You All Don't Realize

[Ben Roberts]

Randy, I don't play with the minds of self thinkers,(you can't) only those that can't think for themselves, lets do it! I have always supported you, RobertMac, PPRM and others for stepping outside the circle to make changes in the cattle industry.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[RobertMac]

Randy, I don't play with the minds of self thinkers,(you can't) only those that can't think for themselves, lets do it! I have always supported you, RobertMac, PPRM and others for stepping outside the circle to make changes in the cattle industry.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

I guess I can curtail my criticisms of NCBA...I'm sure you will have them straightened out in no time, Ben. :wink: Randy, I'm sure you can expect the full support and help from BMR and Miss Tam...with them behind you, you'll be a shoe-in.

Good luck to both of you...I know your opinions will be stated and, hopefully, will have an impact.

 

[Sandhusker]

Amen, Good luck. I hope you guys can get the ships turned.

 

[mrj]

Sandhusker, it is a fact that foodborne illnesses caused by BEEF have gone down! You claim inspections are going down.....is that because you do not consider the in-house inspections accomplished under HACCP with oversight by inspectors means Less inspection? Or do you have some other reason for that comment? HAACP, with it's actual bacterial tests, protocols for cleaning up problem areas and situations, HAS to be more effective than the old "look/see/smell" inspections.

While I don't know how/why e.coli contaminated meat can get out of a plant, I DO know that plants have spend huge amounts of money fighting that problem and have had some impressive successes AND the incidences of e. coli infections from beef have dropped dramatically and far faster than the industry working group a few years back thought it could happen.

PPRM, you are right, that may sound different than I intended......or you may have 'read' it differently due to your situation. I was NOT saying the current system of smaller packing plants.......because they already ARE inspected and must meet or exceed federal regulations. I WAS saying that to implement a total 'local food' system on the grand scale that some insist we must, would necessitate far more inspections/inspectors, OR result in food even less well inspected than is the current situation.

'Downer cattle' is an emotional issue, about as much as a health issue, IMO. They are no longer allowed into the food system. End of story. Oh, but what about the calf that breaks a leg in the chute before getting any sort of treatment?????

Do you really trust the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE tests for BSE to be TOTALLY accurate? It seems only logical that they are not adequate for the need. Beside the fact that the best of science available today indicates the SRM removal is effective in removing the POSSIBLY problem materials.

Re. your comments on e. coli testing.....how much is currently done? How much more would be necessary? What about the fact that incidences of infection from beef has declined? There has to be a point of diminishing returns, or something like that, in rates of inspections. OR nuke it, if we want sterilized meat.

cedardell, if you think the old food guidlines "killed the beef industry"..... you would really have that right....IF the members of NCBA had not led the industry fight to keep it in at all as an "approved" food! And our work has improved the position in the second good guidlines, and the work has already begun to secure a position as a 'healthful' food in the next one. Care to help? Call your state Beef Council and ask what you can do, or push them to do more work with your state health professionals.

That applies to you, too, RobertMac. Plus, where do you get off claiming NCBA has "chosen not to believe the researchers making claims against artificial fats"? NCBA chooses to make positive rather than negative statements re. beef nutrients. When the accredted research shows positive results for beef nutrients, it IS promoted. NCBA members do not LIKE it that credible research showing benefits of beef as a health food has been slow in winning over the well funded oils. We do have a committment to science, especially 'third party' research funded not by us, but by people without a vested interest in the outcome and believe it to be more likely accepted by consumers. That takes more time than most people like, but will be more successful in the long term, IMO.

Re. your insistence that humans have been heavy eaters of animal proteins and fats for lo these thousands of years........have we really? I'm not so sure our ancestors were all that great with the spears in the 'earliest' years to have given us a truly high meat diet......then, when we had to earn money or rely on our owners, or keepers to provide the food, I doubt it was a heavy meat diet.......even unto the previous generation, we really couldn't afford a high meat diet, or didn't have access to it due to storage problems. Many people ate more grains than meats till the last couple of generations, at most, didn't they????

BTW, RM, I believe you KNOW that I was not referring to your business, nor any like it, when pointing out the problems with the recent calls to eat only locally produced foods. AND, you are wrong.......NCBA's advertising is forALL beef in the USA, yours included!

