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

WHEN WILL THE AMI ALLOW THE USDA TO PERMIT TESTING

Help Support Ranchers.net:

WHEN WILL THE AMI ALLOW THE USDA TO PERMIT TESTING

  • NEVER BECAUSE IT IS AN UNECCESARY COST

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • WHEN THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
When will the AMI allow the USDA to do 100% testing,its just a matter of time till the American consumer realizes,the beef they are eating is not good enough for the Japanese............good luck
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,659
Reaction score
21
Location
South Central Montana
HAY MAKER said:
When will the AMI allow the USDA to do 100% testing,its just a matter of time till the American consumer realizes,the beef they are eating is not good enough for the Japanese............good luck


Just curious, who gets to pay for the tests?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Hanta Yo said:
HAY MAKER said:
When will the AMI allow the USDA to do 100% testing,its just a matter of time till the American consumer realizes,the beef they are eating is not good enough for the Japanese............good luck


Just curious, who gets to pay for the tests?

Common business practices would dicate the customer would pay for the tests unless the company felt justified in eating the costs for whatever reason. Tested beef would be an "extra", and not a requirement for anybody - something you could take or leave.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
rkaiser said:
I'll choose #3

When Cargill and Tyson decide.

You are right about that, rkaiser, but #2 is Tyson and Cargill's choice.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Hanta Yo said:
HAY MAKER said:
When will the AMI allow the USDA to do 100% testing,its just a matter of time till the American consumer realizes,the beef they are eating is not good enough for the Japanese............good luck


Just curious, who gets to pay for the tests?

Common business practices would dicate the customer would pay for the tests unless the company felt justified in eating the costs for whatever reason. Tested beef would be an "extra", and not a requirement for anybody - something you could take or leave.
Sandhusker all we have heard on here is how the packers are money greedy crooks so just how many of those companies do you think will be willing to EAT THE COST OF TESTING when they have two options to recoop the cost. First being, trying to recoop the cost by passing it on BUT they take the chance of loosing customers to a cheaper protein and the other is to PASS IT BACK and that means PAYING LESS FOR CATTLE. Would your bank just eat a bad loan or would they try recoop the loses by the least business damaging means possible? And BSE Tested BEEF would not be an EXTRA, it would be EXSPECTED at the cost of somebody THE PRODUCER. Because any beef not labeled BSE tested would be seen as unsafe beef even though the test means nothing on younger cattle and those not within weeks of showing symtoms.

its just a matter of time till the American consumer realizes,the beef they are eating is not good enough for the Japanese............
Tell us Haymaker how long will it take for the US consumer to start demanding all US beef be tested if the USDA allows 100% testing for market access? Sandhusker seems to think the BSE TESTED label would be only seen in Japan as it is the Japanese consumers that are asking for it, even if it doesn't mean BSE FREE like they ASSUME.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, "Sandhusker all we have heard on here is how the packers are money greedy crooks so just how many of those companies do you think will be willing to EAT THE COST OF TESTING when they have two options to recoop the cost. First being, trying to recoop the cost by passing it on BUT they take the chance of loosing customers to a cheaper protein and the other is to PASS IT BACK and that means PAYING LESS FOR CATTLE. Would your bank just eat a bad loan or would they try recoop the loses by the least business damaging means possible? And BSE Tested BEEF would not be an EXTRA, it would be EXSPECTED at the cost of somebody THE PRODUCER. Because any beef not labeled BSE tested would be seen as unsafe beef even though the test means nothing on younger cattle and those not within weeks of showing symtoms."

I don't think you thought your arguement very far thru, Tam.

1) Companies eating the costs; I didn't say they would, I said customers would pay UNLESS a company decided to eat the cost. It's their choice.

2) Losing to a cheaper protein source; That cheaper protein source could be untested beef. Didn't think of that, did ya. :wink: If they won't eat untested beef, they were already lost to us.

3) Tested beef would not be an extra; I think it would. Why? When formulating an opinion, I look at examples readily available to us. Comparing tested beef to hormone free, organic, etc.... should be a pretty fair comparison. Do producers have to pay all the extra costs of providing that product? If not, they why would tested beef be any different?

4) Untested beef would be seen as unsafe; Again, look at examples already available to us. Is non-organic beef seen as unsafe? How many problems is the availablity of organic beef causing us?

