Voluntary BSE testing for animals over 20 months

[DiamondSCattleCo]

If a company were to purchase an approved kit, from either the CFIA or the USDA, would you support allowing them to BSE test any animal over 20 months that they saw fit to test?

On this poll, I'm especially interested in hearing the reasons for or against.

 

[RobertMac]

I vote yes to both because when dealing with unknowns, and there are a lot of unknowns with BSE, the more data you have, the better the chance of coming up with solutions. The more scientist looking at that data, the better the chance of coming up with solutions. Producer leadership had better get their head out of the sand because the ultimate price for negative BSE effects will be paid by producers.

 

[Econ101]

I vote yes to both because when dealing with unknowns, and there are a lot of unknowns with BSE, the more data you have, the better the chance of coming up with solutions. The more scientist looking at that data, the better the chance of coming up with solutions. Producer leadership had better get their head out of the sand because the ultimate price for negative BSE effects will be paid by producers.

Yes because the introduction of one diseased bull can ruin you. For $20 to $40 more, you can at least take another step in making sure bse is not introduced into your program. Of course, you need to have a program where the herd was tested over time to make sure you don't get it. You as a producer, can do what the Canadian and US ag depts. have failed to do in protecting the health of your cattle.

BSE is still a small risk, but one that can be managed if the USDA would let you manage it.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Yes because the introduction of one diseased bull can ruin you. For $20 to $40 more, you can at least take another step in making sure bse is not introduced into your program.

Thats a good point Econ, at least in so far as the live animal BSE tests are concerned. To avoid adding that to the controversy, I was trying to stick to currently approved USDA/CFIA tests, and I believe that those tests require the animals to be slaughtered, so no way to help prevent spreading the disease into your breeding stock.

But I'm going to start another poll on this topic, thanks.

Rod

 

[rkaiser]

No true cattle producer in North America can ignore the fact hat BSE is costing him\her money. BSE is all about money. Testing has potential to open markets and put money in the producers pocket. This argument is ridiculous. The position that Scotty and Tam have taken is ridiculous. Tim's position is at least somewhat credible as he knows that BSE is only about money and hates the fact that testing will only shift some of that money around. Excessive supply - plus - controlled demand - equals captive market in anyone's books. Captive market means disadvantage producer folks - it's as simple as that. Testing will not cost the producers of North America - it will pay.

 

[Econ101]

Yes because the introduction of one diseased bull can ruin you. For $20 to $40 more, you can at least take another step in making sure bse is not introduced into your program.

Thats a good point Econ, at least in so far as the live animal BSE tests are concerned. To avoid adding that to the controversy, I was trying to stick to currently approved USDA/CFIA tests, and I believe that those tests require the animals to be slaughtered, so no way to help prevent spreading the disease into your breeding stock.

But I'm going to start another poll on this topic, thanks.

Rod

For slaughter only the answer is still yes. If it doesn't hurt the beef, any additional information about its suitability for consumption even if it is over and beyond the low standards that the USDA sets, it is good.

I hope we have a zillion tests preformed, they all come back negative, and we realize that we truely have conquered this risk. If it doesn't turn out that way, at least we can start dealing with the truth instead of sweeping it under the rug because of greed and liability.

 

[Sandhusker]

Question for the loner who voted "no"; Why not?

 

[HAY MAKER]

I say test em all,think of all the problems it would solve............good luck
PS I dont even want to hear it SH,customers are asking for testing,give it to them.

 

[Bill]

I vote yes to both because when dealing with unknowns, and there are a lot of unknowns with BSE, the more data you have, the better the chance of coming up with solutions. The more scientist looking at that data, the better the chance of coming up with solutions. Producer leadership had better get their head out of the sand because the ultimate price for negative BSE effects will be paid by producers.

Yes because the introduction of one diseased bull can ruin you. For $20 to $40 more, you can at least take another step in making sure bse is not introduced into your program. Of course, you need to have a program where the herd was tested over time to make sure you don't get it. You as a producer, can do what the Canadian and US ag depts. have failed to do in protecting the health of your cattle.