The fact is that members set that NCBA policy. I'm sorry that you do not like it that more cattle producers have ideas counter to yours. I'm also sorry that you do not know that NCBA does talk to consumers on a very large scale in order to learn what they want from us before setting up the projects to address their wants. Membership among cattle producers `would not be increasing so rapidly if what you claim as failures of NCBA actually was happening.

Ben, are you saying you do not believe NCBA and it's predecessors and all the state affiliate cattlemens organizations, or Farm Bureau, Beef Improvement Federation, and any other cattle membership organizations have not solved of helped to solve or improved ANY of the problems plaguing the cattle industry over the years?

So, guys, have fun complaining, trashinc, and playing your little mind games here........while the members of NCBA keep on talking with consumers and working with others involved in our industry to make it better for all of us.

mrj

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

How many flavors does that Kool-Aid come in, MRJ?

 

[ranch hand]

'Downer cattle' is an emotional issue, about as much as a health issue, IMO. They are no longer allowed into the food system. End of story. Oh, but what about the calf that breaks a leg in the chute before getting any sort of treatment?????

Shoot it!

 

[Mike]

MRJ WROTE:
"Do you really trust the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE tests for BSE to be TOTALLY accurate?"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

MRJ, Do you REALLY trust the USDA to even administer a BSE test?

Think real hard back when PHYLLIS made a fool of APHIS and their experimental BSE tests that were found to TOTALLY flawed!!!!

***************************************************



USDA inspector general says BSE hunt is flawed
Robert Roos News Editor


Jul 14, 2004 (CIDRAP News) – A draft report by the inspector general of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) says the department's expanded surveillance program for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has several flaws that could lead to unreliable estimates of the prevalence of BSE in American cattle.

****************************************************

Truth be known, the "CURRENTLY AVALABLE" BSE tests are about as accurate as the USDA and APHIS WANTS them to be. :roll:

*****************************************************

Just to refresh your memory:

Hign Plains Journal
Both major BSE tests to be used
WASHINGTON (AP)--A third and more sophisticated test on the beef cow suspected of having bovine spongiform encephalopathy would have helped resolve conflicting results from two initial screenings, but the U.S. refused to perform it in November.

That additional test, ordered up by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's internal watchdog, ended up detecting BSE--a finding that was confirmed June 24 by the world's pre-eminent lab, in England.

Only 18 months ago, the department had used the Western blot test to help uncover the first U.S. case of the brain-wasting illness in cows.

The department is pledging that, from now on, it will conduct such testing on suspicious animals.

U.S. officials in November had declared the cow free of the disease even though one of two tests--an initial screening known as a rapid test--indicated the presence of the disease. A more sophisticated follow-up -immunohistochemistry, or IHC--came back negative.

"They had two diametrically opposed results which begged to be resolved," said Paul W. Brown, a former scientist at the National Institutes of Health who spent his career working on BSE-related issues.

"If you had what they had, you would immediately go to a Western blot and get a third test method and see which one of the previous two was more accurate," Brown said.

Consumer groups and scientists urged the department to perform a Western blot test and seek confirmation from the lab in Weybridge, England.

In a letter to Consumers Union last March, the department said there was no need for the British lab to confirm the results and that the Western blot test wouldn't have given a more accurate reading.

"We are confident in the expertise of USDA's laboratory technicians in conducting BSE testing," wrote Jere Dick, an associate deputy administrator.

Troubled by the conflicting test results, the department's inspector general, Phyllis Fong, ordered the Western blot test this month. By the time an aide notified Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, the testing was under way.

The testing was positive. The department then sent tissue samples to the British lab, which subjected the samples to all the tests again.

Johanns, amid an uproar from the cattle industry, was irked that she did so without his knowledge or consent.

"From my standpoint, I believe I was put there to operate the department and was very disappointed," he told reporters early June 24.

By that afternoon, the verdict from Britain was in: The cow had BSE.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Ben, are you saying you do not believe NCBA and it's predecessors and all the state affiliate cattlemens organizations, or Farm Bureau, Beef Improvement Federation, and any other cattle membership organizations have not solved of helped to solve or improved ANY of the problems plaguing the cattle industry over the years?

So, guys, have fun complaining, trashinc, and playing your little mind games here........while the members of NCBA keep on talking with consumers and working with others involved in our industry to make it better for all of us.

mrj

Maxine, Since 1985 the former National Cattlemen's Association (now) the NCBA has done a great deal for the beef packing industry, and have done little if anything for the cattle producers of this country or other countries!