Let me throw something else at you; If somebody wants tested beef and somebody is prepared to give it to them, who are you to stand in the way? Is it really any of your business?

Quote:
its just a matter of time till the American consumer realizes,the beef they are eating is not good enough for the Japanese............
Tell us Haymaker how long will it take for the US consumer to start demanding all US beef be tested if the USDA allows 100% testing for market access? Sandhusker seems to think the BSE TESTED label would be only seen in Japan as it is the Japanese consumers that are asking for it, even if it doesn't mean BSE FREE like they ASSUME.


More examples are out there, Tam. There are several countries who will not accept poultry products if it originates from certain states. When do you think the US consumer realizes the chicken they are eating is not good enough for others........

One final shot - how do you know what the Japanese consumers level of knowledge is? How do you know what they are assuming and what they know? Who's job is it to decide what is acceptable for Japanese consumers, you or them?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
1.Sandhusker why do you refuse to believe that the Packers also have the CHOICE OF MAKING THE PRODUCER PAY?
2.And I take it by your answer that you don't care what consumers ASSUME about the BSE tested label. Wouldn't it be cheaper to teach the consumer about the test and that it is not USED as a FOOD SAFETY TOOL? Why not put a label on the beef that really means something like " SRM's REMOVED" At least that would tell the consumer about the safety of the meat and not allow the assumption that it is safe because it was TESTED.
3. Sandhusker really who pays for producing organic beef and Hormone free beef if it not the producers? what do the packers have to do with the cost of producing those two products. If the packers are the ones flipping the out of pocket cost of the test they will be looking to recoop it you can bet your life on that in the anyway they can so not to damage the demand for their product BEEF.
4. if untested beef will not be assumed unsafe why are you so strongly supporting the testing on beef going to Japan. We all know that the test doesn't prove a thing about the meat we ship there as it is to young to get a positive result. You want to play on the emotions of the Japanese but claim that US consumers don't have the same emotions. :roll:
Let me throw something else at you; If somebody wants tested beef and somebody is prepared to give it to them, who are you to stand in the way? Is it really any of your business?
it is my business if the person giving the customer what he wants, expects me to pay for it out of the price I get for my cattle?
its just a matter of time till the American consumer realizes,the beef they are eating is not good enough for the Japanese............
Tell us Haymaker how long will it take for the US consumer to start demanding all US beef be tested if the USDA allows 100% testing for market access? Sandhusker seems to think the BSE TESTED label would be only seen in Japan as it is the Japanese consumers that are asking for it, even if it doesn't mean BSE FREE like they ASSUME.


More examples are out there, Tam. There are several countries who will not accept poultry products if it originates from certain states. When do you think the US consumer realizes the chicken they are eating is not good enough for others....
...............
Tell Haymaker Sandhusker he is the one that brought up the idea that US consumer are going to realize the beef they eat isn't good enough for the Japanese and if they do realize that are they going to eat US BEEF untested?
One final shot - how do you know what the Japanese consumers level of knowledge is? How do you know what they are assuming and what they know? Who's job is it to decide what is acceptable for Japanese consumers, you or them?
How do you know what the US consumers level of knowledge is on the USDA INSPECTED LABEL or IMPORTED BEEF ISSUE ? DO you have a credible study or are you assuming they know nothing? How do you know what they are assuming and what they know? Again do you have a credible studing to back up your ASSUMPTION on what the US consumer knows or are you assuming they don't know what that label means as they don't know you import beef? Who's job is it to decide what is acceptable for US consumers YOU OR THE USDA? And my final shot why is it the only R-CALFERS can assume with out proof but all others are to bring the facts and documented proof to prove their assumptions.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, you go to a store and compare prices at the meat counter. Are prices for organic beef compared to "regular" beef;
A) Higher
B) Lower
C) No distinction
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, since you've had all day to answer this question but have chosen to ignore it, I'll file it under "closed cases". :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam, since you've had all day to answer this question but have chosen to ignore it, I'll file it under "closed cases". :wink:
I was sewing this afternoon Sandhusker and I will answer you on MY TIME Not yours OK. As I doubt you will look it up yourself. :wink:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,174
Reaction score
408
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker Would help you wait if you knew that Tam lives 100 miles from a grocery store that might have "Organic" beef. The stores in Canada and the US that are closer wouldn't carry it.
Organic has not been marketed as "commodity " beef until recently. It was in a "Specialty class that mostly was farmgate marketed because it does cost more to produce " Hormone free" if their is such a thing or "Organic".
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Saskatchewan
Sandhusker: Organic production while becoming more mainstream is still a niche marketing program as in volume comparisons to base commodity production. Increase production too much and the price premiums will rapidly erode leaving the producer with the extra cost of production. There is only a certain percentage of the consuming public that is willing or able to pay a premium for such production. My biggest gripe against organic production (and yes you can extend it to BSE tested meat) is that it specifically infers that it is a safer, more nutritious product than the the regular commodity product; a claim that often is without any scientific basis or fact!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
cowsense said:
Sandhusker: Organic production while becoming more mainstream is still a niche marketing program as in volume comparisons to base commodity production. Increase production too much and the price premiums will rapidly erode leaving the producer with the extra cost of production. There is only a certain percentage of the consuming public that is willing or able to pay a premium for such production. My biggest gripe against organic production (and yes you can extend it to BSE tested meat) is that it specifically infers that it is a safer, more nutritious product than the the regular commodity product; a claim that often is without any scientific basis or fact!

