Questions for Tim H. on new Thread

[rkaiser]

Do we think that if we do wholesale testing for export that our domestic market won't demand it?

Another of the fear tactics used by CCA/ABP and I gather SSGA along with their packer leaders.

Come on BMR - old arguement. So what if they do ask for testing. Is it wrong for them; is it not their right? Who the hell would trust the system if they knew as much as you and I do ---- and believed the species leaping theory.

Time to move on BMR - testing is on it's way. Would be cool if you accepted that BEFORE the packers made their move for once.

 

[Mike]

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?

If a live test was validated you would see seedstock producers standing in line waiting for the test. If packers could get the feedlots to test them before delivery, they would no doubt pay more for tested cattle at first. Then you would have some packers that would buy the untested cattle for their own testing regime.

Free enterprise usually works things out like this if the playing field is level.

I sincerely think it would help in the long run by getting the media out of the scenario. Incinerating everything over 30 months like they do in the UK scares hell out of me. Just test them.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Do we think that if we do wholesale testing for export that our domestic market won't demand it?

Another of the fear tactics used by CCA/ABP and I gather SSGA along with their packer leaders.

Come on BMR - old arguement. So what if they do ask for testing. Is it wrong for them; is it not their right? Who the hell would trust the system if they knew as much as you and I do ---- and believed the species leaping theory.

Time to move on BMR - testing is on it's way. Would be cool if you accepted that BEFORE the packers made their move for once.

Did you notice Randy I asked the question I didn't just make a statement. Maybe some others would like to comment. Good way to learn is ask question and listen to the responses. Why is everything that you don't agree with a fear tactic?

 

[rkaiser]

Well BMR if it was a question from someone who has not already shown their bias, it may be legitimate.

Don't know how to respond to your fear thing, in fact I'm a little scared to answer.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Well BMR if it was a question from someone who has not already shown their bias, it may be legitimate.

Don't know how to respond to your fear thing, in fact I'm a little scared to answer.

Don't be scared Randy your among friends.

Well I think I would be waiting a long time for you to ask the question wouldn't I?

 

[don]

bmr: Do we think that if we do wholesale testing for export that our domestic market won't demand it?

i don't know if there would be a big call for wholesale testing for domestic use. japanese consumers have demanded testing for years now but that hasn't spurred n. american consumers to demand the same. if domestic market demanded testing, do it. we have to maintain their confidence. i think canada's testing program has been valid so the incidence of bse in our herd is low (except for ot's cluster) and so far the consumer is accepting that the product is safe and infected animals are very unlikely to get into the food or feed systems.

 

[Anonymous]

bmr: Do we think that if we do wholesale testing for export that our domestic market won't demand it?

i don't know if there would be a big call for wholesale testing for domestic use. japanese consumers have demanded testing for years now but that hasn't spurred n. american consumers to demand the same. if domestic market demanded testing, do it. we have to maintain their confidence. i think canada's testing program has been valid so the incidence of bse in our herd is low (except for ot's cluster) and so far the consumer is accepting that the product is safe and infected animals are very unlikely to get into the food or feed systems.

don- I probably shouldn't tell you this- but that is pretty much the position R-CALF has taken from day one regarding BSE :wink: ........

 

[Mike]

bmr: Do we think that if we do wholesale testing for export that our domestic market won't demand it?

i don't know if there would be a big call for wholesale testing for domestic use. japanese consumers have demanded testing for years now but that hasn't spurred n. american consumers to demand the same. if domestic market demanded testing, do it. we have to maintain their confidence. i think canada's testing program has been valid so the incidence of bse in our herd is low (except for ot's cluster) and so far the consumer is accepting that the product is safe and infected animals are very unlikely to get into the food or feed systems.

Right on Don. Could be another premium in there somewhere, and get a handle on things at the same time.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

bmr: Do we think that if we do wholesale testing for export that our domestic market won't demand it?

i don't know if there would be a big call for wholesale testing for domestic use. japanese consumers have demanded testing for years now but that hasn't spurred n. american consumers to demand the same. if domestic market demanded testing, do it. we have to maintain their confidence. i think canada's testing program has been valid so the incidence of bse in our herd is low (except for ot's cluster) and so far the consumer is accepting that the product is safe and infected animals are very unlikely to get into the food or feed systems.

