• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time for Action

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Time for Action

    Anyone want to be included on an Email list with updates on this situation, contact us;
    rpkaiser@telusplanet.net

    To all concerned ranchers



    With the fall ABP producer meetings upon us, we must seize this opportunity to;



    1) Elect people that have the courage and fortitude to push BSE into the history books and eliminate the bogus phrase; “BSE infection” from our vocabulary. The incessant calls to “stick together” like so many lemmings, has gotten us nowhere. We must think as individuals, based on the scientific facts that each of us has a different grasp of. Only then can we come to an understanding, based on the truth, the true historical facts, the true scientific data.



    2) We must all demand that the ABP directorship fulfill its’ obligation to accomplish the resolutions desired and carried by producers, and further reaffirmed by the delegates in 2003. Specifically, the motion moved by Bill Bockock; TO RESEARCH AND COLLECT SCIENTIFIC DATA ON CAUSES OF BSE ALTERNATE TO THE INFECTIOUS THEORY.

    THIS HAS NOT BEEN ACOMPLISHED.

    The results of the ABP technical committees’ efforts were the subject of my wifes Email to Marvin Conrad, the committee chair, dated Oct. 26/04. (Should you not have, or wish another copy, please contact us) It is not sufficient to say only that the reliance on the flawed AARI report does not fulfill the requirement of Bococks’ motion to “research and collect”, wherein a catalogued document should have been prepared by this committee. Upon examination of the AARI report, one quickly realizes that its’ purpose was completely contrary to the Bocock resolution!



    Where the resolutions purpose is to collate data that challenges the infectious theory, the AARI reports’ purpose was to determine activities to justify and utilize the expenditures on bio-security facilities recently constructed in Edmonton and Winnipeg, and assumes that the following statements are factual, and does so without any validation or scientific reference! ;



    1) that BSE is infectious,

    2) that the UK crisis was caused by “Prions” in the MBM fed to cattle,

    3) that “…..small doses of infective material in feed can lead to BSE infection.”,

    4) that a risk exists in consuming SRMs,

    5) that epidemiology exists to show control measures in the UK were effective,

    6) that theories based “OPs” and metals are “far fetched” and deserve not to be funded,

    7) that a risk exists in the use and /or disposal of offal.



    The promulgation of this type of dogma is the exact reason that the Bocock resolution came into existence in the first place!



    It is readily apparent that the lay technical committee members have been misguided by authorities exercising an “expert/student relationship” within this process, in an effort to maintain the status quo.



    Randy Kaiser, an ABP nominee in zone 3, said it best in his recent public address to ranchers;

    “What is it that ABP or Beef producers anywhere can gain from discounting the work of a growing number of scientists concerning environmental links to BSE while following experimentally unproven theories of BSE transmission through contaminated feed?

    The environmental theory gives us hope to prove BSE to be seen as a non-transmissible chemical imbalance affecting individual animals.

    The one that this industry has chosen to follow leaves us with more rules and trade regulations every day, which have succeeded in creating dysfunctional markets for beef around the world.

    How can we simply ignore an alternative, which is all about hope, and embrace one that is about nothing but destruction.” –Sundre, Oct. 25/04

    The following resolution has already been passed in Sundre;



    “Be it resolved ABP conduct a literature review on research that may link BSE to environmental factors and report the findings to producers.” Passed October 25th, 2004



    In private correspondence, this is Randys’ commitment and request of (us);



    “Now--------------- We need to have something similar (better resolutions) done at every other meeting we can. Because after I work my ass off to sit on that Technical committee, and I will be there, I want a bunch of support from producers in the form of passed resolutions.



    This is our call to arms.



    We must demand the scientific truth be told, before we succumb to the ever increasing regulatory onslaught thrust upon us.



    Please formulate a motion to your choosing. If you wish, use the 7 points noted above as your whereases by inserting “is not” or “does not” appropriately into the text, use the motion already passed, or, last years Bocock motion.



    Please pass this on to as many producers as possible! ASAP!



    Good luck, Les Czar

    #2
    While I do not agree with the theories put forward in your post I do respect the passion behind them. I see too often political correctness has replaced passion for the industry in our commodity organizations.
    I note the reference to hope...Hope is so important to the industry in this time of crisis and people will grasp what hope they can where they can. I personally place my hope in producer owned packing plants and a vertically integrated industry where producers can sell a branded beef product further up the supply chain instead of a commodity to a foreign packer, thereby reaping the fair rewards for their efforts. I would say time for action there too.

    Comment


      #3
      I very much agree with your hopes Farmes_son. I am not so sure about RPKaisers hope, because it would not be good to chase something only for hope, there must be more to it than that.
      I thought the UK had done some experiments feeding BSE infected cows to others and it did occur? I think there has been some pretty good science work done on BSE, and you must remember that everything starts as a theory and may always be, such as, the earth travels around the sun?
      Also, if there are environmental factors that affect BSE, beyond the spontaneous occurances, why were no other animals that were brought up around the original Canadian BSE case not also infected with BSE?