There are a lot of inferences in a lot of products. As long as nobody is getting hurt and no product is being mis-represented, I think government needs to step aside and let a producer meets a consumer's wants. Do we need/want big brother to regulate our shopping so everything we buy is based on science? That would sure take a lot of products off the store shelves.

Tams and my disagreement was on who would pay for the tested beef. I think the obvious parallel is organic beef where the consumer pays a higher price (don't bother going to the store, Tam, you know I'm right) for the specialty product. I don't see why tested beef would be any different.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker Would help you wait if you knew that Tam lives 100 miles from a grocery store that might have "Organic" beef. The stores in Canada and the US that are closer wouldn't carry it.
Organic has not been marketed as "commodity " beef until recently. It was in a "Specialty class that mostly was farmgate marketed because it does cost more to produce " Hormone free" if their is such a thing or "Organic".

BMR, do all the folks who voted for you in your leadership positions know they voted for a guy who has to go to the store to see if organic is selling for more than regular? :wink:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,174
Reaction score
408
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
cowsense said:
Sandhusker: Organic production while becoming more mainstream is still a niche marketing program as in volume comparisons to base commodity production. Increase production too much and the price premiums will rapidly erode leaving the producer with the extra cost of production. There is only a certain percentage of the consuming public that is willing or able to pay a premium for such production. My biggest gripe against organic production (and yes you can extend it to BSE tested meat) is that it specifically infers that it is a safer, more nutritious product than the the regular commodity product; a claim that often is without any scientific basis or fact!

There are a lot of inferences in a lot of products. As long as nobody is getting hurt and no product is being mis-represented, I think government needs to step aside and let a producer meets a consumer's wants. Do we need/want big brother to regulate our shopping so everything we buy is based on science? That would sure take a lot of products off the store shelves.

Tams and my disagreement was on who would pay for the tested beef. I think the obvious parallel is organic beef where the consumer pays a higher price (don't bother going to the store, Tam, you know I'm right) for the specialty product. I don't see why tested beef would be any different.


Sandhusker does it cost more to produce Organic beef?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
cowsense said:
Sandhusker: Organic production while becoming more mainstream is still a niche marketing program as in volume comparisons to base commodity production. Increase production too much and the price premiums will rapidly erode leaving the producer with the extra cost of production. There is only a certain percentage of the consuming public that is willing or able to pay a premium for such production. My biggest gripe against organic production (and yes you can extend it to BSE tested meat) is that it specifically infers that it is a safer, more nutritious product than the the regular commodity product; a claim that often is without any scientific basis or fact!

There are a lot of inferences in a lot of products. As long as nobody is getting hurt and no product is being mis-represented, I think government needs to step aside and let a producer meets a consumer's wants. Do we need/want big brother to regulate our shopping so everything we buy is based on science? That would sure take a lot of products off the store shelves.

Tams and my disagreement was on who would pay for the tested beef. I think the obvious parallel is organic beef where the consumer pays a higher price (don't bother going to the store, Tam, you know I'm right) for the specialty product. I don't see why tested beef would be any different.


Sandhusker does it cost more to produce Organic beef?

I thought the topic was BSE tested beef and who would pay for it. You want to start a new thread?
 

Latest posts

Top