I agree that our testing program has done a good job of keeping consumer confidence in our product. That has been what is difference between us and Japan. What makes me wonder is if we test for export will our consumers ask why we test for export and not domestic. What would be the cost for a mandated testing of all slaughter cattle in Canada?

 

[Anonymous]

bmr: Do we think that if we do wholesale testing for export that our domestic market won't demand it?

i don't know if there would be a big call for wholesale testing for domestic use. japanese consumers have demanded testing for years now but that hasn't spurred n. american consumers to demand the same. if domestic market demanded testing, do it. we have to maintain their confidence. i think canada's testing program has been valid so the incidence of bse in our herd is low (except for ot's cluster) and so far the consumer is accepting that the product is safe and infected animals are very unlikely to get into the food or feed systems.

I agree that our testing program has done a good job of keeping consumer confidence in our product. That has been what is difference between us and Japan. What makes me wonder is if we test for export will our consumers ask why we test for export and not domestic. What would be the cost for a mandated testing of all slaughter cattle in Canada?

BMR-Have they questioned all the differences in ages -under 20 months for some, 30 months for others, over thirty month for others :???:

 

[don]

ot: don- I probably shouldn't tell you this- but that is pretty much the position R-CALF has taken from day one regarding BSE

and i probably shouldn't tell you this but if r-calf wanted to concentrate on the biggest issue facing cattle producers on both sides of the border - concentration of ownership in the slaughter and packing sector - they could win a lot of friends up here. the influence canadian cattle have on your markets is tiny compared to the market power of the big four down there, but then you already know that. the trade issues are sexy in a time when isolationism is a popular sentiment.

 

[Econ101]

If testing for the export market was required and it paid to test for the domestic market, I would say that route would be the cheapest surveillance system on hand--- and one that people interested in real results would be in charge of (Japanese or foreign markets). It might also bring a little credibility back to our respective govts. if they weren't holding the cards so close to their chest on testing.

 

[cowsense]

Everyone is going on the premise that BSE tested beef will bring a premium in the marketplace. Why would Japan pay ANY extra for tested N. American product over prime grain fed Australian beef (out of Japanese owned feedlots even!)? Australia has the genetics, grain and expertise along with a large cattle herd free of BSE to compete with us! At present BSE testing will just be an added expense to be passed back to the producer and I can't find 30,40 or even 50 bucks extra to pay the cost for a procedure that in all likelihood has absolutely no relevance for UTM cattle.

 

[Econ101]

Everyone is going on the premise that BSE tested beef will bring a premium in the marketplace. Why would Japan pay ANY extra for tested N. American product over prime grain fed Australian beef (out of Japanese owned feedlots even!)? Australia has the genetics, grain and expertise along with a large cattle herd free of BSE to compete with us! At present BSE testing will just be an added expense to be passed back to the producer and I can't find 30,40 or even 50 bucks extra to pay the cost for a procedure that in all likelihood has absolutely no relevance for UTM cattle.

If it wasn't going to bring a premium over the domestic market, Creekstone would not have been interested in it. Creekstone had the option to sell domestically or internationally. If the world believed UTM was safe, and it could be verified, you probably wouldn't need to test those animals anyway---that was Japan's stance anyway.

The Australian cheaper cost due to not testing for bse that you refer to could have been avoided if bse were not in your herd or the N.American herd. The USDA and Canadian equivilent already let that cat out of the bag and it aint going back in now.

 

[cowsense]

Econ- Redo your post in English so it can be read........It just don't make sense!

 

[rkaiser]

What premises are you going under cowsense. We still live in a BSE market here in Alberta and I know for a fact that the situation is similar in Saskabush. Why do you believe we are getting raped on our cows cowsense. Do you really think that your cull cows are worth 30 cents a pound. Testing for export marketing is all about changing the captive market situation we have here in North America. If we can move some beef off this continent, it will give us room to sell domestically for a decent price.

What kind of statement would include words like "in all likelihood has absolutely no relevance". Not that I don't agree with the relevance part cowsense. If you read any of my posts you will know my position on that. However using this science of yours to explain the economic situation we are in due to the decision by the packers not to test is a different story.

Do you honestly believe that there would be no benefit to Canadian or American producers by moving beef off of our North American shores?