I'm a member of the NCBA, I am working with consumers, and others like RobertMac, Randy Kaiser and PPRM involved in our industry to make it better for all of us! Thank you for your continued encouragement.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[rkaiser]

MRJ

So, guys, have fun complaining, trashing, and playing your little mind games here........while the members of NCBA keep on talking with consumers and working with others involved in our industry to make it better for all of us.

Why is it that "complaining, trashing, and playing your little mind games" is the best way to explain opposition to the status quo. Beside MRJ, I think every one of the folks you named in your little rant would agree that a voice for the producer is needed and in a lot of ways NCBA and our CCA have a purpose. In fact, many of the things being accomplished are beneficial, however most often the big picture is forgotten. The big picture that shows a free and honest industry with room not only for those with volume and so called efficiency, but those with heart and soul as well. Like those who work at off farm jobs (over 70% of farm income in my province comes from off farm sources) but also want to treat their land and cattle as more than a hobby.

The continued efforts of the current system to profit from those down the chain rather than find ways to increase competition and thus profit from a wider consumer net are not worked on hard enough. If you want to call that criticizing and complaining - be my guest.

To hear you continually defend the packers choice not to test for BSE boggles my mind. Can you not see testing for what it truly is - an opportunity to open markets. Open markets and "more" consumers always means "more" MRJ - always. Even if you continue to believe in a trickle down of that "more" to producers, it is still more.

Would you rather see the growing number of aware individuals who are choosing "local food" or a "more natural approach" head to the "grass finished Australia" or "Grass finished Brazil" section of the Whole Foods supermarket. Saying that NCBA or our CCA support and encourage diversity in these natural or simply different trending areas is a joke. The focus is and always has been on a grading approach which encourages similarity --- for who's benefit????? The packer who wants everything at his end to be ---- efficient :roll: --- and easy to CONTROL. A word that seems to be continually ignored by folks like yourself.

Our national groups are doing a fine job advertising and then not even asking for a commission back from the company's they sell beef for. They are doing a good job of dealing with all of the little specific agenda issues, but have lost track of the main reasons that the family farm or ranch is falling behind the economic world or else depending on the inflationary value of their land to survive another day.

When the day comes that NCBA or CCA do not step up and defend the wishes of the packing industry to keep things controlled and the same, we will finally move ahead in this industry.

I sometimes wish Ben - that I could move and live in the good old USA as I feel that you are one step ahead of us in the diversity game. With over 80 per cent of our packing industry owned by two "game players" (to use an MRJ phrase) and a BSEconomic situation that has made things even easier for these pirates to play, our situation is tough. We do - on the other hand have an opportunity to turn things around, and sometimes those little things that are handed to those who jump in and take full advantage can turn around and bite them in the ash.

For those of you who are interested in the BSE testing situation and are not of the opinion that it would simply stir up a situation that is simply fine. :roll: ---- take a look at the testimony of the Ranchers Beef plant closure here in Alberta.

Check out the affidavit of Tony Martinez - pages 6 and 7
http://www.alger.ca/engagements.htm#ranchers

 

[mrj]

ranch hand, surely if you are involved in raising cattle you have witnessed accidents where a very healthy animal gets a serious injury, but is turned into perfectly good beef, either on the ranch or at the local beef processing plant, haven't you?

Mike, what and where is an infalible BSE test........or which are the 3 or 4 most reliable tests CURRENTLY available in the world and are they available in the USA? What level of training or education is necessary for people administering and evaluating those tests?

I've asked this question before and got no answer, which makes me wonder if there are any.

You guys who insist you KNOW that USDA is culpable and intentionally making errors and doing the bidding of the packers have yet to relate the brand of your crystal ball from which you receive that reading!

And re. mistakes in testing from that undated HPJournal, why is that NOT an indication of the problems of unweildy bureaucrcy, probably innefective tests, and possibly even posturing by individuals to show the new 'boss' who really runs the department? None of which is good, but IS more likely than conspiracy theories.

Ben, if you are so certain of your claims, why do you fail to offer documentation, even anectdotal

rkaiser, your friends are not opposing the status quo, so much as working to go back in time to what the cattle business was in the 'good old days', IMO.

NCBA has for years, and with many successes, worked to bring some badly needed changes to the cattle/beef industry. These gains were made by working with EVERYONE from farm gate to consumer plate in areas of beef safety, new product development, and finding and providing consumers with more accurate beef nutrient information, to name a few areas of improvement.

