Questions for Tim H. on new Thread

[Mike]

Mike was just throwing out different ideas on testing. Tester says his kit cost$10 but it only provides a sample for the Western Blot test. On the slaughter house floor they could get the brain stem if they wanted.
The Urine test kit would have a place in on-farm testing but it still has cost but granted not what eradication of the herd would. The one way to make it work would to have cattle tested at the feedyard or in a whloe herd testing to certify BSE Free herds. Maybe you should nominate your herd Mike.

Up until just a few years ago, every female that went through the auction barn in Alabama was tested for Brucellosis. Went on for about 30-35 years. If one was found at the stockyard they would come out and test the whole herd. Took 3 clean tests to be let off the hook. We were paid $25 per head for reactors. That's how it was eradicated.

Problem with getting the brainstem is getting the right part and keeping it fresh until it gets to the lab. With urine you just put it in a vial with a stopper and throw it in a cooler of ice.

I can see lots of ways to use a urine test to help us eradicate it, if it is indeed infectious or transmissable.

A BSE FREE herd would sure open doors to our export partners now.
Damn Japs!

 

[Econ101]

JUST FOR YOU MAXINE- Since you believe all us nonbelievers lie, I looked it back up for you:

He's a strong proponent of free trade and he's hell-bent on making the U.S. a net exporter of beef again. He explained the core of the problem in an editorial he wrote last fall for Iowa Farmer Today: "The tactics employed by activist groups within our industry do nothing but delay the re-entry of the U.S. cattle industry into key export markets, costing our cattle producers an estimated $175 per animal in the process."
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=22405

Johns: Or this one: "Be wary of those who like to tell you they are looking out for 'the little guy' or 'the independent producer.' Crunch their numbers, and you will find they simply don't add up."

Maybe he could get bse testing for prvt. enterprises approved. The Japanese are saying that they don't trust the U.S. protocal. Can't say I blame them. I think the above quote needs to be viewed in the context of today's trade---or lack of it. The numbers just don't add up.

 

[agman]

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Is this what you are waiting for Mike?
I've always considered it my duty to alleviate the the impatience of virgins. Smile

www.cattletoday.com/forum/ptopic9689.html



_________________
Rancher's/Cattleman Action LEGAL FUND....."Working" the grassroots producer!!
...(Hey, it beats the hell out of chasing ambulances)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Econ101
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2695
Location: TX

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
TimH, the only way the costs of the tests could get sent back down to the producers is if Creekstone had market power. Obviously with 3000 per week kill, they do not have market power. Do you discount Creekstone's contention that the cost of the test would be more than offset by the benefits of exporting to Japan? The tests could actually PAY producers through higher prices selling to Japan. Why not let the market handle this one?

I find Mike's question fun, but the real issues are whether or not the markets are allowed to work or whether the USDA and Canadian equivalent are going to manage the markets for their favorite boys. Of course their favorite boys are giving their favorite candidates campaign bribe money. None of this is good for the average producers. It only leads to the dominance of the large packers in the USDA and their manipulation of USDA policy for their own benefit, and not the benefit of producers.

I find it funny that you and others support such stances while still saying your policies are for the producer/consumer.

How much market power does Creekstone have if they extract $400 more per head, their statement, and only a small portion of that ever gets to the producer?

Obviously, Agman, they had neither market power or political power, two things which go hand in hand when it comes to this administration and its policies.

You did not answer my question, why not?

 

[Econ101]

How much market power does Creekstone have if they extract $400 more per head, their statement, and only a small portion of that ever gets to the producer?

Obviously, Agman, they had neither market power or political power, two things which go hand in hand when it comes to this administration and its policies.

You did not answer my question, why not?

Agman, your reading comprehension is as bad as your economic comprehension. I said they had neither market power or political power. To judge whether market power is being exerted based on increased profitibility only is an incredible leap for any good economist. I see you have tried to lead some down that path already on this board.

My question to you is why do you do it? You should know better. Is it because you think you can fool everyone and get away with it? I sure hope you have more to rest on with your cowboy reputation than your reputation of economic analysis.

Any good economist would know that the prohibitions of Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act are better measurements of market power. Why do you think they were put in the law? You want to make the 11th circuit judges, enbanc and all, not only judges who have a duty to uphold the law, but to also make it. Your disdain for the American system is clouded by your self interest in this case.

It is funny that this case falls in the week of Purim, don't you think?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Mike was just throwing out different ideas on testing. Tester says his kit cost$10 but it only provides a sample for the Western Blot test. On the slaughter house floor they could get the brain stem if they wanted.
The Urine test kit would have a place in on-farm testing but it still has cost but granted not what eradication of the herd would. The one way to make it work would to have cattle tested at the feedyard or in a whloe herd testing to certify BSE Free herds. Maybe you should nominate your herd Mike.