 

[bse-tester]

If the cost of testing for BSE was at a price that was inexpensive, then would it not make sense to test all animals?? What price would be acceptable to all knowing that tested and being certified as being absolutely free of BSE go hand in hand. That is of course if the test being used is able to provide such clarity!!

So what is an acceptable cost per test per animal? And what would the benefits be of having beef for sale to a market that is able to see catagorically that the beef is not only tested but garanteed to be free of BSE, compared to having beef that is not tested and therefore has to be sold to a market that is still demanding BSE free meats anyway, but now would have to compete with the BSE Free meats?

As I see it, it all seems to come down to the actual cost per animal per test for BSE.

 

[Econ101]

Econ- Redo your post in English so it can be read........It just don't make sense!

Sorry, cowsense. My wife has the same problem with me. I know it is real if she says it.

Creekstone had the option of selling its beef into the domestic market or the Japanese market. If the Japanese market was not higher, even taking into consideration the costs of administering the bse tests, they would not be looking into selling there. Since the Japanese market was higher, and enough higher for it to pay for bse testing, Creekstone had an economic incentive to test and sell to that market and so asked for the ability to test. The mere fact that they did that proved that testing for Japanese markets pays higher than the domestic market even with the costs of the tests added in.

If the customers thought that UTM cattle did not need to be tested because it was safe, they could (and Japan did) ask for just age verified beef to fulfill their safety requirements. UTM and bse tested should bring the same amount for the same quality animal. If you didn't want to age verify, you could bse test. If you did not want to go through the cost of bse testing , you could age verify. Whichever was the lowest cost would be the one you chose to do (logically of course).

Since neither the U.S. or Canada has been successful in keeping bse out, through feed regulations or transmission from other animals, the choice Australia has in not testing is no longer a choice for the U.S. or Canada. A credible surveilance/age verified and or all testing is required.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

If the cost of testing for BSE was at a price that was inexpensive, then would it not make sense to test all animals?? What price would be acceptable to all knowing that tested and being certified as being absolutely free of BSE go hand in hand. That is of course if the test being used is able to provide such clarity!!

So what is an acceptable cost per test per animal? And what would the benefits be of having beef for sale to a market that is able to see catagorically that the beef is not only tested but garanteed to be free of BSE, compared to having beef that is not tested and therefore has to be sold to a market that is still demanding BSE free meats anyway, but now would have to compete with the BSE Free meats?

As I see it, it all seems to come down to the actual cost per animal per test for BSE.

I think your right Tester, The actual cost per animal tested. That cost includes alot of things that are not neccesarialy a direct cash cost. That is what makes this a hard decision. I can see advantages to your kits in a expanded survalence role but fail to see how it helps much in slaughter house testing. A program like the old Bangs testing may have to be reimplimented.

 

[Econ101]

If the cost of testing for BSE was at a price that was inexpensive, then would it not make sense to test all animals?? What price would be acceptable to all knowing that tested and being certified as being absolutely free of BSE go hand in hand. That is of course if the test being used is able to provide such clarity!!

So what is an acceptable cost per test per animal? And what would the benefits be of having beef for sale to a market that is able to see catagorically that the beef is not only tested but garanteed to be free of BSE, compared to having beef that is not tested and therefore has to be sold to a market that is still demanding BSE free meats anyway, but now would have to compete with the BSE Free meats?

As I see it, it all seems to come down to the actual cost per animal per test for BSE.

I think your right Tester, The actual cost per animal tested. That cost includes alot of things that are not neccesarialy a direct cash cost. That is what makes this a hard decision. I can see advantages to your kits in a expanded survalence role but fail to see how it helps much in slaughter house testing. A program like the old Bangs testing may have to be reimplimented.

Compare the cost of bse testing with that of animal I.D. Bse testing might be as inexpensive as 20 dollars per head. With the 50 million per head that the USDA quotes for the costs of MID, they could have tested 2.5 million head already. That does not even count the costs of the bse surveillance. If the USDA were serious about bse, they could fast track innovations like bse tester has and make sure it works. Instead they are allowing packers to use it to determine policy.

The free market would clear up bse health issues real fast. a 20 dollar test is not very much per lb. when it goes to retail. We could track bse root causes down real fast with an adequate and scientific testing system. Bse should be treated as a food safety issue, not a political issue.