Who are you, rkaiser, to determine who in the cattle/beef industry does and who does not have "heart and soul"? I say there are people in ALL sizes of cattle operations who could give the lie to your insinuations that "those with volume and so called efficiency" do not have "heart and sole". Fact is, there are many cattlemen in every size operation who have contributed greatly to the advancement of the business out of the goodness of their heart and love of the industry.

You fail to understand that I'm not defending any "packers choice not to test" (and how do you KNOW that is their motive, btw?). What I "defend" is the necessity for testing to be dependent upon availability of highly accurate tests controlled by designated regulatory agencies.

What verification do you have for your statement re. grading of beef? It is not realistic to believe the MAJORITY of beef will be sold through the 'niche' markets any time soon. However, it is a fact that NCBA has provided speakers and information about various niche markets at virtually every meeting for years, obviously they are supportive because there are members supplying such markets.

I believe NCBA has worked for uniformity for cattle in the COMMODITY beef market because the majority of consumers do desire similar, replicable, familiar cuts of beef. I KNOW NCBA has worked to change the grading system, with less success than the members desire.

BTW, do you packer bashers believe packers "want to" or try to provide consumers with the beef they want to buy, or not?

Re. "advertising" for the packers? Who do you believe makes the most profit on beef sales? Who do you believe sets the prices beef sells for at retail? Most importantly, is it better for cattle producers if more beef is sold, or if less beef is sold? What, specifically, is NCBA doing that "keeps things controlled and the same"?

Maybe you are letting your hatred of packers and others whom you believe to have an advantage of either size and/or efficiency of operation, or maybe even just good luck, over you eat up your common sense.

mrj

 

[PORKER]

What I "defend" is the necessity for testing to be dependent upon availability of highly accurate tests controlled by designated regulatory agencies.

The EUropean packers have lab technicians,who else could it be?

 

[rkaiser]

Obviously nobody is going to convince you MRJ, that there are problems with the current system. If you think for a minute that I hate or am jealous - please keep dreaming in your own reality. I have said many times that I am doing fine and also said that I am amazed at the tactics used by the multinational packers to convince folks like you to keep working for them with little more than a service workers wage. But I guess you have never actually sat down and penciled out your profits - have you MRJ. If you are one of the fortunate, or lucky or big and efficient :roll: good for you. But please do not tell us all that you made it by dealing with the conventional cattle market over the past 20 or 30 years.

If you want to keep denying that the industry, at the primary producer level, is not in trouble, that is your business, but please stop trying to tell me the same. Drive around MRJ and talk to people outside of your reality. I wish you could have had a crack at surviving the last 4 years of BSEconomics here in Alberta on the family farm. Your view of the packer may have changed as well. But then again, you don't see even the situation here as lop sided to the packers do you dear.

I am not talking about good old days - I am talking about a brighter tomorrow, with hope and profit for folks who work hard and deserve more.

Back to the name calling again I see. Packer bashers :lol: Better look back and collect some of Scott Hubers insults - might make you an even better NCBA mouthpiece.

Most importantly, is it better for cattle producers if more beef is sold, or if less beef is sold?

I like where you are going with this one. MOST IMPORTANTLY you say. Most important however to stop Creekstone farms and Ranchers beef here in Canada from selling more beef.

Have a good evening MRJ.

 

[RobertMac]

NCBA has for years, and with many successes, worked to bring some badly needed changes to the cattle/beef industry. These gains were made by working with EVERYONE from farm gate to consumer plate in areas of beef safety, new product development, and finding and providing consumers with more accurate beef nutrient information, to name a few areas of improvement.

Over the last thirty years, the beef industry has been declining...particularly for producers. Until you accept this fact, no one can help you. Do some research outside of beef.org!

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/

 

[mrj]

rkaiser, and RM beef.org is NOT the only source of information I see/hear. You cannot show where I said there are no problems in this industry, because I've never said such a foolish thing! If there were no other problems, I would regard as problematic people like you who POST such vitriol against a necessary part of the beef industry, whether you do or do not admit to FEELING hatred.

