Texas Postpones Animal ID and Premise ID

[frenchie]

And you guys think that NAIS will clear more people than it implicates?? Please.. There's your big circle, right there.. Furthermore, that huge circle serves no purpose at all! ..

.You have no idea where cattle have come from without an I.D program.Would you rather they draw a circle around the whole U.S.A..rather than being able to identify the area the plant has drawn its cattle from.

AND, someone still has to contract BSE and probably die before the ball even gets rolling!! What sense does that make?

Now, if Otto & Sons had simply tested the cow for BSE *before* slaughter -- like Japan does -- nobody would have to die, and thousands of cattle raisers would be spared suspicion...

So you think that Texan Is going to go into a rotten ronnies and succumb to b.S.E the next day :roll: .

And here's something else to ponder... When the hardships of NAIS cause a bunch of computer & technology illiterate and/or punishment-weary producers to start raising for Tyson or Perdue or Smithfield,..

Either get with the program or get out. Ranching is a business.The only thing constant in life is change.And our ability to adapt.

What do you think will happen when NAIS fails to catch an outbreak of BSE in the US?? ..

You need to catch it through testing But what do you tell the press when you can,t trace it.....I,m sorry folks we lost the trail after the 2nd state border.We have no idea where this cow came from. The last owner only owned it for a yr.But don,t worry we test _% of our slaughter cattle.

.................
How will you even trace it without a mandatory I.D program.How do you have a national I.D program that allows people in certain states to move cattle between them without ID.

If I were you, though, I'd at least keep my mind open enough to consider the possibility that maybe the supposed benefits of NAIS aren't worth taking such a huge risk on..

Whats the alternative theory detect the diesease , but don,t bother to find its source and let it spread :?:

 

[Oldtimer]

frenchie- And what is the source for the BSE that has infected Canada? What cow infected all your country? :???: They have absolutely no idea because of the long incubation period in BSE- which makes ID tags and traceback virtually worthless with BSE...What cow infected the people that may die 10-20 years from now with vCJD?

USDA has openly admitted that M-ID would have little use in preventing either BSE or FMD- or the spread of either...Quarantine and strict import restrictions along with strong feedban safeguards will do much more to prevent the infection or spread of both diseases.......

 

[cmjust0]

You have no idea where cattle have come from without an I.D program.Would you rather they draw a circle around the whole U.S.A..rather than being able to identify the area the plant has drawn its cattle from

You're talkin yourself in circles here.. First you say you'd like to at least be able to draw a circle around the 'area' where the meat came from, as though each packing plant gets it's meat from a certain place... Then, later on, you talk about how we'll lose the trail after the 2nd state border without NAIS.. Make up your mind, chief..

Anyway, what I expect to happen would be for them to draw many, many circles in many different places to represent where the many, many cows came from that were in the thousands of possibly contaminated patties.. As in, dozens of little circles across an entire region of the country.. If there are two dozen clean cattle farms in each circle, how are they being helped by NAIS? THEY'RE NOT. They're made out to be suspects so the government can look like it knows what it's doing.. Where I come from, we call that a scapegoat.

So you think that Texan Is going to go into a rotten ronnies and succumb to b.S.E the next day

First of all, I have no clue what 'rotten ronnies' are... :lol: Second, the longer BSE lingers before it's diagnosed, the more people will be infected by a contaminated vat of liquified meat, and the more potential cows there will be to trace back on NAIS, which makes even MORE circles.. In other words, you just strengthened MY argument to test first, trace later.

Either get with the program or get out. Ranching is a business.The only thing constant in life is change.And our ability to adapt.

So, you would have no problem ranching for Cargill or Smithfield? Even when they tell you what to feed, when to feed it, when to implant, etc etc.. Even when they tell you that you have to switch to a birth-to-finish operation (like they told swine producers), or you don't get a contract?

If so, then fine.. Jump behind NAIS and give it 100%, bucko! Personally, I've never been much of a corporate wh*re, and I suspect that most of the folks here don't consider themselves as such either.

You need to catch it through testing But what do you tell the press when you can,t trace it.....I,m sorry folks we lost the trail after the 2nd state border.We have no idea where this cow came from. The last owner only owned it for a yr.But don,t worry we test _% of our slaughter cattle.

There's that '2nd state border' flip flop, BTW.. Wouldn't want you to think I wasn't paying attention.

Anyway, if you believe that we need to catch it through testing (as I do), then why are you so buddy-buddy with the same USDA who, at the behest of Tyson, *blocked* the voluntary BSE testing efforts of a packing plant who wanted to ship to Japan?

And, as far as what should they tell the consumer when they find a BSE+ cow in the supply BEFORE it hit their tables? Well, if I ran the USDA, I'd say "We saved you from mad cow! Aren't we great? And don't worry, because we'll keep testing 100% of your beef before it comes to your table, and we'll find the source of the disease and irradicate it." People would then believe that the USDA was doing the job it should be doing, and that they're safer because of it.. I just don't see a problem there?

How will you even trace it without a mandatory I.D program.How do you have a national I.D program that allows people in certain states to move cattle between them without ID.

The beef market's biggest problem with the last traceback was that the public knew there was a potential for contaminated meat on the market until the source of the contaminant was found.. And, isn't that what we're supposedly trying to protect with NAIS -- the *MARKET*? If we test at slaughter, we do more to protect the market than by having NAIS and not testing -- or, as I call it, *the current plan*.. In fact, mandatory testing would protect the market well enough on it's own that NAIS probably wouldn't even be necessary..

BUT, the big players don't want to bear the cost and aggravation of protecting the market through mandatory testing -- and they proved that when they had the USDA ban voluntary testing.. No, they want to pass the protection cost onto the producer -- YOU -- through NAIS, because they know that people can be made to believe anything if you throw enough propaganda at them.. Worked great for Hitler..

