One More Round

[rkaiser]

I'm with you intr3est, but test if it makes a sale.
If we can enter the Japanese market by testing; TEST. If consumer confidence in Canada wains; TEST.

As far a SRM's. Japan has insisted on both testing and removal of SRM's as that is the protocal they use in Japan.

I'd say that a tested beast would allow for leaving SRM's in place, however, the only consise test we have is for dead animals, so SRM removal would likely have to remain due to time from slaughter to determination of test results.

[intr3est]

KPB, I totally agree, the US is very good at marketing and "cooking" the books. Maybe we as Canadians are too honest, but it does not hide the facts that we need to distant ourselves from the US and the way we market. Let's test everything, have a massive cull of animals born before 1997, or at least guarntee they will not hit the foodchain and get on with it.. If we have a problem, let's deal with it.

[intr3est]

Kaiser, they are now doing tests in the UK for $20/animal with a turn around time of 6 hours, no false positves as of yet. $20/head, increased markets(maybe) and we bitch about $4 tags! Enough is enough, let's get this ball rolling!

[kpb]

intr3est, Along with a few others on this board I believe a mass cull would be the best way to deal with a couple of problems. I think it will, in the long run, save the government money because they'd only have to subsidize farmers once instead of over and over again, it would reduce our domestic herd and therefore support prices for the producers and, I think, it would reinforce consumer confidence if it was done properly.
Suppose a mass cull was done on all cows born 1998 or before and this was done in conjunction with testing all remaining animals. I think that would go a long way to restoring confidence in the Canadian industry both at home and away. Because I think our next big problem will be in keeping the Canadian consumer behind us. They've been great so far but there's a limit to their support of our industry and I think that's coming up soon.
Like you I think we should face up to this problem and do what is needed to get over it. So far we've done little in 2 years to change anyone's perception of our domestic herd and these announcements take something out of our overall reputation. It's like getting pecked to death by a duck.

[intr3est]

KPB, good comments, to appease all purebred breeders, I would further suggest that a massive cull be voluntary, but with consessions. No cow born before or six months after the feed ban be allowed to enter the food chain. You would be allowed to hold onto those animals for as long as you want and keep calves off them, but your compensation would decrease for time kept. For eg. cull in first six months of program $500, next year $400 and $150 less per year after that.

[grassfarmer]

intr3est, I support testing of all OTM cattle if the market calls for it. To test young cattle is a waste of time and money. Can you show me the reference you found to the UK cattle being tested? I'd be interested to see the source.
This could just be a big over-reaction by us all. We can get 11 cases per year and still be classified low risk - this is case #1 of 2005. It may just be coincidence that it happened as close to the other one as it did and not the start of huge numbers of cases appearing - here's hoping I'm right on this one.

[intr3est]

grassfarmer, I'll try to find the link again, in the mean time, do you think the buying public will look at year end, or the media reports that keep counting? My guess will be the media reports. My feeling by the media reports tonight is that consumer confidence is starting to waver!

[intr3est]

grassfarmer, here is the link, it's a commentary on the farmcentre website.

http://www.farmcentre.com/english/cbc/index.htm?id=304

[SW1-32-5-4]

Yous guys are missing the whole issue. The culprits are the CFIA and the feed companies that they were not monitoring. There is a simple solution, start putting those responsible, both bueaucrat and feed people in jail.The system has only made the producer acountable,nobody else.
SW1-32-5-4

[intr3est]

YEP, you're right, so how do we change that? How do you go about putting the lawmakers in jail? This is seen as a rural problem, last I checked that was 2% of the voting pop. So, we have to bring notice to what the government has done in this situation. Kinda like the sponsor scandal, and then everybody will vote against the party in fault! or, we can continue to show the facts of how it will lose them money in tax dollars, from lost income or lost sales! I think this might get noticed more!