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

USDA Again Denies Creekstone to Test

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Once again, the USDA has over stepped its jurisdiction. Creekstone should be able to test their beef for what ever they want and advertise it as such. Creekstone needs to sue the pants off the USDA since testing does not make the beef any less safe.

I still don't know why Creekstone don't just ship the beef live and test them in Japan?
 
Alabama said:
I still don't know why Creekstone don't just ship the beef live and test them in Japan?
Click to expand...

Japan hasn't got the capacity to slaughter those cattle, nor do they have a market for the end meat they don't want. They have their own cattle to slaughter and only need the high demand marbled cuts they can get from North America. Consumers miss it but politics are running this one as per usual. Japan wants to use this as leverage as long as they can, and they will.

Testing is the current excuse but isn't the real motivation. If a testing system were adopted they would no doubt find another reason not to accept the beef.
 
Jason said:
Alabama said:
I still don't know why Creekstone don't just ship the beef live and test them in Japan?
Click to expand...

Japan hasn't got the capacity to slaughter those cattle, nor do they have a market for the end meat they don't want. They have their own cattle to slaughter and only need the high demand marbled cuts they can get from North America. Consumers miss it but politics are running this one as per usual. Japan wants to use this as leverage as long as they can, and they will.

Testing is the current excuse but isn't the real motivation. If a testing system were adopted they would no doubt find another reason not to accept the beef.
Click to expand...

Jason, are you saying Japan just doesn't want to do business with our multi-national packers???
 
Jason, are you saying Japan just doesn't want to do business with our multi-national packers???
Click to expand...
........

that have played politics with the USDA and RCALF through this all, and now when others starting doing the same it's wrong.?

I guess we should have stuck with science from the beginning, eh. That border should have been closed for a week at the most and then we could have been shipping beef to Japan within a couple of months and not years.

What happened, was that we gave the consumer in Japan something to worry about, with all our rhetoric and media clippings. We should be proud of ourselves, we did what our industry leaders wanted to do, bring suspision to the industry.
 
It is apparent that some of you guys feel that once an animal is tested it comes down to whether or not the label should read "BSE FREE" or "BSE TESTED." One of you even stated that "...you can't detect BSE in cattle under 30 months of age." Now that is totally wrong. It is like saying that you can't detect HIV in humans under the age of 12!! It borders on the ridiculous how some people still think that the 30 month age barrier actually is a magic pill that allows animals younger than that age to be immune from BSE. Age is not a factor untill you realize that the 30 month barrier has been designated as the date prior to which the ainfected animal will generally not display any clinical symptoms of having BSE. But what if that animal has the disease and the prions have yet to manifest themselves in large enough quantities in the brain to cause the damage that leads to the symptomatic effects of the disease? It can be 20 months old and still be infected. As for placing any kind of trust in the USDA testing protocol, be my guest, I sure as heck wouldn't. Even the US Congress is not too happy with it and some of the USDA scientists have voiced their dissatisfaction with it as it has proven itself unreliable. The Japanese along with any other person that walks the earth have the fundamental right to expect that the product they are buying is disease free. I mean any disease and especially one that is so damn hideous as BSE. So why shouldn't each and every animal be tested? Testing is something that most producers would go along with if it was shown to be inexpensive and did not impact their bottom line to a point where it became noticable. If it only put 1 or 2 cents per pound to the cost of producing that animal then it would be easy to swallow and it would sure as heck go a long way to expanding the market place for the producer. If any producer doesn't want to expand their market then they are in the wrong business in my opinion. The problem comes along when the cost of testing becomes prohibitive. The producer then sees it as a threat to his or her income and rightly so. But when a test can be done for literally a couple of cents per pound it has to be agreed that it is worth every penny. Not only does testing provide a much better Risk Management tool than simply visual symptomatic evaluation but it also provides consumer confidence in the food product. That has to be a good thing.
 
Murgen said:
We should be proud of ourselves, we did what our industry leaders wanted to do, bring suspision to the industry.
Click to expand...

What is this "WE" business? Are you from France?

The USDA brought suspicion to the U.S. beef industry almost single-handedly!
Cover-up of the meat from the Wash cow. Saying no to private testing made the Japs even MORE suspicious. The Texas cow fiasco. The list continues.

Just think, these are the damned idiots watching after my business. :???: :???: :???: :???: :???:
 
I still don't know why Creekstone don't just ship the beef live and test them in Japan?
A long time ago a few ranchers in central Alberta got together and shipped their beef north to Edmonton on the old CP Rail line - a distance of 40 miles. By the time the herd got to Edmonton, the price of shipping them was higher than what they got at the market. To ship live cattle to Japan would drive the price of the beef so high that it would rival the price of blue fin tuna. One fish for US$27,000.00 and that is without the head and tail. Shipping live animals will almost certaibly result in a number of deaths to the herd onboard, depending on how rough the ocean gets, so shipping is out of the question price-wise. Of course, this is my own opinon.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent post BSE tester. Put it up once more so that nobody misses out on this one.

