncertainty surrounding USDA's current testing program, we believe a more scientifically valid testing program is needed in order to establish the highest level of confidence that both U.S. import restrictions and the feed ban have protected our domestic herd from this disease.

"Under the World Organization for Animal Health's (OIE's) new approach for BSE testing, if a country only wanted to have the ability to detect one case per 100,000 cattle, approximately 187,000 cattle should be tested, regardless of the size of a particular country's cattle herd. The United States already has tested more than 426,000 cattle, with only one confirmed domestic case. However, in the rest of the world where BSE has been found, testing is done at rates that allow those BSE-affected countries to detect more than one case per million head of cattle. The exception is Canada, which has tested only around 60,000 cattle – far fewer than any other BSE-affected country and far fewer than is recommended even by the OIE. Notwithstanding the limited testing done in Canada, four cases have already been detected in the province of Alberta.

"In response to USDA's June announcement of the detection of a 12-year old cow with BSE, R-CALF USA called upon the agency to allow private firms to voluntarily test cattle of any age for BSE to meet international and domestic demand, as well as to expand the BSE testing program in the United States.

"If USDA were to take at least two additional steps, the public's confidence in the United States' BSE protection strategy would be boosted significantly, and future USDA announcements regarding uncertain test results would generate far less anxiety than agency announcements over the past year.

"First, USDA should prevent any further exposure to the United States from known sources of BSE. This can only be accomplished by maintaining strict import restrictions against countries where BSE was known to occur in cattle born after implementation of a country's feed ban. Both Canada and Japan have detected BSE in animals born after the implementation of their respective feed bans.

"Secondly, USDA should reinforce the known weaknesses in the United States' feed ban. The European experience has proven that a reinforced feed ban is required to prevent the spread of BSE. R-CALF USA continues to call upon USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to exclude all animal protein and animal by-products from all livestock and poultry feed, including blood, poultry litter, plate waste, tallow, and specified risk materials (SRMs), as well as to ban the use of ruminant blood meal, bone meal, and ruminant tallow in milk replacer and colostrums.

"What USDA's limited testing shows so far is that the United States has a very low prevalence of BSE, with only one domestic case detected, while Canada has a much higher prevalence in much younger cattle. This limited data suggests the U.S. should strengthen, not weaken, its import restrictions and its feed ban - the two most important measures to prevent the introduction and spread of BSE in the United States."

# # #

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA's membership consists primarily of cow-calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members – over 18,000 strong – are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top