BSE is still a small risk, but one that can be managed if the USDA would let you manage it.

????????BSE can be passed from bull to cow? BSE is now a contagious disease Econ?

This is getting wilder by the minute. :roll: :roll:

 

[Tam]

No true cattle producer in North America can ignore the fact hat BSE is costing him\her money. BSE is all about money. Testing has potential to open markets and put money in the producers pocket. This argument is ridiculous. The position that Scotty and Tam have taken is ridiculous. Tim's position is at least somewhat credible as he knows that BSE is only about money and hates the fact that testing will only shift some of that money around. Excessive supply - plus - controlled demand - equals captive market in anyone's books. Captive market means disadvantage producer folks - it's as simple as that. Testing will not cost the producers of North America - it will pay.

Why is it ridiculous to want to spend our money on insuring that our true food and animal health safety measures are not being violated Randy? I never said I wouldn't go along with voluntarily testing OTM Cattle. I realize there is a higher risk to these animals. I just happen to think the money could be better spent inspecting plants to make sure that if the test was wrong, which they have known to be, we are still not putting any ones life at risk because we overlooked the possible SRM removal violations. I don't agree with testing UTM cattle as even Creekstone admits the test they planned to use wouldn't detect anything. By spending the money where is does the most good which is inspections of slaughter plants and feed mills and shoring up our safeguards we are protecting our consumers and our herd from the spread of BSE. I believe a proper survelliance system is very important and if someone feels an animal should be tested by all means test her. But I asked the CFIA if we could test slaughter animals and their answer was no as Canada didn't have the infrustructure to do that volume of testing (ie manpower, or lab space) They also told me that even if we did test slaughter animals that wouldn't get us out of our committment to test 4D cattle that we are required by the OIE to do. So as I see it You can demand it all you want but if we don't have the capabilities we can't do the testing.

 

[Anonymous]

Tam

But I asked the CFIA if we could test slaughter animals and their answer was no as Canada didn't have the infrustructure to do that volume of testing (ie manpower, or lab space) They also told me that even if we did test slaughter animals that wouldn't get us out of our committment to test 4D cattle that we are required by the OIE to do. So as I see it You can demand it all you want but if we don't have the capabilities we can't do the testing.

But they had plenty of funds available to build that infrastructure if they hadn't been handing it out to the Packers as a BSE payment.....Much of which could have been regained with increased sales during the three years the exports were closed......

Decisions were again made for Short term Big Packer economic gain- rather than for long term viability of the industry and safety of the consumers...

 

[Bill]

Through this whole mess CFIA has set the policy and has basically been accountable to no one. Without a doubt if the willingness had been there to test, the cost of setting up the infrastructure would have easily been recovered. Billions of dollars of Canadian producer's equity have been lost due to their stance on not testing OTMs.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Through this whole mess CFIA has set the policy and has basically been accountable to no one.

Bingo. CFIA, CCIA, and it looks like even the CCA, since they support this ludicrous ban on private testing over 20 month livestock, is losing touch with what the producers require.

Rod

 

[Bill]

Through this whole mess CFIA has set the policy and has basically been accountable to no one.

Bingo. CFIA, CCIA, and it looks like even the CCA, since they support this ludicrous ban on private testing over 20 month livestock, is losing touch with what the producers require.

Rod

It is accurate to say that unfortunately CCA has also been part of the problem. There are a few aound the CCA table who have at one time or another been supportive of testing OTMs however they have not been in the majority. It is frustrating to see the good work that CCA along with others did with our ID program and then watch them keep fumbling the ball on testing that would allow us to expand our export markets.

One correction though Rod, CCIA is only in charge of our ID program and has no influence on anything outsdide that mandate.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

One correction though Rod, CCIA is only in charge of our ID program and has no influence on anything outsdide that mandate.

Oh yep, I know. Lousy wording on my part. The CCIA thing was in reference to a mandatory age verification thread that went on a couple months back. While I fully support M_ID, I'm beginning to wonder where our 12 million a year is going, since they haven't done anything since their inception.

