Ben, apparently, I didn't make it clear enough that I was referring to others who, by implication, very often show their dislike, even hatred, of corporate, multi-national packers. I sometimes don't get the name of writer to whose comment I reply close enough to my reply. Sorry about that. I definitely do agree that, on a large scale, it probably would be unwise for ranchers to become packers.
What "claims" of NCBA? I've SEEN many projects, programs, research and cooperative efforts between NCBA, CBB, industry beyond the producer and feeder, become effective in bringing home to producers an improvement in their bottom line. The BQA program is one. The damage to producers when a consumer, or even a packer, finds a disgusting infection from an improperly given injection in a piece of beef is very real. So is the sheer loss of product from many of the other problems addressed in BQA training. Educational programs with medical providers, Food Service personnel, educators of kids, nutrition professionals all build confidence in beef as a nutrient valuale food. Surely you are not one of those who believe those efforts help only the packer or retailer, are you? IMO, the major reason beef demand is not increasing faster is due to not enough checkoff dollars to reach even more consumers with the educational messages. Advertising works, of course, but where nutrition is concerned, education seals the deal when we have such a nutrient rich product as beef is.
I'm sorry, but your 'documentation' is heavy on anecdotal evidence, and short on third party corroboration, IMO. For instance, you show no proof other than your BELIEF that JoAnne Smith was 'placed' in positions of power in NCBA in order to accomodate packers' wishes, do you? BTW, I'm not so much "bringing in NCBA as the gospel" as I am pointing out specific projects in the works, or accomplished by the federation division, or stating policy positions of the dues division.
I will plead guilty to asking questions........but please, will you admit I get few answers???
Many challenge me on my lack of faith in BSE testing by Creekstone, or any other company, for that matter. NO ONE has stated specific reliable tests available, nor the level of expertise necessary for accuracy in adminitering and reading and interpreting tests.
What is your basis for being so certain NCBA and USDA are being pushed or led into a certain direction by packers? Why is that more likely that that the direction is determined by the consumers. I see NCBA members and Beef Checkoff leaders as trying to influence that direction by better educating consumers as to what beef is and what it can do for their diets. Lord knows, consumers have long been misled by competing proteins,such as the poultry industry convincing government that their 'white meat' was synonomous with better health in humans! And the oilseed merchants with their 'safer' fats. You know the job we in the cattle/beef industry had to do to keep from being unfairly painted as a dangerous luxury! Now that we have a foot in the door of respectability as a beneficial and healthful food, we have got to take advantage and get full recognition of what we have in beef. Time spent infighting between industry segments is time wasted, IMO.
Surely you can't really believe that NCBA does not talk to and listen to consumers, can you?
Since you believe I'm so ill-informed and blindly led, please tell me point blank what it is that "industry, corporation or company above the producer level does to keep from absorbing these additional costs"?
Sandhusker, no one has told me the tests were not reliable. NO ONE has answered with facts about what tests are available, their accuracy rate, and level of education and training is required to read the tests. More important, no one shows that it is possible, let alone feasible to test every critter going to slaughter for human consumption, and no one has shown that the best available science is wrong when saying SRM removal protects the meat from BSE contamination.
E coli testing and efforts to control that factor HAS resulted in a decline in illnesses attributed to beef as the source. No doubt you won't believe that because the packers, along with virtually all other players in the industry, have put lots of their own money and time into attempts to eliminate the problem of e coli contamination. They have had some disappointments, but have made some real gains in that effort.
PPRM, I do realize there is a vast difference in a young, healthy animal which has had an accident and one which is totally worn out and/or diseased. I agree that the latter has no business going to slaughter, certainly not for human food. There are educational programs aimed at those who send that type of cattle out, too. But real enforcement will probably be necessary to stop it entirely.
We have sold enough cattle for beef, and had enough guests who rave about the beef we eat (which is quite different, being retired roping steers up to 7 years old, from our top quality feeder calves which go to market) that we recognize the extra flavor of 'home raised, grass fat beef'. We attribute at least some of that to the maturity of the cattle, and some of them are not the most tender in the world and require proper preparation, but still bring rave reviews. And yes, this points up the need for different steaks for different folks! Our hamburger also hardly has enough fat to lubricate the pan. And when it does carry a little more fat, there is more flavor, and the fat is easily poured away. I've NEVER disputed or questioned the quality of your, RM's, or rkaisers homegrown beef. And more power to you on what you can get paid for it. Chances are, there still will need to be a low cost beef product for lower income US consumers for a long time to come.
Why do you say "our industry continues to just recall"? You cited in-house testing for quality, and I believe that is getting bigger, and will continue to do so as those companies advertise to the effect that they are doing more testing for quality. I feel the BSE testing, until the tests are better, is not going to be beneficial because the science indicates the SRM removal is adequate protection. Yes, I realize some CLAIM it is not, but it just doesn't make sense to abandon the science which at this point seems valid.
I too, value differing OPINIONS. Just do not appreciate being shouted down and called names by those whose opinions DIFFER from mine.
mrj