Up until just a few years ago, every female that went through the auction barn in Alabama was tested for Brucellosis. Went on for about 30-35 years. If one was found at the stockyard they would come out and test the whole herd. Took 3 clean tests to be let off the hook. We were paid $25 per head for reactors. That's how it was eradicated.

Problem with getting the brainstem is getting the right part and keeping it fresh until it gets to the lab. With urine you just put it in a vial with a stopper and throw it in a cooler of ice.

I can see lots of ways to use a urine test to help us eradicate it, if it is indeed infectious or transmissable.

A BSE FREE herd would sure open doors to our export partners now.
Damn Japs!

Mike getting the right part of the brain stem is no problem and whats this about keeping fresh. If these cattle were to be tested on the slaughter house floor the test would have to be done immediately or it would slow down the line to much to make it feasible.
we tested for Bangs in Sask the same as you. I have had cattle from my herd tested for BSE have you?

 

[rkaiser]

You sure are into this "slowing down the line thing" BMR. Those poor packers hey!!!! Might have to actually bear the cost of some of this BSE fiasco? We all know that it would be passed down to the producer anyway don't we?

Why not focus on the benefits for a bit BMR. The packers are fully capable of defending themselves without you and Tam. You are a producer are you not? If it were possible for the producer to benefit from testing that would allow exports, which we all admit are costing producers of North America billions of dollars, would you support it? Or would you continue your defense of the packers who are losing nothing from BSE?

 

[Mike]

You arguments against testing are lame. One can come up with an excuse against most anything if you look for it.

OK, so you tested for Bangs. We are a Bangs free state now because of it.

Face it, the argument against testing is a USDA, big packer and AMI decision. I want my $350+ per head back.

It will come, but only when the big boys say so.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

What happened here? I was just throwing out different scenarios about testing and Randy shows up and blows a gasket. get real guys if we slow down the chain it will cost more . I don't think anybody could argue that. So BSE tester says he can do it live. Where is the best place to do that test. I don't think it is on the kill floor . What ideas do you have? We all hear about the $10 test but lets talk about the real costs involved.


Oh yea Mike have you had any cattle from you herd tested for BSE? How about you Randy?

 

[Mike]

Oh yea Mike have you had any cattle from you herd tested for BSE?

No I have not had any tested. I have not had any deaths or downers either. My vet has taken a few samples from some neighbors cows but the neighbors didn't get paid because they weren't exhibiting CNS symptoms.

What's your point? Are you saying that because you have had some tested, that you are the resident expert on the financial inequities involved?

The peer reviewed Kansas State study says we will have a net return from testing. Would you like to take up the subject with them?

 

[don]

bmr: get real guys if we slow down the chain it will cost more .

i certainly won't argue that but one of the ways to keep the chain speed up over the long term is to diversify markets and serve the customer; always looking for more customers. by toeing the packer line and not testing we are letting them restrict the market and have more control over the chain speed. diversifying and increasing markets could only encourage more players in the market for the end product of what i produce. after thirty years of grain farming and seeing what concentration in the grain handling and marketing sectors has done i see the samething happening in the cattle industry. the question that hasn't been asked or answered here (that i have seen anyways) is why wouldn't the big packers use the market power they have gained by concentration of ownership? it only makes sense they would use that power and is incredible that they wouldn't.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

bmr: get real guys if we slow down the chain it will cost more .

i certainly won't argue that but one of the ways to keep the chain speed up over the long term is to diversify markets and serve the customer; always looking for more customers. by toeing the packer line and not testing we are letting them restrict the market and have more control over the chain speed. diversifying and increasing markets could only encourage more players in the market for the end product of what i produce. after thirty years of grain farming and seeing what concentration in the grain handling and marketing sectors has done i see the samething happening in the cattle industry. the question that hasn't been asked or answered here (that i have seen anyways) is why wouldn't the big packers use the market power they have gained by concentration of ownership? it only makes sense they would use that power and is incredible that they wouldn't.

I started this line of posts to explore ways of doing things differently.
I get attacked by Randy for following the packer line. Tell me how when the USDA takes 4 to 7 days to get test results back how that won't slow the line speed down. How long can we maintain the integrety of a carcass before it cost us to much? Maybe BSE tester has the solution with the urine kit guess time will tell. Why don't you guys offer some ideas to ponder. Sure Rolls Royce hand builds cars but who can afford them.

 

[rkaiser]

Had three heads disected so far BMR........ What's your point.