I find the CCA especially frustrating since they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. When BSE first hit, and the US shut the borders, the genuine good folks in the CCA were all about finding us new markets and talking about how we needed to reduce our reliance on the US. Now we've blown an age verification opportunity AND a BSE testing opportunity, and the CCA has just watched it all happen without lifting a finger of protest.

Rod

 

[Tam]

Tam

But I asked the CFIA if we could test slaughter animals and their answer was no as Canada didn't have the infrustructure to do that volume of testing (ie manpower, or lab space) They also told me that even if we did test slaughter animals that wouldn't get us out of our committment to test 4D cattle that we are required by the OIE to do. So as I see it You can demand it all you want but if we don't have the capabilities we can't do the testing.

But they had plenty of funds available to build that infrastructure if they hadn't been handing it out to the Packers as a BSE payment.....Much of which could have been regained with increased sales during the three years the exports were closed......

Decisions were again made for Short term Big Packer economic gain- rather than for long term viability of the industry and safety of the consumers...

Tell us Oldtimer the US hasn't handed any money out to your packers does the US have the infrustructure to test the same percentage of cattle you seem to think Canada should test? And again the testing is NOT a food safety issue as the test can be wrong or did you forget the Texas Cow? That is the main reason I say the money could be better spent making sure the REALLY FOOD SAFETY MEASURES ARE NOT VIOLATED!!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Tam

But I asked the CFIA if we could test slaughter animals and their answer was no as Canada didn't have the infrustructure to do that volume of testing (ie manpower, or lab space) They also told me that even if we did test slaughter animals that wouldn't get us out of our committment to test 4D cattle that we are required by the OIE to do. So as I see it You can demand it all you want but if we don't have the capabilities we can't do the testing.

But they had plenty of funds available to build that infrastructure if they hadn't been handing it out to the Packers as a BSE payment.....Much of which could have been regained with increased sales during the three years the exports were closed......

Decisions were again made for Short term Big Packer economic gain- rather than for long term viability of the industry and safety of the consumers...

Tell us Oldtimer the US hasn't handed any money out to your packers does the US have the infrustructure to test the same percentage of cattle you seem to think Canada should test? And again the testing is NOT a food safety issue as the test can be wrong or did you forget the Texas Cow? That is the main reason I say the money could be better spent making sure the REALLY FOOD SAFETY MEASURES ARE NOT VIOLATED!!!!!!

Creekstone has already invested the money and built the laboratory- they are ready to go...They should not be stopped from allowing their consumers to buy the product they want- which is tested beef...

This on again- off again charade with Japan, Korea, and the rest of Asia could go on for years- From what the USDA says, its impossible to remove all bone material- that a percentage is allowed by most countries- but how long will it be before Japan closes the door over a bone particle? or some other reason?...Their consumers and public said they don't want it if its not tested- so all the politicians are looking for is another excuse to slam shut the door- which wouldn't be open now if the US govt. hadn't put political pressure on their government...It wasn't the Japanese consumers demanding its return that brought it back....

You've already lost 3 years trade in Canada- and still have no solid markets open besides the states- and no market open for OTM beef- How long do you ride a dead horse :???:

And like the Aussies say- it will affect their exports little, because Japanese consumers don't want untested beef- from either Canada or the US, which has been pretty well shown by the piddly amounts Canada has shipped to Japan......

 

[Tam]

One correction though Rod, CCIA is only in charge of our ID program and has no influence on anything outsdide that mandate.

Oh yep, I know. Lousy wording on my part. The CCIA thing was in reference to a mandatory age verification thread that went on a couple months back. While I fully support M_ID, I'm beginning to wonder where our 12 million a year is going, since they haven't done anything since their inception.
I find the CCA especially frustrating since they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. When BSE first hit, and the US shut the borders, the genuine good folks in the CCA were all about finding us new markets and talking about how we needed to reduce our reliance on the US. Now we've blown an age verification opportunity AND a BSE testing opportunity, and the CCA has just watched it all happen without lifting a finger of protest.