Packers are NOT the only, and most likely not even the major, REASON cattle producers dependent solely upon their cattle for a living (as am I) have difficulty showing a profit. First just might be land prices inflated by people making their money outside agriculture. In our case, a large factor has been buying the land which many assume we inherited free of cost. Time spent actually tending to care of land and cattle, knowledge and application of best practices for the land one is using, matching type/quality of cattle produced to ones environment and market for those cattle, skill in marketing the cattle all play a very large part in profitability. Most likely the biggest factor affecting profitability is excessive government regulation and taxation, especially local and state taxes. A not insignificant factor is whether one takes cattle to the local auction and asks "what will you give me", rather than determining price and marketing the cattle accordingly. There are too many people getting a 'cut' of the profit from our cattle without really adding to the value, and the sale barns which have not upgraded their facilities to eliminate excessive shrink on the cattle, injuries while being worked through the yards, and other 'invisible' damage to the muscles costs all of us money, as well. The best managed sale barns may be a benefit, but far too many are a detriment, IMO. There ARE high cost, low or no profit ranching operations, and there are low cost, profitable ranching operations. That is a fact of life. The days when most farmers/ranchers could survive quite well whether they showed a real profit or not......if they ever really existed.

You have not convinced me that packers caused BSE, or have gained by that problem. Since you imply that packers are profitable in the extreme, what is your verification of that claim? Packers are a fact of life. Unless you have a sure way to make a profit raising and selling cattle without the infrastructure (everything after the farm gate, till it reaches the consumers shopping bag) of the modern beef industry in the USA. The costs of all that infrastructure is collected by, and is blamed upon, the packer, isn't it, with both the producer and the consumer bearing the end costs. More heavily the producer because we have not yet figured out a way to make them eat our product if most of them believe the cost is more than they are willing to pay.

You have presented NO facts validating your claims that NCBA members are not working for a "brighter tomorrow" and profitability for hard working cattle producers. When virtually every word you write is critical of packers and NCBA with, what more gentle and accurate word might it be called than "bashing"???

You must be confused. Not allowing Creekstone to sell beef "tested" for BSE when those tests are not 100% reliable, and which implies that any beef not tested is unsafe when the science available today says that SRM removal and other protocols leaves the remaining beef safe, makes no sense.

RM, aside from the MANY reasons for lack of profitability in agriculture in general, there is the hard fact that many ranchers have left the business for a couple of other reasons:

One, more people find the extremely long hours required to care for animals not worthwhile when they can get an education and a job which pays quite well for 'bankers hours' leaving time for all important recreational opportunities.

Two, back in Homesteading days, a very large number of acreages were too small to support a family even in the original times (1906 and later in western SD and some other western states). The families never acquired more land base, and simply never had an adequate number of cattle. Along with that fact, with modern tools, fewer people can effectively manage far larger acreages and cattle numbers than previously.

Ben, when old injuries brought a painful hour in the night, I got to wondering, which committees of NCBA did you serve on? Which Beef Checkoff projects have been most helpful to you in establishing your successful beef business? Which leaders adnd/or staff people do you feel have been especially helpful to the cattle producer in the past and currently? Members need to share these thoughts with one another in order to improve the organization, don't you agree?

mrj

 

[Ben Roberts]

You guys who insist you KNOW that USDA is culpable and intentionally making errors and doing the bidding of the packers have yet to relate the brand of your crystal ball from which you receive that reading!

Ben, if you are so certain of your claims, why do you fail to offer documentation, even anectdotal

rkaiser, your friends are not opposing the status quo, so much as working to go back in time to what the cattle business was in the 'good old days', IMO.

NCBA has for years, and with many successes, worked to bring some badly needed changes to the cattle/beef industry. These gains were made by working with EVERYONE from farm gate to consumer plate in areas of beef safety, new product development, and finding and providing consumers with more accurate beef nutrient information, to name a few areas of improvement.




I believe NCBA has worked for uniformity for cattle in the COMMODITY beef market because the majority of consumers do desire similar, replicable, familiar cuts of beef. I KNOW NCBA has worked to change the grading system, with less success than the members desire.

BTW, do you packer bashers believe packers "want to" or try to provide consumers with the beef they want to buy, or not?

Re. "advertising" for the packers? Who do you believe makes the most profit on beef sales? Who do you believe sets the prices beef sells for at retail? Most importantly, is it better for cattle producers if more beef is sold, or if less beef is sold? What, specifically, is NCBA doing that "keeps things controlled and the same"?

Maybe you are letting your hatred of packers and others whom you believe to have an advantage of either size and/or efficiency of operation, or maybe even just good luck, over you eat up your common sense.

mrj

Maxine, you will never find in any of my post, where i've said that I hated packers. In fact, i've been one of the few that have stated that we need the packers and have advocated that the producers contract with packers in a working relationship.

