I read and think and read a lot. Had dinner with some freinds last night and it became painfully clear I was the most read person on the BSE issue there. I am so read that anyone can make a point and I can make a pretty good counter-point, lol. And I am definetly not as read on the issue as many here. My point is a lot of people have some pretty uninformed opinions and they can be pretty adament.
The problem is this isn't a simple issue. Lots of good folks on both sides of many issues. I have sat pretty silent for a long time trying to digest opinions and facts and determine what mine were. They have changed and my opinion really isn''t the point here.
Let me preface this by saying I read Judge Cebul's decision and something became painfully clear to me. If we continue the road we have taken we will continue to have perodic postives pop up. Doesn't help anyone on either side of the border.
I think it is time to "Pull the scab". Does either country really know the extent of BSE in North America? We can all call the score as we see it, but what is out there? USDA has made one critical mistake and that has been they have stubbornly held to a position in the face of new BSE cases in Canada. This hasn't helped the Canadians and ultimitely, lead to a decision by a judge that really makes the US look bad in the eyes of Asia.
Some point to the cost of testing. Well, the uncertainty and the future possibility of positives after we continually say, "hey, we're ok,", that will also cost dearly. Do we know we aren't ok?? No. Do we know we are ok??? No. Then how do we know our future?????
I am not calling for 100% testing. But I think more testing is appropriate. Lets start with testing for where the biggest payback would be. That is cattle whose Beef is destined for Japan. Second biggest payback, cattle where SRM's are being removed. If we can test and keep the SRM's in, not only do they have value, but the rendered product would also have more value, my opinion. This second group also should give a truer idea of if there's a problem and the extent of it.
Who pays for it??? I like Creekstones idea of we think there's enough premium that we would pay for it. In the second group, not only do you get the SRM recovery, you could potentially get more premium from being able to stamp, "certified BSE free". I think part of paying for it includs a little extra for a fund I will descriibe below.
My guess, and admitedly it is a guess, we could get a market funded testing level of 10-15% our herds and have a truer picture of the problem. Hey, it creates jobs too. Heck, it creates an industry. Depending on what we find, we will better understand if we need to alter the testing levels.
Guess what?? This works for both sides of the border. One thing I have noticed, when a cow tests positive, we aren't finding herdmates in North America that also have it. I think that is important and my understanding is that is unique from the european situation.
What if they find it in a cow from my herd??? One of the greatest joys I get in this business is producing a product that I think is good and has integrity behind it. I think most of us would rather be doing something else than making something if we find it would cause pain or injury to others.
Here's where the extra testing charges comes in and the cases where herdmates have come up negative. If they find a cow from my herd, this premium fund acts as insurance. In subsequent testing, the meat is not arbitrarily destroyed. These cases so far have shown it is probably good meat. I still get paid for the meat that is tested safe and the insurance fund helps me rebuild.
If you think this is going to be massively expensive, that means you think we have a huge number of cases. If so, we need to be testing more.
I have thought long and hard on this. I think what I am saying has a ton of benefits. We would have a market-funded program that helps us accomplish a lot. It tells us a truer extent of the problem if there is a problem. It gives consumers more confidence and helps us recapture lost export markets. It also may help boost domestic sales.
I am not arrogant enough to think I have the answers cornered. I appreciate feedback and hope this post is seen as being from someone who is trying to deal with this with integrity. As such, I welcome feedback that is placed with the same integrity and especially solution-based feedback.
I do see the road we are on creating tons of volatility and market fluctuations because as it is, there is too much uncertainty. Both side of the border make a product much too good to have to continually live with this,
I also feel this issue has caused to many strained relations, both personal and nationallly. It appears to me that the gut feel is at most, there's only a handfull of cases out there. It is the not knowing that causes fear and ,ultimately, discord. Let's get rid of the fear and go back to an iindustry that is moving forward,
The problem is this isn't a simple issue. Lots of good folks on both sides of many issues. I have sat pretty silent for a long time trying to digest opinions and facts and determine what mine were. They have changed and my opinion really isn''t the point here.
Let me preface this by saying I read Judge Cebul's decision and something became painfully clear to me. If we continue the road we have taken we will continue to have perodic postives pop up. Doesn't help anyone on either side of the border.
I think it is time to "Pull the scab". Does either country really know the extent of BSE in North America? We can all call the score as we see it, but what is out there? USDA has made one critical mistake and that has been they have stubbornly held to a position in the face of new BSE cases in Canada. This hasn't helped the Canadians and ultimitely, lead to a decision by a judge that really makes the US look bad in the eyes of Asia.
Some point to the cost of testing. Well, the uncertainty and the future possibility of positives after we continually say, "hey, we're ok,", that will also cost dearly. Do we know we aren't ok?? No. Do we know we are ok??? No. Then how do we know our future?????
I am not calling for 100% testing. But I think more testing is appropriate. Lets start with testing for where the biggest payback would be. That is cattle whose Beef is destined for Japan. Second biggest payback, cattle where SRM's are being removed. If we can test and keep the SRM's in, not only do they have value, but the rendered product would also have more value, my opinion. This second group also should give a truer idea of if there's a problem and the extent of it.
Who pays for it??? I like Creekstones idea of we think there's enough premium that we would pay for it. In the second group, not only do you get the SRM recovery, you could potentially get more premium from being able to stamp, "certified BSE free". I think part of paying for it includs a little extra for a fund I will descriibe below.
My guess, and admitedly it is a guess, we could get a market funded testing level of 10-15% our herds and have a truer picture of the problem. Hey, it creates jobs too. Heck, it creates an industry. Depending on what we find, we will better understand if we need to alter the testing levels.
Guess what?? This works for both sides of the border. One thing I have noticed, when a cow tests positive, we aren't finding herdmates in North America that also have it. I think that is important and my understanding is that is unique from the european situation.
What if they find it in a cow from my herd??? One of the greatest joys I get in this business is producing a product that I think is good and has integrity behind it. I think most of us would rather be doing something else than making something if we find it would cause pain or injury to others.
Here's where the extra testing charges comes in and the cases where herdmates have come up negative. If they find a cow from my herd, this premium fund acts as insurance. In subsequent testing, the meat is not arbitrarily destroyed. These cases so far have shown it is probably good meat. I still get paid for the meat that is tested safe and the insurance fund helps me rebuild.
If you think this is going to be massively expensive, that means you think we have a huge number of cases. If so, we need to be testing more.
I have thought long and hard on this. I think what I am saying has a ton of benefits. We would have a market-funded program that helps us accomplish a lot. It tells us a truer extent of the problem if there is a problem. It gives consumers more confidence and helps us recapture lost export markets. It also may help boost domestic sales.
I am not arrogant enough to think I have the answers cornered. I appreciate feedback and hope this post is seen as being from someone who is trying to deal with this with integrity. As such, I welcome feedback that is placed with the same integrity and especially solution-based feedback.
I do see the road we are on creating tons of volatility and market fluctuations because as it is, there is too much uncertainty. Both side of the border make a product much too good to have to continually live with this,
I also feel this issue has caused to many strained relations, both personal and nationallly. It appears to me that the gut feel is at most, there's only a handfull of cases out there. It is the not knowing that causes fear and ,ultimately, discord. Let's get rid of the fear and go back to an iindustry that is moving forward,
