Mad Cow Disease Reported in Alberta

[rsomer]

smcgrath76: I have heard that comparison made before (Coke spending 5% of retail sales on promotion) but what Coke spends on marketing may not even be relevant for another soft drink manufacturer much less beef or other food products. Each product, each brand whether it is beef in the cooler or packaged frozen ready to eat meals would have a different marketing strategy, different marketing and distribution channels, be in a different competitive environment, be positioned differently and the amount of retail sales spent on communications (promotion) should be appropriate for that brand’s marketing strategy irrespective of what Coke spends.

Cakadu: Interesting comments re putting all eggs in one basket with one brand. Proctor Gamble has many brands of basically similar detergents and other products competing in the same market on the same shelf space.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has created what is effectively a brand for its pork products called MinnCert. The program is based on ISO 9000 principles and a third party certifier will ensure that producers who voluntarily participate adhere to quality standards that guarantee the customer superior quality, minimized food safety risks and traceability to the farm of origin. Basically MinnCert’s philosophy is "Say what you do! Do what you say!"
http://www.cvm.umn.edu/anhlth_foodsafety/MinnCERT.html

Canadian beef’s brand credibility has been damaged. I see our industry will need to be able offer our customers genuine, similar assurances as MinnCert before we should be spending more money on promotion.

[ValueChainFX]

rsomer you are right, in fact, marketing a product you cann't deliver is more harmful than not.

The questions you bring up about the Minn. ISO 9000 based program is something we all could use. As long as the producer sees a return. Rather than wait until our Government forces these things on us, the producer should be proactive and put a system in place that exceeds what we have in place today.

This is being worked on now, by a producer group in the way of a voluntary program. Much of the ground work has been done and now we are down to the costly implementation phase of the program. Although funding is important, the producers themselves need to be there and support such a move.

Part of the marketing is a producers ability to put his own signature on a product and say, they believe the system they have in place has the checks and balances to ensure your family is getting the best, safest most secure product our family can supply.

Trace back? Well if the system is set up to keep track of your product than you should be able to get feed back on your product and use that information to better your business. But rather than be forced into this system, you should make the choice.

That is our therory, your thoughts?

[mbfarmer]

I just talked to a friend of mine who has 83 steers that are fat and ready to go...not big numbers but that represents 40% of his herd....his parting comment to me was that he wished the BSE case was on his farm so he would know what would be done....now he does not know which way to turn to next. Anyone have any comments on this.

[rsomer]

ValueChainFX:

The fellow who set up the MNCEP program for the Minnesota hog producers pointed out that the "profit" from their assured quality program was more assured market access, not necessarily a higher price per pound of product sold.

In Australia, AUS-MEAT provides carcass feedback to producers who ship cattle to AUS-MEAT accredited abattoirs so it can be done. At present in Canada, the only feedback a producer would receive is the animal you shipped has BSE.

Governments will put in place minimum standards for the overall industry. Specific markets such as Japan might appreciate further quality assurances. As a result, marketing opportunities would be available. I was impressed by MINCERT’s use of ISO 9000 practices to provide quality assurances to its customers as opposed to the Canadian industry providing guarantees to the world that we had a safe product but when push comes to shove we are scrambling to back up our claims. Participation in ISO 9000 is of course voluntary and each organization would need to set its own quality standards based on its perception of customer needs.

This said, it is very possible that a program like MINCERT or what you describe would still be adversely impacted by a crisis such as the industry is presently facing. It is difficult to differentiate a commodity such a beef to such an extent that is no longer associated with the country and that country’s industry.

[ValueChainFX]

I don't think we have to dis-associate ourselves just provide a system that works the best way we can make it work. Secured market places are only as secure as our product and there are always going to be challenges. It is up to use to limit the challenges with Good management practices.

I do believe we are ready to put a producer system in place, and will the prices be better, well, depends on what and how we market. But I do expect the prices to be more stable along with a more stable market.

[carebear300]

I am one of those so call rednecks that bucked the implementation of the tag system. At the same time I also said it was not a great improvement on the registered brands and shipping manifest system unless the tags were read and recorded every time the animal changed ownership because as it stands right now the only person held accountable is the person that raised the calf and the final owner. Yes I agree it is a worthwhile program as long as it records those movements and it doesn't cost the primary producer too much more. It is important enough to the national economy that maybe it should be subsidized by the federal government such as lots of industries, Bombardier being one of the major ones. Like usual my two bits worth is kind of old fashioned and not popular with the modern and forward thinking people who contribute to this site.