When you say that I fail to offer documentation of my claims, I have to wonder if you ever question the claims of the NCBA? I have lived most of the life that I write about, I've seen, heard and done most of what I despise that is happening in the cattle industry today, and i'll admit, i'm not proud of some of the things i've done to producers in the past. You have one of my books, turn to page 252, and you will find there a few of my sources, like the 1917-1918, House Documents Vol 95 of a 9,000 page report of the Justice Department to the Federal Trade Commission on the Meat-Packing Industry, or quotes from Philip Danforth Armour and Gustavus Swift of that era, and quotes from Charles Jennings and Currier Holman from the present, or are forgetting that I knew most of these men, that changed the industry into what it is today.

You ask questions, of others about what we think, then when our answers are not what you want to hear, even with documentation, you bring in the NCBA as the gospel. The everyday functions of the USDA or the NCBA are not controled by the packers, but the direction they are going is, can't you understand that. I also doubt, that you know the answers to the questions you ask. Show me where the packers, are providing the consumers, the kind of beef they want to buy. Myself, RobertMac, PPRM, Randy Kaiser and others talk to more consumers in one day, than you talk to in a month or a year, we listen, you and the NCBA don't.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Ben Roberts]

Packers are NOT the only, and most likely not even the major, REASON cattle producers dependent solely upon their cattle for a living (as am I) have difficulty showing a profit. First just might be land prices inflated by people making their money outside agriculture. In our case, a large factor has been buying the land which many assume we inherited free of cost. Time spent actually tending to care of land and cattle, knowledge and application of best practices for the land one is using, matching type/quality of cattle produced to ones environment and market for those cattle, skill in marketing the cattle all play a very large part in profitability. Most likely the biggest factor affecting profitability is excessive government regulation and taxation, especially local and state taxes. A not insignificant factor is whether one takes cattle to the local auction and asks "what will you give me", rather than determining price and marketing the cattle accordingly. There are too many people getting a 'cut' of the profit from our cattle without really adding to the value, and the sale barns which have not upgraded their facilities to eliminate excessive shrink on the cattle, injuries while being worked through the yards, and other 'invisible' damage to the muscles costs all of us money, as well. The best managed sale barns may be a benefit, but far too many are a detriment, IMO. There ARE high cost, low or no profit ranching operations, and there are low cost, profitable ranching operations. That is a fact of life. The days when most farmers/ranchers could survive quite well whether they showed a real profit or not......if they ever really existed.
mrj

Maxine, what does every industry, corporation and company, above the producer level, in agriculture do to keep from absorbing these additional cost you talk about, to stay a solvent industry, corporation or company?

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "You must be confused. Not allowing Creekstone to sell beef "tested" for BSE when those tests are not 100% reliable, and which implies that any beef not tested is unsafe when the science available today says that SRM removal and other protocols leaves the remaining beef safe, makes no sense."



You're just throwing mud and hoping some of it sticks. First of all, who told you the tests were not 100% reliable? Secondly, that is up to Creekstone and their customers, the Japanese. You, me, and NCBA doesn't have a dog in that race. Thirdly, implications are subjective. It may imply "safer" to somebody, "needless cost" to somebody else, and "maybe if the price isn't much more" to somebody else. Fourth, if you're going to ban BSE tested beef because of the implications on non-tested beef, you had better ban hormone-free, natural, CAB, and the majority of advertising in all products, because implications are a huge and much used marketing tool. Fifth, SRM removal only decreases the chances of ingesting the prions, it sure doesn't eliminate it.

What makes no sense is a cattlemen's organization that supports policies that cost US producers lost sales and money on the flimsiest of reasons. However, it makes perfect sense for a group that supports US multi-national packers. You can preach the gospel according to NCBA all you want, but their actual practices paint another picture.

 

[RobertMac]

You must be confused. Not allowing Creekstone to sell beef "tested" for BSE when those tests are not 100% reliable,...

E.Coli testing is not 100% reliable...should we stop that testing????

 

[PPRM]

mrj,

sorry to not reply....I've got a great cow with the exception of her handling her first set of twins. It is going well now, but took up my computer time....

PPRM, you are right, that may sound different than I intended......or you may have 'read' it differently due to your situation. I was NOT saying the current system of smaller packing plants.......because they already ARE inspected and must meet or exceed federal regulations. I WAS saying that to implement a total 'local food' system on the grand scale that some insist we must, would necessitate far more inspections/inspectors, OR result in food even less well inspected than is the current situation. I agree with this version.......