Want a more contemporary example? Look at where the Olympics are being held -- TORINO.. Not, Turin, as in "The Shroud of Turin," the one that supposedly covered Christ's body.. Nope, it's TORINO now.. Why? Because Dick Ebersole over at NBC decided that Torino sounded better than Turin when he visited there in '99. Look that up if you think I'm lying.

And can't you just hear an AgriGiant CEO in board meeting going, "Heck, by the time we're done, these hillbilly beef producers will be BEGGING to bear the burden of protecting the market! HAHAHAHA!!"

And, guess what? You are. Care for some more Kool-Aid?

 

[rk]

Well, there are three lines of thought regarding N.A.I.S. First is do nothing. I believe this one is just not viable option. We have to stand behind our product and instill confidence with the consumer. That can't happen the way we are going.

Second is testing for BSE. My question with this is if an animal tests positive, do you stop at simply disposing of it? If so, there is no accountability w/o traceability and the problem w/ BSE may never be fully eliminated. You'll finally have to test for everything that comes along, adding extra cost every time.

Third is id and traceability. I foresee this will be tough to implement, but we have to start somewhere and eventually the kinks will be worked out. If a concern arises---BSE, FMD or whatever, we'll have a way to hopefully isolate it quickly. This will minimize the impact on the market and the number of animals that may have to be nspected/quarantined/destroyed. Plus, it may help to identify causative factors. This is the only way to prevent recurrences, and I feel is the best long-term solution.

 

[frenchie]

You're talkin yourself in circles here.. First you say you'd like to at least be able to draw a circle around the 'area' where the meat came from, as though each packing plant gets it's meat from a certain place... Then, later on, you talk about how we'll lose the trail after the 2nd state border without NAIS.. Make up your mind, chief.
:

I reckon some kill plants draw from a larger area than others. 3 or 4 states..Either way...You need to be able to find the outer edge of the circle..... How do you do that without a national manatory ID program..one that elimates the ability to move unID ed stock.

Anyway, what I expect to happen would be for them to draw many, many circles in many different places to represent where the many, many cows came from that were in the thousands of possibly contaminated patties.. As in, dozens of little circles across an entire region of the country.. If there are two dozen clean cattle farms in each circle, how are they being helped by NAIS? THEY'RE NOT. They're made out to be suspects so the government can look like it knows what it's doing.. Where I come from, we call that a scapegoat. .

What do you think would happen in a major outbreak of any livestock diease.without N.A,I,S or any other mandatory I.d program..Those same clean farms you allude to will still be caught up in a circle only a much larger one as they won,t be able to deterimine a specific boundary . So they will make sure they take a lot bigger area to be safe including even more farms that were safe..If you honestly think that it will a bunch of little circles your dreaming it will be one big circle around all those little ones.

In 1953? They shut down the whole province of Sask for a F.m.d outbreak here in one small area..... Sask is roughly the size of 15 states. Think about it how many kill facilities in the U.S draw from that big an area. .

Second, the longer BSE lingers before it's diagnosed, the more people will be infected by a contaminated vat of liquified meat, and the more potential cows there will be to trace back on NAIS, which makes even MORE circles.. In other words, you just strengthened MY argument to test first, trace later.

That was right over you head was,nt it. By the time a person is known to be infected with human mad cow.There is no way to even trace where he became infected or whether it was 10 yrs ago, 20 yrs ago , 30 yrs ago .If your trying to say that they can trace human b.s.e back to a farmer..your really reaching there..

Either get with the program or get out. Ranching is a business.The only thing constant in life is change.And our ability to adapt.

So, you would have no problem ranching for Cargill or Smithfield? Even when they tell you what to feed, when to feed it, when to implant, etc etc.. Even when they tell you that you have to switch to a birth-to-finish operation (like they told swine producers), or you don't get a contract?

If so, then fine.. Jump behind NAIS and give it 100%, bucko! Personally, I've never been much of a corporate wh*re, and I suspect that most of the folks here don't consider themselves as such either.

So now I,m a Corporate wh*re because , I want to potect my herd from the spread of diease and I believe a mandatory I.d program is essential to get an diease outbreak under control.

Also because I care enough to keep diligent livestock records,feed records,to embrace new technology such as this computer that must make me a corporate wh*re too eh

My point about getting with the program ..Is that ranchers are producing food .. it comes with obligations where you like them or not.Its a cost of doing business.]If your computer & technology illiterate and/or punishment-weary producers ( your words)can,t get their#@**#@ sh*t together to remain independent operators thats their choice .Nobody is putting a gun to their head..How hard is it to write a ID # down and keep track of where you sold it.Business people all over the world continue to upgrade their education on a regular basis to keep up the skills they need to run a business. Why is ranching considered an exception.

Anyway, if you believe that we need to catch it through testing (as I do), then why are you so buddy-buddy with the same USDA who, at the behest of Tyson, *blocked* the voluntary BSE testing efforts of a packing plant who wanted to ship to Japan?

If you knew anything You would know that I have repeatdly stressed on this board the U.S testing program is using a questionable test for b.s.e. if you want to test them all go for it.But use a reputable test,knock yourself out.even do the ones that are under 30months as well ..If you really feel they need to be done. :?: .

And, as far as what should they tell the consumer when they find a BSE+ cow in the supply BEFORE it hit their tables?

Your a little late there my friend...It already hit the stores shelves in the Washington case.

Well, if I ran the USDA, I'd say "We saved you from mad cow! Aren't we great? And don't worry, because we'll keep testing 100% of your beef before it comes to your table, and we'll find the source of the disease and irradicate it." People would then believe that the USDA was doing the job it should be doing, and that they're safer because of it.. I just don't see a problem there?

There is a problem your damm test does ,nt work all the time as was proven by the Texas cow incident.

*? If we test at slaughter, we do more to protect the market than by having NAIS and not testing -- or, as I call it, *the current plan*..

Explain to me then....What good is your testing program.. if the meat still ends up on the store shelf.It happened with the Washington cow.. How is that possible..It was a tested animal

[/b]

 

[frenchie]

frenchie- And what is the source for the BSE that has infected Canada?

Duh...Dick.. Other B.S.E infected cows ..Why do you think we are testing,tracking and eliminating any herds in contact with a b.s.e animal

Actually Dick It was imported M.B.M .



Find them bulls yet Dick ;-)

 

[cmjust0]

I reckon some kill plants draw from a larger area than others. 3 or 4 states..Either way...You need to be able to find the outer edge of the circle..... How do you do that without a national manatory ID program..one that elimates the ability to move unID ed stock.

What do you think would happen in a major outbreak of any livestock diease.without N.A,I,S or any other mandatory I.d program..Those same clean farms you allude to will still be caught up in a circle only a much larger one as they won,t be able to deterimine a specific boundary . So they will make sure they take a lot bigger area to be safe including even more farms that were safe..If you honestly think that it will a bunch of little circles your dreaming it will be one big circle around all those little ones.

In 1953? They shut down the whole province of Sask for a F.m.d outbreak here in one small area..... Sask is roughly the size of 15 states. Think about it how many kill facilities in the U.S draw from that big an area. .

So now we should draw a huge circle around three or four states if a cow comes up with BSE, even though it's going to put an onus on a lot of clean farms in that area. When I consider the fact that my state, Kentucky, is one of the top beef producing states in the nation, that makes me a little nervous.. I have to consider the possibiliity that, since we produce so much beef, we're probably going to be in the circle more often than not, which has the potential to kill prices at *MY* salebarn.. But you seem to be OK with incriminating others, so long as it clears you.. That's just plain old selfish.. I learned in Kindergarten that there are better ways to get things done than being selfish...

That was right over you head was,nt it. By the time a person is known to be infected with human mad cow.There is no way to even trace where he became infected or whether it was 10 yrs ago, 20 yrs ago , 30 yrs ago .If your trying to say that they can trace human b.s.e back to a farmer..your really reaching there..

If you're not talking about human infections of vCJD, then you must be talking about the testing of cattle -- which isn't NAIS.. And NAIS is what you're arguing for.. Like I said before, I *agree* with you that it's BSE testing that will protect the markets.. Oh, but wait, later on in your post you talk about how testing doesn't work either..

You're really good at talking in circles, you know that? You should be in politics.. :roll:

So now I,m a Corporate wh*re because , I want to potect my herd from the spread of diease and I believe a mandatory I.d program is essential to get an diease outbreak under control.

Also because I care enough to keep diligent livestock records,feed records,to embrace new technology such as this computer that must make me a corporate wh*re too eh

My point about getting with the program ..Is that ranchers are producing food .. it comes with obligations where you like them or not.Its a cost of doing business.]If your computer & technology illiterate and/or punishment-weary producers ( your words)can,t get their#@**#@ sh*t together to remain independent operators thats their choice .Nobody is putting a gun to their head..How hard is it to write a ID # down and keep track of where you sold it.Business people all over the world continue to upgrade their education on a regular basis to keep up the skills they need to run a business. Why is ranching considered an exception.

No, a person is a corporate wh*re when they trade their independence and liberty for the percieved safety net of a nameless corporate benefactor.. And if you think for one second that producers will have the option of remaining independent once a good portion of their peers go to contract farming, you're deluding yourself.. How many independent poultry producers are left? Almost zero.. How many independent swine producers are left? Hardly any, and they'll be put under for good as soon as the USDA/Nat'l Pork Producers green light the new 'Trichinosis Free' pork project they've been working on.. And, no, I'm not making that up..

'Trichinosis Free' certification will be granted based on the conditions of the facility -- they won't even test the meat -- and those conditions have been basically written by the Nat'l Pork Producers and all the big meat packing companies who contract out their farming.. Think an independent will be able to get his place certified by the corporate puppets at the USDA? Please...

Pretty soon, the consumer will have two choices at the grocery: "Trichinosis Free," name-brand pork which can be left tender and juicy and doesn't carry the shadow of trichinosis -- which, BTW, isn't really even a threat anymore -- or 'generic' pork which people will still believe must be cooked to the consistency of shoe leather to be safe.. Who's gonna win that battle?

Think the same thing can't happen through the certification of name-brand beef as BSE free? Surely you're not so naive as to think that anyone would be able to remain independent as a result of their sheer wits and cunning and git'r'done attitude, when challenged with the industry/USDA certifying their contract beef as "BSE Free" based on conditions written up by the packing industry and aimed at contract growers?? :roll:

If you knew anything You would know that I have repeatdly stressed on this board the U.S testing program is using a questionable test for b.s.e. if you want to test them all go for it.But use a reputable test,knock yourself out.even do the ones that are under 30months as well ..If you really feel they need to be done.

Yes, I feel that it needs to be done to protect the market -- which is the primary goal.. Especially when the alternative is as intrusive and invasive and costly as NAIS.. Remember that NAIS isn't just about beef -- it's about chickens, goats, horses, pigs, cows, you name it.. And the big players get preferential treatment, as they're allowed to move their animals through with no individual IDs!! How any small producer (which makes up about 90% of beef production) can look at such blatant discrimination against small producers like themselves and STILL support it is just beyond me.. It absolutely defies logic.

Oh yeah, almost forgot.. There's that "testing good/testing bad" flip flop I mentioned earlier.. Just thought I'd point it out.

Your a little late there my friend...It already hit the stores shelves in the Washington case.
...
There is a problem your damm test does ,nt work all the time as was proven by the Texas cow incident.
...
Explain to me then....What good is your testing program.. if the meat still ends up on the store shelf.It happened with the Washington cow.. How is that possible..It was a tested animal

The Washington Cow tested negative in the ELISA test, but was coded 'loc' on the IHC test.. That meant that the tissue sample sent was from the wrong location of the cow's brain. Problem is, the ELISA and IHC test the same portion of brain. So, if they couldn't use the IHC test, then why did they use the ELISA test? Because the testers made a mistake.. They still could have used a Western Blot, which is more reliable than the other two.. However, the Western Blot wasn't part of the protocol at the time.

And, as far as the Texas cow goes, it came back positive in *TWO* rapid tests, right off the bat.. But then it came back negative on IHC test, so the USDA told everyone it was negative to keep the panic to a minimum.. Only later did they run the Western Blot, which confirmed what the first two tests had shown -- that it was clearly a case of BSE.. Duh..

The bottom line is that if testing were performed on every animal, every time, and were performed with a strict protocol developed not in the interest of Tyson, Smithfield, Swift, etc, but in the interest of ALL BEEF-EATING HUMAN BEINGS, BSE testing would be reliable. Oh yeah, and it would protect the markets as an added bonus.. Imagine that..

And, so far as trying to figure out where outbreaks in an individual cow began and having tracebacks and blah blah blah, know this: BSE is sometimes idiopathic, meaning that it develops with no known cause.. In other words, it can develop spontaneously for no reason.

Well gee whiz! So much for NAIS in that case, huh? :roll:

 

[cmjust0]

Duh...Dick.. Other B.S.E infected cows ..

Duh? :roll:

Read that idiopathic/spontaneous thing I wrote again and tell me that contact with other infected cows will *always* be the case...

Ya know, you're awfully sure of yourself to have so few actual facts at hand... I'd suggest doing a little research and laying off the Kool-Aid for a while..

 

[cmjust0]

Well, there are three lines of thought regarding N.A.I.S. First is do nothing. I believe this one is just not viable option. We have to stand behind our product and instill confidence with the consumer. That can't happen the way we are going.

Second is testing for BSE. My question with this is if an animal tests positive, do you stop at simply disposing of it? If so, there is no accountability w/o traceability and the problem w/ BSE may never be fully eliminated. You'll finally have to test for everything that comes along, adding extra cost every time.

Third is id and traceability. I foresee this will be tough to implement, but we have to start somewhere and eventually the kinks will be worked out. If a concern arises---BSE, FMD or whatever, we'll have a way to hopefully isolate it quickly. This will minimize the impact on the market and the number of animals that may have to be nspected/quarantined/destroyed. Plus, it may help to identify causative factors. This is the only way to prevent recurrences, and I feel is the best long-term solution.

No, doing nothing is not an option.. Do we simply test for BSE and dispose of the carcass without trying to trace the animal?? Well, given that some cases of BSE develop spontaneously with no known cause and that we've already got some decent firewall measures in place, we might as well.. However, I can certainly understand how some people might want to be able to trace that animal back quickly and see what the deal is..

Now, that being said, do we really need something as Draconian as NAIS to do that?? And, given that NAIS -- before it's even fully implemented!! -- is already full of loopholes like "Lot ID" versus "Individual ID" in favor high volume producers, can we even say that it'll be effective? If chickens come down with something similar in risk to BSE, how will NAIS help?? "Well, we're pretty sure it came from one of Tyson's chickens from their plant over in Anytown.." Wow. That only narrows it down to a few hundred thousand.. :roll:

To me, it seems like everything they're doing is geared toward making life more difficult for the small scale cattle producer, and producing as little headache as possible for the high volume producers.. And, as it happens, they're curtailing the rights of thousands of people who keep half a dozen laying hens and a rooster under an old camper top in the back yard.. They're putting a hardship on a 10 year old with a 4-H heifer.. They're making life difficult for the lady with a dairy goat who's just trying to make a few extra bucks selling lotion and soap.. You have to consider the rights of those people, too, when you think about NAIS, or you're just being selfish..

There are better, more reliable ways to protect the beef industry that do not place the burden on cattle producers and do not curtail the rights of people who just want to sell a few dozen brown eggs a week at the farmers market...

Put aside the USDA's propaganda of bad markets and outbreaks and everything else, and just ask yourself what sense it makes -- if there's such a risk -- that they won't even *allow* voluntary BSE testing right now.. Ask yourself why most big corporations get behind legislation -- Is it because it's good for the country and patriotic and in everyone's best interest, or because it's good for their wallet? Now, ask yourself why Tyson, Smithfield, Swift, etc., are all in favor of NAIS.. Ask yourself why YOU have to pay for RFID tags and permits and fees and face the threat of fines and everything else, when the cost to protect the market through BSE testing could be passed on to the consumer quite easily.. As a consumer, I certainly wouldn't mind beef being a few cents higher per pound if it was certified clean.. Would you? There are just too many questions, and too many things that don't make sense about NAIS..

And all I'm asking for is that everyone take a little time and really think hard about what's going on.. Clearly, the big AgriGiants want independent beef producers to be contract beef producers... Now ask yourself whether the USDA is in the cattle producers' corner or in the AgriGiants' corner..

The implications should be crystal clear..

 

[rk]

Well, there are three lines of thought regarding N.A.I.S. First is do nothing. I believe this one is just not viable option. We have to stand behind our product and instill confidence with the consumer. That can't happen the way we are going.

Second is testing for BSE. My question with this is if an animal tests positive, do you stop at simply disposing of it? If so, there is no accountability w/o traceability and the problem w/ BSE may never be fully eliminated. You'll finally have to test for everything that comes along, adding extra cost every time.

Third is id and traceability. I foresee this will be tough to implement, but we have to start somewhere and eventually the kinks will be worked out. If a concern arises---BSE, FMD or whatever, we'll have a way to hopefully isolate it quickly. This will minimize the impact on the market and the number of animals that may have to be nspected/quarantined/destroyed. Plus, it may help to identify causative factors. This is the only way to prevent recurrences, and I feel is the best long-term solution.

No, doing nothing is not an option.. Do we simply test for BSE and dispose of the carcass without trying to trace the animal?? Well, given that some cases of BSE develop spontaneously with no known cause and that we've already got some decent firewall measures in place, we might as well.. However, I can certainly understand how some people might want to be able to trace that animal back quickly and see what the deal is..

Now, that being said, do we really need something as Draconian as NAIS to do that?? And, given that NAIS -- before it's even fully implemented!! -- is already full of loopholes like "Lot ID" versus "Individual ID" in favor high volume producers, can we even say that it'll be effective? If chickens come down with something similar in risk to BSE, how will NAIS help?? "Well, we're pretty sure it came from one of Tyson's chickens from their plant over in Anytown.." Wow. That only narrows it down to a few hundred thousand.. :roll:

Well, what is your solution for a traceability system??

To me, it seems like everything they're doing is geared toward making life more difficult for the small scale cattle producer, and producing as little headache as possible for the high volume producers.. And, as it happens, they're curtailing the rights of thousands of people who keep half a dozen laying hens and a rooster under an old camper top in the back yard.. They're putting a hardship on a 10 year old with a 4-H heifer.. They're making life difficult for the lady with a dairy goat who's just trying to make a few extra bucks selling lotion and soap.. You have to consider the rights of those people, too, when you think about NAIS, or you're just being selfish..

This is a product safety and consumer confidence issue, not one of "big guy versus little guy" I am considering the liveliehoods of livestock producers.....no traceability in the event of disease outbreak can mean destroying some animals needlessly because the cause can't be accurately pinpointed. As far as being selfish, what about the liveliehoods of livestock producers that can be jeopardized in the event of such an outbreak when there is no traceability??


There are better, more reliable ways to protect the beef industry that do not place the burden on cattle producers and do not curtail the rights of people who just want to sell a few dozen brown eggs a week at the farmers market...

Well then what are they???

Put aside the USDA's propaganda of bad markets and outbreaks and everything else, and just ask yourself what sense it makes -- if there's such a risk -- that they won't even *allow* voluntary BSE testing right now.. Ask yourself why most big corporations get behind legislation -- Is it because it's good for the country and patriotic and in everyone's best interest, or because it's good for their wallet? Now, ask yourself why Tyson, Smithfield, Swift, etc., are all in favor of NAIS.. Ask yourself why YOU have to pay for RFID tags and permits and fees and face the threat of fines and everything else, when the cost to protect the market through BSE testing could be passed on to the consumer quite easily.. As a consumer, I certainly wouldn't mind beef being a few cents higher per pound if it was certified clean.. Would you? There are just too many questions, and too many things that don't make sense about NAIS..

It is good for the industry....many in the industry/corporations understand risk posed is greater with no effective traceability system.

And all I'm asking for is that everyone take a little time and really think hard about what's going on.. Clearly, the big AgriGiants want independent beef producers to be contract beef producers... Now ask yourself whether the USDA is in the cattle producers' corner or in the AgriGiants' corner..

Where does this come from? I haven't heard it---maybe just haven't been listening. Please offer some logic/proof to substantiate this. Have you heard someone in the corporations express this desire or do something to indicate such???

The implications should be crystal clear..

If you feel NAIS is not answer, what do you feel is alternative for a solution that will offer traceability (you stated need for in your first paragraph)???

 

[cmjust0]

Well, what is your solution for a traceability system??

Heck, I wouldn't even mind NAIS if it was applied fairly to everyone who produced animals intended to hit the supply chain -- but it's not. And, by fairly I mean that EVERY animal moving into the supply chain would be identified individually.. The problem is that the big AgriGiants will *never, ever* let that happen, because they don't want the aggravation and expense that they're so willing to shove upon the small scale cattle producer.. Another stipulation would be that those who keep animals for their own use wouldn't be subject to NAIS.

This is a product safety and consumer confidence issue, not one of "big guy versus little guy" I am considering the liveliehoods of livestock producers.....no traceability in the event of disease outbreak can mean destroying some animals needlessly because the cause can't be accurately pinpointed. As far as being selfish, what about the liveliehoods of livestock producers that can be jeopardized in the event of such an outbreak when there is no traceability??

You're clearly operating under the assumption that the issues of 'consumer confidence' and 'big guy/little guy' are mutually exclusive.. Why? Where's the logic behind that? There is such a thing as trying to kill two birds with one stone, ya know, and that's what I think is going on here.. The AgriGiants and USDA saw a genuine need to protect the markets, so they worked in unison to develop a plan... The AgriGiants then worked to make the plan as comprehensive and as big of a pain in the neck as they could -- RFID tags, government permits, fines, fees, equipment costs, etc -- and then simply granted themselves enough loopholes to make it easy for volume producers like themselves... Two birds, one stone.

Well then what are they???

Like I said a half dozen times -- mandatory BSE testing on all carcasses, with the cost passed on to the consumer.. You can say it isn't feasable, but you'll eat those words just as soon as the big AgriGiants take a chunk of the beef market and a BSE case breaks out.. They'll test every carcass that comes through in record time, and the few straggling independent producers will be left selling 'generic' meat that has the shadow threat of mad cow disease.. If you think it can't happen, look at what the Nat'l Pork Producers and the USDA are doing concerning trichinosis.. Certifying pork trichinosis free will give the consumer more confidence and put the independent stragglers out all at the same time.. Again, two birds, one stone..

It is good for the industry....many in the industry/corporations understand risk posed is greater with no effective traceability system.

You just explained very well why you don't get what's going on here -- because you're looking to those in the 'industry/corporations' to tell you what you should be thinking... Try some independent thought.

Where does this come from? I haven't heard it---maybe just haven't been listening. Please offer some logic/proof to substantiate this. Have you heard someone in the corporations express this desire or do something to indicate such???

And you will probably never hear it -- at least not directly.. Tyson Foods, Inc. bought out IBP back in '01, which put their foot in the door of the beef industry.. Here's what John Tyson had to say, as it was printed in Beef Magazine:

"As you move raw materials up the value chain, you theoretically can charge a little more for that product. Once you create a demand for that product, you can go back to the source and share some of that return.

I would not want to vertically integrate the cattle business like what we see in the poultry business. But relationships between suppliers and the processing industry will change based on the type of animal being produced and the demand we create as we take the primary products up the value chain."

Now, you take that how you want, but 'sharing the return' and 'changing the relationship' of the supply/demand chain as a result of creating the demand singlehandedly sounds like contract farming to me.. He claims that he doesn't want it vertically integrated, but he WAS talking to Beef fricken magazine for God's sake.. Had he claimed outright that he wanted to integrate the chain, it would have put producers all over the nation in an uproar..

Dick Bond, the red-meat man and the other half of the AgriGiant created by the Tyson/IBP merger had this to say:

"At IBP today, we're still buying what's in the marketplace because that's what's there. Then we sort for specific needs once we get the product into our processing plants.

But as we go along, we're going to have to segment our buys. We're going to have to direct our purchases to fill specific needs. It will be an evolution into a value-based system, and we are going to have to pay for what we need.

But all animals are not going to be alike. We'll try to narrow that variation through economics. A lot will depend on the size of animal.

We have always pushed to increase carcass weight — because the more pounds you have, the cheaper it is to process. Well, we've taken that to an extreme. Now there is going to be an optimization of weight.

We'll carve out different values for different quality and weight ranges of cattle. Is that all laid out in some master grid today? No, but it will evolve over time."

Do you want more proof, or have you spit out your Kool-Aid yet?

 

[frenchie]

I reckon some kill plants draw from a larger area than others. 3 or 4 states..Either way...You need to be able to find the outer edge of the circle..... How do you do that without a national manatory ID program..one that elimates the ability to move unID ed stock.

What do you think would happen in a major outbreak of any livestock diease.without N.A,I,S or any other mandatory I.d program..Those same clean farms you allude to will still be caught up in a circle only a much larger one as they won,t be able to deterimine a specific boundary . So they will make sure they take a lot bigger area to be safe including even more farms that were safe..If you honestly think that it will a bunch of little circles your dreaming it will be one big circle around all those little ones.

In 1953? They shut down the whole province of Sask for a F.m.d outbreak here in one small area..... Sask is roughly the size of 15 states. Think about it how many kill facilities in the U.S draw from that big an area. .

So now we should draw a huge circle around three or four states if a cow comes up with BSE, even though it's going to put an onus on a lot of clean farms in that area.
When I consider the fact that my state, Kentucky, is one of the top beef producing states in the nation, that makes me a little nervous.. I have to consider the possibiliity that, since we produce so much beef, we're probably going to be in the circle more often than not, which has the potential to kill prices at *MY* salebarn.. But you seem to be OK with incriminating others, so long as it clears you.. That's just plain old selfish.. I learned in Kindergarten that there are better ways to get things done than being selfish...

Are you still in kindergarten.. :?: Man are you dense...I,m trying to tell you..That without the ability to trace all livestock...You will likely end up with a circle twice as large as it needs to be .Affecting a lot of innocent folks.Is that what you want.. it must be .]

That was right over you head was,nt it. By the time a person is known to be infected with human mad cow.There is no way to even trace where he became infected or whether it was 10 yrs ago, 20 yrs ago , 30 yrs ago .If your trying to say that they can trace human b.s.e back to a farmer..your really reaching there..

If you're not talking about human infections of vCJD, then you must be talking about the testing of cattle

I,m not taking about testing cattle..I,m talking about the brain dead comment you made suggesting that individual farmers will be held liable by someone eating B.s.e infected meat at rotten ronnies(mcdonalds) it ain,t going to happen..It is not possible.Its absolute fearmongering on your part.

So now I,m a Corporate wh*re because , I want to potect my herd from the spread of diease and I believe a mandatory I.d program is essential to get an diease outbreak under control.

Also because I care enough to keep diligent livestock records,feed records,to embrace new technology such as this computer that must make me a corporate wh*re too eh

My point about getting with the program ..Is that ranchers are producing food .. it comes with obligations where you like them or not.Its a cost of doing business.]If your computer & technology illiterate and/or punishment-weary producers ( your words)can,t get their#@**#@ sh*t together to remain independent operators thats their choice .Nobody is putting a gun to their head..How hard is it to write a ID # down and keep track of where you sold it.Business people all over the world continue to upgrade their education on a regular basis to keep up the skills they need to run a business. Why is ranching considered an exception.

Think the same thing can't happen through the certification of name-brand beef as BSE free? Surely you're not so naive as to think that anyone would be able to remain independent as a result of their sheer wits and cunning and git'r'done attitude, when challenged with the industry/USDA certifying their contract beef as "BSE Free" based on conditions written up by the packing industry and aimed at contract growers?? :roll:

You really need to get to get over this everyones out to get me attitude.
black helicopters everywhere :roll:

If you knew anything You would know that I have repeatdly stressed on this board the U.S testing program is using a questionable test for b.s.e. if you want to test them all go for it.But use a reputable test,knock yourself out.even do the ones that are under 30months as well ..If you really feel they need to be done.

Yes, I feel that it needs to be done to protect the market -- which is the primary goal.. Especially when the alternative is as intrusive and invasive and costly as NAIS..
Oh yeah, almost forgot.. There's that "testing good/testing bad" flip flop I mentioned earlier.. Just thought I'd point it out.:

I said your damm test is unreliable ..would it be easier if I drew U a picture.

Sure makes a lot of sense to use an unreliable test..That really protects the market :roll:

AND just so you Understand what I, am trying to say..

USE A TEST that Works:

The Washington Cow tested negative in the ELISA test, but was coded 'loc' on the IHC test.. That meant that the tissue sample sent was from the wrong location of the cow's brain. Problem is, the ELISA and IHC test the same portion of brain. So, if they couldn't use the IHC test, then why did they use the ELISA test? Because the testers made a mistake.. They still could have used a Western Blot, which is more reliable than the other two.. However, the Western Blot wasn't part of the protocol at the time. :

Your wrong..The Washington cow was confirmed positive with the western blot test

And again how did that meat hit the store shelves.. :?: Answer the question.?

And, as far as the Texas cow goes, it came back positive in *TWO* rapid tests, right off the bat.. But then it came back negative on IHC test, so the USDA told everyone it was negative to keep the panic to a minimum.. Only later did they run the Western Blot, which confirmed what the first two tests had shown -- that it was clearly a case of BSE.. Duh..:

So It was a cover-up then

And how long did it take to use the western blot 7 months or so .And who insisted that it be retested using the western blot.The inspector general..Thankfuly she wanted to know the truth ;-)

The bottom line is that if testing were performed on every animal, every time, and were performed with a strict protocol developed not in the interest of Tyson, Smithfield, Swift, etc, but in the interest of ALL BEEF-EATING HUMAN BEINGS, BSE testing would be reliable. Oh yeah, and it would protect the markets as an added bonus.. Imagine that..:

Again I ask you this Question.,Then how did the meat from the Washington cow get released into the food supply :?:
Who orders the meat from a tested slaughter animal released before the results are known.

And, so far as trying to figure out where outbreaks in an individual cow began and having tracebacks and blah blah blah, know this:.:

So now are you saying don,t bother to even look for her herdmates to prevent possible further spread its no use...That you don,t care let it spread

BSE is sometimes idiopathic, meaning that it develops with no known cause.. In other words, it can develop spontaneously for no reason. :

Oh now whos flip/ flopping

You say you want to test to protect human health.And protect the farmers from liability.
But In animals you say it can occur without a known cause..
Now your talking out of both sides of your mouth.
For as much as anyone knows human mAd cow could occur the same way

 

[rk]

Well, what is your solution for a traceability system??

Heck, I wouldn't even mind NAIS if it was applied fairly to everyone who produced animals intended to hit the supply chain -- but it's not. And, by fairly I mean that EVERY animal moving into the supply chain would be identified individually.. The problem is that the big AgriGiants will *never, ever* let that happen, because they don't want the aggravation and expense that they're so willing to shove upon the small scale cattle producer.. Another stipulation would be that those who keep animals for their own use wouldn't be subject to NAIS.

This is a product safety and consumer confidence issue, not one of "big guy versus little guy" I am considering the liveliehoods of livestock producers.....no traceability in the event of disease outbreak can mean destroying some animals needlessly because the cause can't be accurately pinpointed. As far as being selfish, what about the liveliehoods of livestock producers that can be jeopardized in the event of such an outbreak when there is no traceability??

You're clearly operating under the assumption that the issues of 'consumer confidence' and 'big guy/little guy' are mutually exclusive.. Why? Where's the logic behind that? There is such a thing as trying to kill two birds with one stone, ya know, and that's what I think is going on here.. The AgriGiants and USDA saw a genuine need to protect the markets, so they worked in unison to develop a plan... The AgriGiants then worked to make the plan as comprehensive and as big of a pain in the neck as they could -- RFID tags, government permits, fines, fees, equipment costs, etc -- and then simply granted themselves enough loopholes to make it easy for volume producers like themselves... Two birds, one stone.

Well then what are they???

Like I said a half dozen times -- mandatory BSE testing on all carcasses, with the cost passed on to the consumer.. You can say it isn't feasable, but you'll eat those words just as soon as the big AgriGiants take a chunk of the beef market and a BSE case breaks out.. They'll test every carcass that comes through in record time, and the few straggling independent producers will be left selling 'generic' meat that has the shadow threat of mad cow disease.. If you think it can't happen, look at what the Nat'l Pork Producers and the USDA are doing concerning trichinosis.. Certifying pork trichinosis free will give the consumer more confidence and put the independent stragglers out all at the same time.. Again, two birds, one stone..

It is good for the industry....many in the industry/corporations understand risk posed is greater with no effective traceability system.

You just explained very well why you don't get what's going on here -- because you're looking to those in the 'industry/corporations' to tell you what you should be thinking... Try some independent thought.

Where does this come from? I haven't heard it---maybe just haven't been listening. Please offer some logic/proof to substantiate this. Have you heard someone in the corporations express this desire or do something to indicate such???

And you will probably never hear it -- at least not directly.. Tyson Foods, Inc. bought out IBP back in '01, which put their foot in the door of the beef industry.. Here's what John Tyson had to say, as it was printed in Beef Magazine:

"As you move raw materials up the value chain, you theoretically can charge a little more for that product. Once you create a demand for that product, you can go back to the source and share some of that return.

I would not want to vertically integrate the cattle business like what we see in the poultry business. But relationships between suppliers and the processing industry will change based on the type of animal being produced and the demand we create as we take the primary products up the value chain."

Now, you take that how you want, but 'sharing the return' and 'changing the relationship' of the supply/demand chain as a result of creating the demand singlehandedly sounds like contract farming to me.. He claims that he doesn't want it vertically integrated, but he WAS talking to Beef fricken magazine for God's sake.. Had he claimed outright that he wanted to integrate the chain, it would have put producers all over the nation in an uproar..

Dick Bond, the red-meat man and the other half of the AgriGiant created by the Tyson/IBP merger had this to say:

"At IBP today, we're still buying what's in the marketplace because that's what's there. Then we sort for specific needs once we get the product into our processing plants.

But as we go along, we're going to have to segment our buys. We're going to have to direct our purchases to fill specific needs. It will be an evolution into a value-based system, and we are going to have to pay for what we need.

But all animals are not going to be alike. We'll try to narrow that variation through economics. A lot will depend on the size of animal.

We have always pushed to increase carcass weight — because the more pounds you have, the cheaper it is to process. Well, we've taken that to an extreme. Now there is going to be an optimization of weight.

We'll carve out different values for different quality and weight ranges of cattle. Is that all laid out in some master grid today? No, but it will evolve over time."

Do you want more proof, or have you spit out your Kool-Aid yet?

Whew! It's hard to discuss a topic when such a paranoid fear of the "boogieman" (big guy corporations) has paralyzed logic and practicality. I truly mean no disrespect, but this discussion has gotten just too far out there for me. I anticipate that NAIS will become a reality, because common sense will eventually overcome baseless arguments.

