Questions for Tim H. on new Thread

[bse-tester]

BMR wrote:

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.

True enough BMR. But I want to make it clear that I am not pushing my test here. I get accused of that too often, so I have decided to only ask simple questions. The cost per test should not be so high as to cause grief to the producers. It should be reflected in the price per pound that the producer can afford to use it in order to be able to compete when it comes to selling his beef. If the producer can bring his beef to market and still get a good price for them, then he is doing well. But as long as the market place dictates the price, he is still at the mercy of those organizations that control the pricing. Having said that, if he tests his beef just prior to going to market, let's say a set period of time (a few days or so) prior to shipping and his chain of custody of the herd has not been breached, then there is virtually no chance of the animals being exposed to BSE at all and therefore the testing validations of his animals should be acceptable to the slaughter house and in turn, to the market place. Heck, the Government and/or the local vet or Ag Officer can stipulate the time period and verify that it has been followed.

There are as you correctly state BMR, some hindurances when trying to test at the slaughterhouse. These include the storage of the carcass until the test results are in and the possibilty of confusion setting in as to the id of the carcass relative to the indivdual test done on it. The chain of custody must NOT be broken and when you consider that some slaughterhouses are processing thousands of head per day, the incidence of accurate record keeping will be called into question.

I do think that there are solutions to every problem and often BMR, just plain old common sense plays a huge role in the reality of problem solving.

How about a test being considered at around 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 cents per pound based on an 800 lb animal. That works out to around 10 to 12 dollars per test per animal. Fairly reasonable considering that this may well bring about an open door to the world market place. Of course, I am not going to tell you whose test that is BMR. :wink: :wink:

 

[bse-tester]

Econ wrote:

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.

Well put Econ. I can see testing being not only a boon to the overall market penetration of the national herd, both domestic and international, but one heck of a risk management tool also.

 

[Econ101]

bse tester: "There are as you correctly state BMR, some hindurances when trying to test at the slaughterhouse. These include the storage of the carcass until the test results are in and the possibilty of confusion setting in as to the id of the carcass relative to the indivdual test done on it. The chain of custody must NOT be broken and when you consider that some slaughterhouses are processing thousands of head per day, the incidence of accurate record keeping will be called into question."

These are all problems that the big "efficient" packers have that have developed systems where you do not age the carcass and you go so fast as to make mistakes (bone in shipments, rfid tags being lost) or mix meat from all over who knows where in huge vats prior to processing. Agman himself bragged about having an aged piece of meat for dinner. When are cattemen going to realize that catering to the "efficiencies" of big packers is not always in their best interests? Market manipulation can not happen when the markets are not concentrated. There are too many options for cattlemen.

Cattlemen should have their own Capital Concerns, not just what the packers want.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Who iscatering to who? Consumer want beef at a competative price so if testing does price it out of the market that is of no benefit to the producer.
When you guys talk about the cost of testing I still say the cost of the test might be the minor cost compared to what it will cost to get test test done properly. BSE tester wehave had no option and still don't to test at the feedlot until a live test is validated. Do you know the cost of performing a Western Blot test?

 

[Mike]

Who iscatering to who? Consumer want beef at a competative price so if testing does price it out of the market that is of no benefit to the producer.
When you guys talk about the cost of testing I still say the cost of the test might be the minor cost compared to what it will cost to get test test done properly. BSE tester wehave had no option and still don't to test at the feedlot until a live test is validated. Do you know the cost of performing a Western Blot test?

Big Muddy, before you work yourself into a tizzy trying to justify the packers stance, take a look at the Kansas State Univ. research that was done on testing for the market.

Their conclusion was a "net effect".

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Who iscatering to who? Consumer want beef at a competative price so if testing does price it out of the market that is of no benefit to the producer.
When you guys talk about the cost of testing I still say the cost of the test might be the minor cost compared to what it will cost to get test test done properly. BSE tester wehave had no option and still don't to test at the feedlot until a live test is validated. Do you know the cost of performing a Western Blot test?

Big Muddy, before you work yourself into a tizzy trying to justify the packers stance, take a look at the Kansas State Univ. research that was done on testing for the market.

Their conclusion was a "net effect".

Why are we to beleive a Kansas State study when no one believes the Harvard study.

 

[Mike]

Who iscatering to who? Consumer want beef at a competative price so if testing does price it out of the market that is of no benefit to the producer.
When you guys talk about the cost of testing I still say the cost of the test might be the minor cost compared to what it will cost to get test test done properly. BSE tester wehave had no option and still don't to test at the feedlot until a live test is validated. Do you know the cost of performing a Western Blot test?

Big Muddy, before you work yourself into a tizzy trying to justify the packers stance, take a look at the Kansas State Univ. research that was done on testing for the market.

Their conclusion was a "net effect".

Why are we to beleive a Kansas State study when no one believes the Harvard study.

Simple. There are too many intangible factors in predicting how many cattle with BSE there actually are when so little is known about BSE.

No firm figures about who fed what to what cattle and so on............

When you plug "Unknowns" into a computer program your answer will undoubtedly be........."Unknowns".

 

[rkaiser]

Who doesn't believe the Harvard study BMR? A few opponents?

Come now, the Harvard study is the accepted study of the USDA CCA and obviously you.

You're losin ground here BMR. Have to go back to an SSGA meeting where you have some packer support. The funny part will be the day that the packers change their stand on testing and the USDA CCA and BMR all jump on board like it was always the RIGHT thing to do.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Who doesn't believe the Harvard study BMR? A few opponents?

Come now, the Harvard study is the accepted study of the USDA CCA and obviously you.

You're losin ground here BMR. Have to go back to an SSGA meeting where you have some packer support. The funny part will be the day that the packers change their stand on testing and the USDA CCA and BMR all jump on board like it was always the RIGHT thing to do.