      Comment


        #4
        I totally agree with rpkaiser on this one - the "established theory" of BSE is so full of holes it's transparent. Yes cattleman there were indeed tests done in the UK to try and prove that bse could be spread by "contaminated" feed. Several hundred US dairy embryos were imported and reared right through to about 5 years old - SCIENTISTS WERE UNABLE TO CREATE BSE IN THESE ANIMALS! they extended the trial for another couple of years but still no cases. This test result has always been kept very quiet as it does not suit the "official theory"
        It is good that these things will be brought up at ABP meetings but this is one campaign I fear is in vain. Europe, the main area to have BSE has moved on, there is no desire to revisit the topic by farmers, politicians or consumers. To prove an alternative cause of BSE exists would need cooperation from the UK which we are unlikely to get. I don't think Canada can overturn world opinion on this one even if world opinion is wrong.
        I personally wouldn't waste too much time on it at ABP level as our current crisis is not a BSE crisis - it is a crisis of corporate greed and market manipulation - we should treat it as such.

        Comment


          #5
          My own personal opinion is that Randy is on to something. I'm not a great "researcher" but common sense tells us that something about this feed transmission theory is a crock?
          How in the hell do all those elk in Colorada get CWD? They definitely are not eating other elk???
          This whole "science" of BSE/TSEs is junk science as far as I can see? The "experts" grabbed an excuse and ran with it!
          If we don't find the real truth, what have we gained? I seriously suspect Purdy was pretty well right?

          Comment


            #6
            hopefully some of these alternate theories will be within the mandate of the prion disease research announced for u. of a.

            Comment


              #7
              Now if you buy into the "chemical" theory of BSE, then are you making sure your cattle are getting all the minerals they need? Are you making changes to your program so you aren't putting a lot of "poisons" onto and into your cattle?
              I never liked the idea of using a systematic to get rid of internal and external pests. And yet how many cattle are treated with systematics to control warbles, worms and lice?
              What kind of chemical mix are your cattle eating? Crops get sprayed a lot anymore. Fungicides have been implicated by Purdy? A whole lot of grain was sprayed with TILT this year?
              If the chemical theory ever proves to be true, there are a lot of big corporations that stand to lose in a big way? Perhaps that is why the chemical theory will never be proven?
              Also consider this: What are you eating? What are you putting on your body? How's your mineral content? If it affects your cattle then how about you?

              Comment


                #8
                Cowman, That's why we are finding the time is right for grassfed Alberta beef - as nature intended!

                Comment


                  #9
                  Great questions cowman.

                  Thanks to everyone else for your input as well.

                  One thing that I would like to say is that I understand that Packing capacity is the #1 push at this time. If we had capacity, we would be selling more beef, simple as that. I would not be a part of BIG C if I did not believe we needed change fast, when it come to harvest capacity, and export markets.

                  BIG C isn't focusing on the issue discussed in this thread other than individual support. This is something that I personally feel is crucial. All of us have the ability to focus on more than one area at a time, and I am simply excersizing that ability.

                  There are two theories concerning BSE that are in the headlines. More linger and are being studied, but for now let's deal with two. One is widely accepted. We all know about it, because it has affected us all personally for more than 18 months. There is a lot of support for this theory including our own government, butttttttttttttt, it is only a theory. To date there has been no scientific experimental proof that BSE can be transmitted from one animal to another, by eating contaminated feed. Ask the CFIA yourselves.

                  So what is our choice. We can argue all we want about which THEORY is true, but what does that do for us?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Well Randy hopefully the new research lab in Edmonton can give us some answers to this problem...in the long term? But you are right in saying we need to deal with the short term problem of getting our markets functioning properly again. I see in the paper that Shirley was making hints that very soon there will be an announcement of a new cow plant being built? Have to wait and see where that is going?
                    Grassfarmer: I'm not against grassfed beef and doing things in a more natural way. I will point out though, that barley and oats and wheat are also a grass?
                    But here was my point: If we suspect copper or a lack of it can cause all kinds of problems and we also know our grass is lacking copper, shouldn't we be making sure our cattle are being supplemented? Being super "natural" is fine but it is pretty well proven that a lot of this land is deficient in certain minerals? Selenium, copper etc.?
                    I expect you feed a mineral/salt mix of some sort?
                    Now I don't know if you buy into this mineral immbalance theory or not? But if you do are you making sure your cattle are getting everything they need?
                    And I also wonder if the mineral theory is true, what about us human beings? Where is our food coming from and what is the mineral content in that food? Supposing we ate nothing but what we grew on the farm...would that mean we are not getting enough copper and selenium...just like our cattle? Maybe we too should be taking a mineral mix?
                    I know I do.
                    Now one more thing I want to ask you? Do you use Ivomec, Grubex or liceoff? Or do you just tolerate any pests that you might have?
                    I'm not trying to rip you here or anything, in fact I bet we think fairly close on the use of chemicals. But I would really like to understand how you see this?

                    Comment

                    • Reply to this Thread
                    • Return to Topic List
                    Working...