My point is that testing will not cost but pay the producer in the long run. The only reason that packers are delaying is to milk the cow as long as they can. They will support testing as soon as it looks like it will cost them the least. And our so called producer groups will follow along at that time.

The slow line arguement amazes me BMR. Have you looked into Canadian capacity these days. We are operating at about 70%. Do you think that some of that 30% wasted time could be spent securing export markets with testing?

Sorry if you feel I jumped ya BMR, but your arguements continue to support the packer led block on testing and I can not understand it.

 

[don]

i think there is some red herring aspect to this slowing the chain argument. when the packers want to bring out a new product or line like natural beef they can make the logistics work. if you don't want to impose testing on the big boys then let somebody like creekstone design their process to make testing viable. the advances we're hearing about right here about new technologies in testing further weaken the slow chain argument. why don't we turn loose some of the brains and let them make this work? regard it as marketing innovation. the concentration of ownership we have seen with the packers has rarely led to innovation in other industries. the big american car makers are being severely tested now because they face external competition that in many instances is bringing in new products like hybrid cars. still haven't seen an answer as to why the big boys wouldn't use their market power to bar entry into the market and keep down the competition.

 

[Econ101]

don, they already have. Their influence at the USDA has kept bse testing in the govt.'s hands where they(packers) can control it. It does not help producers any at all. If Creekstone were able to test and get into the Japanese markets, they would be buying more cattle for export. Heck, they might even want to buy Tyson's old facilities in the midwest and expand. Their pressure on buying more cattle has been limited by the USDA packer policy and it has hurt producers. Creekstone was not allowed to innovate for foreign markets because it doesn't fit the big packer fast line speed and "efficiency" comparative advantage. It doesn't fit into their concentration and control model.

 

[don]

econ 101: the big packer fast line speed and "efficiency"

i don't buy that either. there is no incentive for more efficiencies and innovation when competition has been choked off.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

OK boys tell me how it will be done. How will this work on the floor? Keeping Offal seperate until the test is back. Carcass intact or kept track of. If it's so easy tell me Explain t . You guys say I don't know what I'm talking about so you tells us how it will work.

 

[rkaiser]

Do we look like rocket science engineers BMR. Why not leave these technological advances up to those who want to tackle it. Let the Creekstone boys go to work; let the Sunterra boys loose.

Just as those who support the advantages producers would receive from testing say it would be easy ------- you, take the word of Cargill and Tyson that it would be difficult.

The point is --- stop the corporate welfare left wing policy of allowing mutinational PRIVATE companies dictation and let democracry and freedom reign.

 

[don]

bmr: OK boys tell me how it will be done. How will this work on the floor? Keeping Offal seperate until the test is back. Carcass intact or kept track of. If it's so easy tell me Explain t .

sorry, can't do that but i'd be willing to bet that somebody in japan or europe can. blanket testing is an established practice in some parts of the world. these countries are every bit as industrialized as n. america and must be more innovative, too. you'd have more credibility if you just said you think the big boys have our best interests at heart and will take real good care of us. what do you have against diversifying our markets, both for our cattle and the beef that comes from them?

 

[Econ101]

OK boys tell me how it will be done. How will this work on the floor? Keeping Offal seperate until the test is back. Carcass intact or kept track of. If it's so easy tell me Explain t . You guys say I don't know what I'm talking about so you tells us how it will work.

Those details should be left to companies like Creekstone, BMR. You should not be afraid of those details or the fear mongering around them. If Creekstone could have made it work, don't you think it would have been copied? Innovation often is, to the betterment of us all.

Here are just a few scenarios:

1) Creekstone finds the methods that work best for them.

2) Producers themselves find those scenarios--maybe testing their whole herd every 3 years or something like that, whatever seems to work.

3) Feeders find a scenario that works. Most cattle are on feed before they go to the slaughter houses. Why not test them there?

4) Small packing plants find other innovative ways to test for food safety. The market rewards those systems, and the small packers can compete more fiercely for the cattle you sell.

5) Whole areas or regions are tested and determined to be bse free with carefull attention to cattle being brought in to maintain the herd safety (Isn't that the deal with country bse schemes?)

These dynamics are for the market to figure out. So what if the big packers don't control food safety, they are falling behind on that issue now. They can not be trusted in that regard. Why do you think the govt. is involved in the first place?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Mike my point about me having cattle tested was to show that I did support testing for surveilence. Until we have a way of live testing Econ their is no way to test at the feedlot. That is my main point to this is that until we have a a live test that is validated we can't do whole herd testing.
Do we think that if we do wholesale testing for export that our domestic market won't demand it?