Rod

They haven't done anything since their inception.CCIA according to ROD :roll: CCIA since their inception has gone from voluntary ID with bar code tags to manditory with RFID tags with upgrades to handle the extra data. They have went from M'ID to upgrading to include voluntary age verifing by birthdate. They haven't stopped there the CCIA are now working on a system that can TRACK MOVEMENT. Do you think the updated data base and personel to handle Manditory ID, age vertification or the upgrading that will have to be done to track all animals is going to come cheap. Do you think the travel it took to sell the system we have to ALL PRODUCERS was cheap.and the extra travel it will take to explain and sell them on the new tracking system. Do you think the research the CCIA did in finding the best tags both bar code and NOW RFID was cheap? You are just sore because you were told by the CCIA that your manditory age was not going to be forced as they saw it as a weak link to the integruity of the system that our export markets are counting on to age vertify the beef we will be exporting to them.

And how have we blown the age verification opportunity Rod? By letting it be driven by the industry and not mandating it so producers rebell against it? What will really blown the age verification opportunities will be if a few of the more rebellious producers that are forced by your manditory plan are fined by the CFIA for providing unverifiable or false information. Just what do you think that will do to the credibility of the system you seem to think we HAVE TO HAVE if we are ever going to export beef again. :roll:

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

They haven't done anything since their inception.CCIA according to ROD :roll: CCIA since their inception has gone from voluntary ID with bar code tags to manditory with RFID tags with upgrades to handle the extra data. They have went from M'ID to upgrading to include voluntary age verifing by birthdate. They haven't stopped there the CCIA are now working on a system that can TRACK MOVEMENT. Do you think the updated data base and personel to handle Manditory ID, age vertification or the upgrading that will have to be done to track all animals is going to come cheap. Do you think the travel it took to sell the system we have to ALL PRODUCERS was cheap.and the extra travel it will take to explain and sell them on the new tracking system. Do you think the research the CCIA did in finding the best tags both bar code and NOW RFID was cheap? You are just sore because you were told by the CCIA that your manditory age was not going to be forced as they saw it as a weak link to the integruity of the system that our export markets are counting on to age vertify the beef we will be exporting to them.

And how have we blown the age verification opportunity Rod? By letting it be driven by the industry and not mandating it so producers rebell against it? What will really blown the age verification opportunities will be if a few of the more rebellious producers that are forced by your manditory plan are fined by the CFIA for providing unverifiable or false information. Just what do you think that will do to the credibility of the system you seem to think we HAVE TO HAVE if we are ever going to export beef again. :roll:

I promised myself I wouldn't respond to anymore of your posts, but I'm going to make an exception in this case, since I feel its important that Canadian taxpayers know whats happening to their money.

The most expensive part of the M_ID process was selling it to producers. And it was a TOUGH sell to many, if not most. I've had to head project teams that were putting in systems against the will of the workers, and fighting against people's will is tough indeed. I don't envy the job that the travellers had, nor the people who had to take the phone calls from growly old cattlemen.

But thats the only tough job the CCIA has had. Development of a miniscule little system like the one that they have is peanuts. If anyone doesn't believe me, then I ask them to find a friend whose a business systems analyst, someone who does cost analysis. Ask them how much it would cost for a distributed system capable of handling a few billion rows of data, in two tables, with 5 web enabled update pages, and another 10 informational HTML pages. Tell them its a micro based system that interfaces to a mainframe SQL database. If they come back with a number any greater than $10,000, I'll be shocked.

Then ask them how much it would cost and how much time to unload the SQL tables, add a field to the database, reload the data, then add another couple update pages with the birthdate. If they say any longer than 2 days, including testing and implementation, they need to find new jobs. They sure wouldn't be working on one of my project teams.

As an aside, one of my project team members took sick a couple weeks ago, and I had to fill in for him. I wrote 5 complex web-based entry screens hitting 17 tables. It took me a week, including testing.