[stevek]

Well, carebear, you aren't the only redneck still out there. IF the tagging system will work like they want, then, maybe they should help subsidize it. We don't really mind using them, they just aren't as good quality as the Z tags we had gotten used to. BUT, we use them anyway. If the cattle industry really is BIG business to the government, let's all say maybe they should throw in a little to keep it BIG.

[cakadu]

Carebear - I think your comments are quite valid. It cannot be the producer that always pays to have systems running. They benefit everyone, so everyone SHOULD be contributing.

I've made this argument many times and will continue to make it - if we are about providing the safest food possible not only domestically, but globally as well, then it becomes a social issue and producers should not be the only ones who pay for such a system.

We've all heard about how it only costs the producer 5% and the consumer just pennies. If you start adding up all these 5% that it costs the producer, then it doesn't take long to use up those already slim margins with just those extra percentages that don't cost producers much.

Maybe this is going to help us see that we cannot depend so exclusively on one market for all of our product. It may also help us to see that perhaps we shouldn't be so worried about the global market and concern ourselves with providing ourselves with a safe food supply domestically.

Things to ponder.

[ValueChainFX]

Care ... steve and cakadu you are all seeing the picture and valid input for sure. I can only imagine the challenges someone would have trying to trace back something from a manifest!!! YIKES! Handled my share of those and it sure leaves something to be desired!

The cost the producer pays now, should be spread across the supply chain, but if they pay a cost (in the tags for instance) they should see some return. The mandate of the tag system is to keep that information protected. What we are suggesting is that as a producer group, we would like to supply the tags for CCIA and our members can opt into the trace back system and the industry information system. What this means is we can collect information and put it into a form the producer can use to help them with business choices.

Rather than allow the government, processors or marketers make our choices. We suggest they can participate in the programs and share the costs. Much of this information is good for them as well.

Anyway the solutions are what we are all looking for.

[rsawchuk]

Here is some good news:

Research opens door to mad cow vaccine

Brad Evenson
CanWest News Service
Toronto, June 2, 2003

Canadian scientists have discovered a molecular target on the rogue protein linked to mad cow disease. This raises the hope that a cattle vaccine could be developed to eradicate the disease from the food supply.

The finding could give rise to a blood test for BSE - bovine spongiform encephalopathy - preventing the mass slaughter of cows of the kind needed in the current investigation of the mad cow outbreak in Alberta. In the future, it might also be used to treat human brain diseases.

"Surprisingly, it seems to work for every prion infection (of which mad cow is one) that we've tested," says senior scientist Neil Cashman, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The discovery was published today in the journal of Nature Medicine.

Mad cow is one of several brain diseases caused, experts believe, by "misfolded" versions of normal proteins called prions. Others include kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and scrapie in sheep.

Ordinarily, the immune system makes antibodies that attack foreign particles, but prions build up undetected in infected animals and humans.

Since their discovery in 1982 by U.S. scientist Stanley Prusiner, who won the Nobel Prize for his achievement, researchers have been searching in vain for ways to detect and destroy prions that cause the various diseases.

"For prion diseases, animals and humans do not raise anti-bodies, so we can't test for exposure to prions by measuring anti-bodies in the blood against prions," Cashman said.

To find a target, Cashman and his team used biophysical techniques to bend normal proteins and expose a normally hidden amino acid. Then they created antibodies that locked onto this acid known as "tyr-tyr-arg."

"They took advantage of that shape change by finding a particular portion of the molecule that became exposed when it normally isn't," said Byron Caughey, a senior scientist at the Laboratory for Persistent Viral Diseases at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

"This opens up many possibilities for diagnostic tests, for potential the****utic strategies, and also provides us with a very nice set of tools for researchers to use to try and figure out the molecular basis of these diseases."

Together with its partner, Montreal-based Caprion Pharmaceuticals, the University of Toronto team has created a vacccine that would stimulate a cow's immune system to make antibodies against prions. It could be ready for testing within a year. The molecular target could also be used in other vaccines.

"It works for BSE, it works for scrapie, it works for humans with classical and variant CJD, it works for chronic wasting disease, it works for several othr experimental models for prion infection," says Cashman.

The antibodies could also be used to attack prions in people with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which could lead to pressure on Caprion to release the product for testing in people with the incurable, fatal brain disease.

In the short term, the discovery could lead to a more efficient test for mad cow disease. Since one cow was diagnosed with the disease, over 1,000 animals across western Canada have been slaughtered to have their brains examined, the only way to detect which animals were infected.

"In the best of all possible worlds, we would be able to detect prions in the blood or the urine or some other, easily accessible tissue or fluid as opposed to killing the animals and testing the brain," Cashman said.