'Downer cattle' is an emotional issue, about as much as a health issue, IMO. They are no longer allowed into the food system. End of story. Oh, but what about the calf that breaks a leg in the chute before getting any sort of treatment?????mrj

Depends...Define Good beef.......But first let me address one thing...My butchers comments weren't in regards to broken legged calves...If you live near major Dairy and Feedlot areas, you would be beter able to know what I am describing...It is more like the walking dead, except they can't do that...Those are the cattle with Slimy meat.

They did not get that way overnight. Mrj, I don't know you, but do know that you would likely not approve of the outfits that make these kind of cattle. It is nothing short of neglectfull....They are a disgrace to our industry and Animal husbandmanship...there is a point where a bullet is the most hmane thing and the best ambassadorship we have.....

Back to good beef....I can choke down Hamburger from a broken legged calf wthat has not been fattened, but I personally would not consider it good...

People that buy my Hamburger tell me it is unlike any they have ever had unless they are old timers. Then they will state it has been years since they have had beef that good......Why is that? Mine has flavor, but not the fat....You can cook it and not have to drain any grease.....

And people all the time comment on how it is never tough......Imagine that! Our commodity beef has gotten to the point of where there are people that hesitate to eat it because the ground product is tough......Why is that???? My personal opinion is we have gone to far trying to make a penny off of the last scrap of meat that we get other stuff in there too often......Also, to get near the lean mine is, much of it has real old cows or IMPORT LEAN....mine has niether and I am nearly always out charging $3.50/ pound for it...

And lest you think I am off my rocker as far as good beef....A local High end restauarant features my steaks because of the qality and consistency....

But back to the Broken legged calf......If I choose to eat it, or reperesent it that way, I know it won't have come from Something with Slimy meat. That representation of what it is and selling it as such is doing so with integrety...That is my main thing....Let the customer know and decide.....It is different than the good hamburger from good calves that are finished properly....So, while different than the downer calf...My thought is there are apppropriate and innappropriate things to do with it.....I just donated one to our Local Agape House. I would not sell or mix the burger with what I normally sell....

BTW, the Local Restaurant balked at my burger originally because of the price...They just threw out 40 pounds from a competitior and are now buying mine.....Like I said, they are highend. Aren't we recognized as a nation able to make high end better than any other? Being consitent and not trying to slip thing by does make a difference....

Do you really trust the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE tests for BSE to be TOTALLY accurate? It seems only logical that they are not adequate for the need. Beside the fact that the best of science available today indicates the SRM removal is effective in removing the POSSIBLY problem materials.mrj

No test is 100% in any industry....Best available Science at one time said the world is flat......

I think being open and transparent that we are an industry doing everything possible and testing as much as possible would do more than the few scares from false positives.......Has the few false positives the current sustem produced killed our market?

Re. your comments on e. coli testing.....how much is currently done? How much more would be necessary? What about the fact that incidences of infection from beef has declined? There has to be a point of diminishing returns, or something like that, in rates of inspections. OR nuke it, if we want sterilized meat. mrj

Nuke it is fine, just label it as nuked....Give people the choice....

Based on the size of the recalls, more testing would pay for itself by readily recognizing problems...I worked for a French Fry plant that had sevral million pounds recalled for potential metal problems...Nearly every manager at that plant lost thier jobs...I kept mine as i was a management trainee..I learned a lot from that experience....We tested a lot for quality and frequently because it paid. It was not outside testing nor mandatory...

Yet, our industry seems to just recall?????? THe arguements for more testing actually mirror the ID stuff.....Ifyou can recognize and trace problems you reduce the amout that gets quarenteened or recalled...I know from my 10 years in food processing, mostly as a QA Supervisor....

 

[RobertMac]

...there is a point where a bullet is the most hmane thing and the best ambassadorship we have.....

My personal opinion is we have gone to far trying to make a penny off of the last scrap of meat that we get other stuff in there too often...

That representation of what it is and selling it as such is doing so with integrety...That is my main thing....Let the customer know and decide.....

Aren't we recognized as a nation able to make high end better than any other? Being consitent and not trying to slip thing by does make a difference....

No test is 100% in any industry....Best available Science at one time said the world is flat......

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think being open and transparent that we are an industry doing everything possible and testing as much as possible would do more than the few scares from false positives.......

Bravo!!! Great post, PPRM