My point Tam? I know how much it costs to write these systems. If the CCIA hired contractors who charged hundreds of thousands of dollars, then they got taken for a free ride. I know dozens of contractors who could have wrote the exact same thing, implemented and trained a staff, and had it working in under a month, including requirements gathering.

Now, if the CCIA isn't using a mainframe backend, but rather some kind of client-server backend, the upgrades would be a little more complex. The data entry screens wouldn't be any more difficult, but to add server power would take a couple days to configure another couple boxes.

As another aside, 3 P4 servers running MicroSoft SQL Transaction Server can do complex processing on 100 BILLION rows in 120 tables in under 1/2 hour. The CCIA database isn't anywhere near 100 billion rows. Dell sells fantastic P4 servers for $3500 Cdn (I may be high here, its been awhile since I looked at Dell's site) each with RAID 5 capabilites.

Tell me something, an honest question: How is it that a private company like ScoringAg (and no, I'm not advertising for them, it was just the first one that popped to mind) can build a system that will handle MORE data than the CCIA system, including tracking, build it faster, cheaper, have manual data entry, and cost less per entry than our own? Don't tell me cheaper wages. Systems developers in the US make far more money, on the average, than Canadian developers. Thats why alot of our young cream coming out of school move straight to the US.

As far as the tags go, the CCIA should have never bothered. Straight skip to the RFID tags, which were already in existence. Wasting manufacturers and producers time was all they did with those stupid ear tags.

As far as your arguement about producers rebelling against age verification, I don't buy it. Its part of the sell. You honestly tell a producer that age verification will help him gain access to other markets besides the US, and you'll win over most of them. Thats the same arguement that was used against M-ID in the beginning, and look what happened? Sure the CCIA had to tolerate some real SOBs and PIAs, but when it all came out in the wash, things were fine. Age verification will be the same thing.

And you can skip the being sore garbage, Tam. I am a mature adult whose been in business since he was 17 (when I wrote my first commercial software package). Just because I know whats happened and happening behind the scenes, and I'm not willing to tow the company line doesn't mean I'm sore about anything. I'm a Canadian taxpayer and my family have been Canadian cattle producers before there even was a Canada. I have a stake in this industry and I'm not shy to let people know when they're full of crap or being led around by the nose.

Rod

 

[bse-tester]

As far as having the infrastructure in place, what are we talking about here? A good network of labs, with qualified lab technicians who can process up to 2000 or more tests per day (Batch testing on the first go-round). Consider a lab that has a good number of technicians and the total amount of tests per day will be much higher. The general feeling is that it is impossible to test all cattle and that could not be further from the truth. It is easy to conduct testing and it can be done throughout the life of the animal at any stage in its life and at any age - period!! Right up to and including when it goes to the kill-floor. Tests are not governed by the age of an animal but by the inability of governments to allow private labs to enter the arena. There are a number of very good labs across Canada and the USA that could easily conduct BSE testing on samples taken from live and/or dead animals. It is a matter of logistics, nothing more and nothing less. Apart from the fact that the CFIA has been wearing blinders for far too long and that the test being used by the USDA is nothing short of ridiculously ineffective, it is about time that the rules are changed. Sure, we can still maintain government control if necessary through a standard classification of what is an acceptable test and one that is sanctioned by the OIE/EFSA but the final assessments and standards are easily set right here in North America. The governments can easily provide a set of working standards to maintain an effective Risk Management System through quality control of those labs assigned the responsibility to conduct the testing. Again, it is all a matter of logistics and good common sense as to how something like a a national testing program could be set up to work properly. It is not rocket science to put a national plan into action that would see general testing for BSE take place in every Province and every State and on every animal destined for human consumption. All we need to do is get rid of the current draconian manner in which it is done now!! It is time to move into a new age wherein producers can determine their own future and how the market is accessed by being able to engage an inexpensive testing (US$10 -US$20 Maximum) protocol that will certainly provide them the ability to take their product to market bearing the stamp of having been tested for and proven to be free of BSE. And yes, that is entirely doable!!!