Whats wrong with asking question? You questioned the system when you joined up with Big C. You want change and I question what that change will do for me. I don't think we need to change just for the sake of change. I have been a early adapter in many thing but I don't do just to do something different I want to see the reward be more then the cost..

 

[rkaiser]

Whats wrong with asking question? You questioned the system when you joined up with Big C. You want change and I question what that change will do for me. I don't think we need to change just for the sake of change. I have been a early adapter in many thing but I don't do just to do something different I want to see the reward be more then the cost..

Good gray BMR, asking questions is good. You've asked the question for years now however, and even though the amswers are right in front of your cull cow pen, you still ask. Did BIG C stop their plans to build a plant? Yip. You told us it would never fly and we finally had to accept. Will you accept that BSE is costing you money and that opening markets to our beef could solve that? Hell no. You continue to argue with the exact same script as the rep from Cargill at the CBEF meeting for crying out loud. And until his boss changes his script, it seems that yours will stay the same.

 

[Mike]

Big Muddy:

I want to see the reward be more then the cost..

It looks entirely possible that you couldn't see it if it was plastered across the side of your barn.

You see........what you want to see.
You hear..........what you want hear.

You see?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Big Muddy:

I want to see the reward be more then the cost..

It looks entirely possible that you couldn't see it if it was plastered across the side of your barn.

You see........what you want to see.
You hear..........what you want hear.

You see?

Bse Tester told us the expected cost of his kit what is the cost of the Western Blot test? You guys must know you always say we would make money doing it.

 

[rkaiser]

What is the figure up to here in Canada now BMR? When the media talks of losses due to BSE that is. I hear billions.

Guess that won't answer your question though hey?

 

[Mike]

Last estimates I heard for Canada was around $8 BILLION.

U.S. losses to BSE from exports are prolly above that by now.

Ain't hard to figure is it Randy?

The difference between butt kissing and brown nosing is a matter of "Depth Perception".

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So I guess you guys don't know. You have been telling us we could make money doing this. Is this how you research out all your endeavors?
Funny how i get blamed for walking the packer line but I never mentioned the packers. I was inquiring so I would know the cost of live testing if and when BSE tester gets his Urine kit on the market. Until then I don't know of any other live test. Do you?

 

[bse-tester]

Mike, I look at every dollar that has been lost, not only in Canada, but in the USA as being a dollar that the industry will never get back - no matter how many tooth fairies there are. That money is long gone and it aint coming back partner.

The cost of the Western Blot is something that varies each time I look into it. Depending on the cost of the Gel Sheets and the supplier discounts based on bulk purchasing, the costs can be kept down to an acceptable minimum. One thing I heard mentioned was that once a test is validated and the government agencies then are "able" to look at it objectively, there is a very good chance that the actual cost of the test would be subsidised by the government(s). It might even be in their best interest to do this due to the increased market aceptance of the product and the fact that more animals will be turned into marketable product. Of course, this is up for debate by those who know more about the market and the product than I do. But I think that any government worth its salt would not like to see a repeat of the CAN$8 Billion lost in one of Canada's major industries. I suspect that also applies in the USA.

 

[rkaiser]

No doubt bse-tester. And how about the multi millions being spent by the government already in the surveillance programs. Could these export tested cattle not be included in the numbers somehow. If the feds pick up the tab now, why would they not help out with the tab on cattle that would help the big picture problem.

 

[bse-tester]

Randy, if we look at the cost of the testing and compare it to the current costs of what the governments are doing to apply basic surveillance and enhancement of the risk management of the national herds, we could probably make a fairly good case that would see a reduction of the surveillance costs by having it applied directly into a national testing program. Consider this also if we take it a few steps further and set up a testing protocol that would see every animal tested one month prior to shipping to the slaughterhouse. The ID of that animal can easily be tracked from birth to slaughter and at which point we simply add the data that indicates that it has been tested and is safe to proceed to slaughter. Once it ihas received that designation, a whole lot of other things come into play. The meat and by-products are now completely acceptable to anyone anywhere in the world as certified and tested. And yes, tested for BSE using the right test does indeed mean BSE free. The entire concept of market acceptability is crucial to the cattle industry. We all saw what happened to Canadian producers when only one single animal set off the most destructive bomb the cattle industry has ever suffered in Canada and in the USA.

But if we can take every single animal, provide a test that is not only validated and certain, the market will rally around the product in one hell of a hurry. Having said that, the producers must see the test as inexpensive and it must be one that is completely proven. The market is the key as is the cost of testing. Governments have long stated that they are the only ones allowed to conduct testing. Fine, then let them do it. But why not work with the producers and let the producers contact their local Ag-Officer and.or Vet, get the urine samples and send them off to the lab that the Government says must do the testing. The Feds can set up labs all across the country simply getting existing labs to upgrade to handle prions related items. It can be done and done efficiently, but then that is something that the Federal Government may have to think about - the effeciancy side of the spectrum that is.


If that is the mandatory setup, then the Governments can then subsidize the darn testing to a point where all producers can benefit from having their animals make it to markets all over the world without all this BS that they are currently facing. Heck, we might even see the "country of origin" labeling fall away and all meats and meat products will have open borders, but that is a stretch at this time. Just think what the price of beef might be if it is shown to be Test and declared BSE Free??

 

[rkaiser]

Don't have to convince me Ron. Your work is with Cargill, Tyson, USDA, CCA and the gang on here that follows - BMR, Tam, MRJ etc. I guess Scotty (SH) must be in the heat of gopher trappin season - haven't heard from him in a while.

 

[Mike]

You're making way too much sense for guvment entities Ron. :lol: