Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
Texas Postpones Animal ID and Premise ID
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cmjust0" data-source="post: 184560" data-attributes="member: 2882"><p>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...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.. </p><p></p><p>You're really good at talking in circles, you know that? You should be in politics.. :roll: </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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..</p><p></p><p>'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... </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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: </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Oh yeah, almost forgot.. There's that "testing good/testing bad" flip flop I mentioned earlier.. Just thought I'd point it out.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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..</p><p></p><p>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..</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Well gee whiz! So much for NAIS in that case, huh? :roll:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cmjust0, post: 184560, member: 2882"] 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... 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: 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: 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. 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: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
Texas Postpones Animal ID and Premise ID
Top