BSE tester - It is apparent that some of you guys feel that once an animal is tested it comes down to whether or not the label should read "BSE FREE" or "BSE TESTED." One of you even stated that "...you can't detect BSE in cattle under 30 months of age." Now that is totally wrong. It is like saying that you can't detect HIV in humans under the age of 12!! It borders on the ridiculous how some people still think that the 30 month age barrier actually is a magic pill that allows animals younger than that age to be immune from BSE. Age is not a factor untill you realize that the 30 month barrier has been designated as the date prior to which the ainfected animal will generally not display any clinical symptoms of having BSE. But what if that animal has the disease and the prions have yet to manifest themselves in large enough quantities in the brain to cause the damage that leads to the symptomatic effects of the disease? It can be 20 months old and still be infected. As for placing any kind of trust in the USDA testing protocol, be my guest, I sure as heck wouldn't. Even the US Congress is not too happy with it and some of the USDA scientists have voiced their dissatisfaction with it as it has proven itself unreliable. The Japanese along with any other person that walks the earth have the fundamental right to expect that the product they are buying is disease free. I mean any disease and especially one that is so damn hideous as BSE. So why shouldn't each and every animal be tested? Testing is something that most producers would go along with if it was shown to be inexpensive and did not impact their bottom line to a point where it became noticable. If it only put 1 or 2 cents per pound to the cost of producing that animal then it would be easy to swallow and it would sure as heck go a long way to expanding the market place for the producer. If any producer doesn't want to expand their market then they are in the wrong business in my opinion. The problem comes along when the cost of testing becomes prohibitive. The producer then sees it as a threat to his or her income and rightly so. But when a test can be done for literally a couple of cents per pound it has to be agreed that it is worth every penny. Not only does testing provide a much better Risk Management tool than simply visual symptomatic evaluation but it also provides consumer confidence in the food product. That has to be a good thing.
 
The is a great article in the New York Times (August 13, 2005) that mentions the Kansas group Creekstone Farms. You guys should all read it as it also discusses the USDA and their testing ability.
 
I can support you if you deal with testing as an export marketing tool bse tester, however articles like the one in the New York times are fear based and dealing with unproven science. Can't support that approach - Sorry.

I will not deny anyone their own hypothesis. Thus my support for BSE testing for marketing purposes. If the Japanes, or anyone else in the world THINKS testing will save lives,,,, than test.

Using fear to sell an idea is simply wrong.
 
I completely agree that fearmongering should not be part of any attempt to sell, enhance or generally put forward any idea or product. The entire process that I believe in with regard to testing each and every animal is simply to avoid the chance that anyone will ever succumb to the human variant of BSE - nvCJD. I do not necessarily support the hypothesis that the article in the NW times has put forward but I do believe in letting others draw their own conclusions. The problem we have in North America is that we find ourselves being "protected" by agencies that know little about the true science behind BSE and would rather cater to the fact that the market must be fed with product regardless of the fact that the testing protocols do not garantee that the product is safe for human consumption. Certainly, the argument is there that the product is safe due to the odds being in the favor of not finding any animals carrying the infectious prion, but what if only a small percentage of those animals that appear healthy get through the screening process due to their apparent health and they are actually carrying the deadly prion? How do we find them under current screening practices? The answer is all too simple - we don't! It is a fact that I do support 100% testing for BSE, Scrapie and other TSE's but I do so with the proviso that the cost of such testing must fall within an affordable and economical framework that will not impact the producers beyond anything that is acceptable. If the cost of testing can be minimal and the end result is that markets will accept the product readily as a result of the testing being done, then everyone wins. That is my goal. In closing, the article in the NY Times is written by someone who is trying to put across the concerns of the masses, to the masses and probably knows little or nothing about BSE and the effects of it upon the producers of North America other than what his or her researchers delivered to them prior to their publishing deline. But it was an interesting read notheless.
 
Question,BSE tester? Can a urine test be pulled from a slaughtered cow or steer and have a fast enough turnaround time like 24hrs in a kill plant while the carcass cools down to know the answer of yes/no BSE.
 