 

[frenchie]

Duh...Dick.. Other B.S.E infected cows ..

Duh? :roll:

Read that idiopathic/spontaneous thing I wrote again and tell me that contact with other infected cows will *always* be the case...

Ya know, you're awfully sure of yourself to have so few actual facts at hand... I'd suggest doing a little research and laying off the Kool-Aid for a while..

i would suggest to you to stop smoking whatever it is your smoking Why ..Read what you wrote before.





cmjust0.....Let me relay to you how a McDonald's hamburger patty is made, as it was told to me by a fellow who managed more than 10 franchise McDonald's restaurants and had toured one of the processing plants in Chicago (Otto & Sons, Inc.)...

They have two huge vats -- one containing 'ground' (read, almost liquified) lean meat, and another containing fat.. From these two vats, they create patties that are somewhere on the order of 30% fat, and 70% lean.. Now, I dunno how many cows are represented in each vat, but I'm gonna go ahead and say A BUNCH. Hundreds, probably..

YADA YADA YADA

So, if a bunch of people get sick from McDonald's burgers and NAIS is in place, the first thing they'll have to figure out is which case of patties were contaminated -- and, having worked for and managed a McDonald's for years, I can tell you that even step one will be nearly impossible.. They'll probably just assume it was every case used since the last delivery.. So, they'll trace that shipment back to the plant, and try to figure out -- as specifically as possible -- when those cases were made.. Then they have to figure out which cows had parts in the vat during that time -- Could be thousands, depending on how close that particular McDonalds was to running out of meat when the illness was reported...

YADA YADA YADA

Then, they start looking at farms..

If a producer put wheels on a single, healthy, feeder steer a while back, and that steer just so happened to end up in the same vat with a sick cow from another continent (which *IS* possible) they'll have to come looking for that producer.. And they come looking at the hundreds of other producers who's beef went through Otto & Sons that day..

YADA YADA YADA

And you guys think that NAIS will clear more people than it implicates?? Please.. There's your big circle, right there.. Furthermore, that huge circle serves no purpose at all! AND, someone still has to contract BSE and probably die before the ball even gets rolling!!

AS iF someone is going to succumb to Human B.S.E the next day right..take another hoot :lol:

 

[cmjust0]

Are you still in kindergarten.. Man are you dense...

Ya know, I MUST be dense because I just realized something that I should have realized right off the bat -- you're Canadian.. As such, none of this should make any difference to you.. The only reason I can figure it does is because you must like to argue for argument's sake..

And all this time I've been wondering why in the heck you'd be so willing to subject yourself to such a mess as the NAIS, and now I understand perfectly -- because you won't be subjected to it! Makes perfect sense now...

Unless I'm wrong about you being Canadian and therefore exempt from the effects of NAIS, this pointless conversation is over.

 

[frenchie]

Are you still in kindergarten.. Man are you dense...

Ya know, I MUST be dense because I just realized something that I should have realized right off the bat -- you're Canadian.. As such, none of this should make any difference to you.. The only reason I can figure it does is because you must like to argue for argument's sake..

And all this time I've been wondering why in the heck you'd be so willing to subject yourself to such a mess as the NAIS, and now I understand perfectly -- because you won't be subjected to it! Makes perfect sense now...

Unless I'm wrong about you being Canadian and therefore exempt from the effects of NAIS, this pointless conversation is over.

Am I exempt when I have money invested in an operation south of the line :?:

 

[cmjust0]

Whew! It's hard to discuss a topic when such a paranoid fear of the "boogieman" (big guy corporations) has paralyzed logic and practicality. I truly mean no disrespect, but this discussion has gotten just too far out there for me. I anticipate that NAIS will become a reality, because common sense will eventually overcome baseless arguments.

I hand you a quote from John Tyson himself, where he says he PLANS to change the supply/demand relationship in the cattle industry, and you still say the argument is baseless? You still disbelieve that contract farming will ever be forced upon the cattle industry..

Unbelievable..

Look, you can call me paranoid if you want... You can eagerly comply with NAIS if you want... You can take your cues straight from the USDA if you want...

But keep this in mind: Overall, you're in the minority. Industry likes it, the USDA likes it, the USDA and industry have convinced YOU to like it, as they have many other people on this forum and in the cattle industry -- but you're still in the minority, overall. If you can, for just a few minutes, step outside the realm of cattle production and look at the overall reaction to NAIS, you'll see that I'm not the only one who's 'paranoid,' or predicting that it will bring about the end of small scale farming..

Do some research.. Be *objective*.. Get outside your 'comfort zone'..

In short, open your eyes and your mind to the possibility that a corporate owned and operated federal frickin government department just might not have YOUR best interest at heart.. I mean, would that *REALLY* be so hard to believe?????

 

[Texan]

But, hey, keep drinking the Kool-Aid my friend.. But remember, you're quite literally betting either your farm or your independence as a cattle raiser that I'm just some crazy man..

Strange. Less than three months ago you didn't even own any cattle......

http://cattletoday.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 569#150569

You seem to have come a long way since then. Now you seem to know it all. Smarter than many people who have been making their living in the cattle business for a long time. I commend you for studying up on one side of this issue. You sure seem to have all the answers. Or maybe you've been drinking somebody's Kool-Aid, too?

 

[Caustic Burno]

Well I know Texan is a Cattleman, I ain't never seen a hobbyman learn it in three months.

 

[houstoncutter]

You know their seems to be a thread of truth to both sides of this disagreement. Am I seeing black helicopters? Well I dont know, I have seen a few in the past 4 years, but by the same token, do I think another federal program has the answers? Nope , nada, aint gonna happen. Our fereral goverment is clueless and sorry Frenchie, the Canadian goverment is no better. Our goverment needs to get some cattlemen invoved in this problem, not NCBA lackeys or packers, but honest to god cattlemen that make a full time living raising cattle. Of course that makes sense, so it aint never gonna happen