Hi Porker, the turn-around time is generally 14 - 24 hours depending on how many tests are being run simultaneously. The urine can most certainly be taken from the bladder at slaughter ( as is the case with bulls) and then immediately taken to the lab. The carcass is then processed and ALL product is kept in the cooler until the results come back - again, within 14 - 24 hours. This in no way holds up the line and it is a simple matter of storage. Of course, if the plant is killing hundreds of animals per day, then storage may be a concern, but generally, it is not due to the rapid test. Hope this answers your question.
 
One more Question,Looking at whole animal burger ,is their a time value when the test has to be run or could you transport urine for a couple of hrs .then run the test and transmit the results as the animal has cooled enough to process?
 
The urine will remain viable for testing for quite some time. It should be transported to the lab as fast as possible and not allowed to heat up but rather to best remain cool. Of course the result can be sent by fax or e-mail from the lab to the rslaughterhouse and the meat processing can either continue or the carcass can then be pulled aside, depending on the lab result.
 
Looking into the IDEA of transporting urine over to Canada for a urine BSE test.What is the exact temp in C-F tempertures to hold urine at??What size sample in cc's.
 
Looking into the IDEA of transporting urine over to Canada for a urine BSE test.What is the exact temp in C-F tempertures to hold urine at??What size sample in cc's.
 
Frankly put, I think it has no substance. I will say that an animal that has been in the pasture for an hour in the hot sun may display a faster heart rate than one that has been sitting and chewing the cud. Also an animal that has just fed may also and one that has been subjected to the harassment of a calf may also show faster heart rates. Clouds of flies may elevate the rate along with running or simply walking a long distance to the barn! There are way too many variables in any given animal that can elevate the heart rate. Simple indigestion may do it. An infection of the gut may do it. Bloating may do it - do you see my point! Any test conducted MUST be free of anything that may provide questionalbe results, period! Otherwise it is not a reliable test.
PrP, normal prion and PrPc and PrPsc [abnormal Prion] are most certainly excreted through the urianl tract. Human CJD patients excrete PrPsc in their urine in various amounts. It is not generally consistent with the level of infection that we see the prion number rising, but more the length of time that the individual has been infected. Having said that, we see more concentrated/higher levels at the first morning pass than we do at say lunchtime or afternoon and evening. The bladder collects more urine normally when the individual is sleeping. We all excrete normal prions in our urine - every one of us walking the earth does it daily. We have shown that healthy indivduals will show low counts of normal prions on some days and then higher counts of other days. Some cultures show markely low amounts of normal prions - a section of China for example wherein the local population consistently show low trace amounts of nromal prions in their urine. This led the researcher to look into diet and other contributing factors. THe level of prion descetion was the same throughout the area in all ages of the population which led the researcher to focus almost exclusively on the local food produced and the diet of the people. We are still waiting for the data. Age in animals and humans will have an affect on the prion levels if that individual has been infected for some time. In humans, the progression rate of the disease is marked in decades generally. In animals in can be marked in months or low number years. The prion itself is self-replicating. The isoform protein will typically form itself into clusters within the brain and other parts of the central nervous system where it will multiply and in the brain it will manifest itself in the form of vacuoles [the typical description being the swiss-cheese effect] and it is these clustered prions in the vacuoles that bring about the disruption of the normal brain function. Depending on precisely where in the brain that the vacuoles occur, the level of symtomatic disorder may be markedly different than if the clusters were located in other parts of the brain. Typical symotoms in humans and animals at the onset of these symtoms is memory loss, ataxia[ shuddering, shaking] vision loss, mood changes, muscle movement loss or involuntary movements. The list of afflictions seem to endless for those animals and humans infected with this hideous protein.

Evidence of the urine contaminated with various levels of PrPsc [abnormal/infectious prions] can be found in the Archive Vaults at VLA Weybridge. They have collected urine from BSE infected cattle and Scrapie infected sheep for years now and it is available for lab testing. They have catagorically shown that infected aniamls excrete infectious prions along with normal prions. The level of infection will vary somewhat from one animal to another as it does in humans infected roughly at the same time. However, the time of infection generally will not dictate the amount of PK resistant PrPsc found in any individual animal or human. Some animals and humans will take far longer to progress through the stages of infection that will most certainly end in the death of that individual and some will actually outlive the disease. That is part of what makes this damn thing so hideous. I hope this answers your questions. Ron.
 
You may find that difficult in that you will be required to declare the contents of your shipment and the moment the border guys see the words Bovine Urine or Ovine Urine, that is when all wheels grind to a stop. Unless you can provide totally safe modes of transport and that may be difficult in light of the paranoia that surrounds BSE in this country. We can set it up so that the tests can be done in Montana. We have people there interested in taking on our test and that may be the place to do it and for sure it will save you the grief of having to deal with Canadian Customs.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top