Four Options

[intr3est]

I'd just like to add, what are our organizations doing different from the government stance? Are they following or demanding. step out of the box, forget towing the company line! We do have some power here, and being one of the top industries in the country for dollar income to the government!

[magpie]

Do we test or not if we do get everyone on side, all producers, organizations and even the consumers union.Take a page from UK, Japan and others who have been at the forefront of this disease. Force the hand of gov't by lobbying with the largest group the consumer's.

[Cattleman]

It is a good thing we did not follow Japan and the UK so far because they scared the hell out of their consumers and their markets suffered. It has been tough, but it could certainly be worse. Why waste money testing animals when the U.S., Canadians, Hong Kong, Macau will all by our beef untested?
Lets get SRM's out of the System and promote our beef, rather than say it is unsafe, that is why we are testing everything!!

[Braveheart]

Do you anti-Tom4CWB people have any free will at all? If you see a posted topic you aren't interested in, don't click on and read. There's no limit to space in Agri-Ville. If markets and marketing discussion is what you want, then start a thread.

While you're thinking about what that discussion should be, consider this: Tom Jackson has started more threads on grain and oilseed marketing than most contributors. He has more knowledge of the Canadian grain marketing, grading and handling system than most producers will ever hope to have. I suspect that's why Tom's discussions inevitably stray to the CWB issue. He knows how much money is being left behind.

I for one want Tom and everyone else uncensored. Censoring opinions on wheat and barley marketing is the territory of the CWB, not Agri-Ville.

[intr3est]

cattleman, what do you mean by "testing everything"

[cropduster]

Great comments Braveheart!And for those that can`t stand the heat.......no one is forcing you to read the threads.....except maybe your concience!!

[kato]

My preferred options would include.

Paying $700.00 for culls, but only for pre-97 born downers. I don't think that encouraging the slaughter of healthy productive animals does one bit of good for the image of cattle producers. This talk of mass slaughter is a knee jerk reaction that only encourages the protectionists in the States. Make no doubt about it, they want us out of business totally and permanently.

No need to test UTM's. The safeguards in place are already good enough for them.

Be allowed to test OTM's if it is requested by the customer. The cost goes to the customer. If they want it, they pay for it. Others who are satisfied that the removal of SRM's is sufficient (which it is) will opt not to test.

Stop the use of all cattle parts of any kind in feed for any livestock.

Finally, the Feds need to quit spouting off about how they are going to help us set up our own packing plants, and actually DO something.

[Cattleman]

sorry intr3est that last line is poor english. What I meant is that it may seem to some consumers that we are admitting our beef is not safe if we implement a policy to test all animals. After that I don't think there is any going back on not testing everything. Look at the problems Japan is having telling their consumers that they are not going to test animals under 20 months.
A policy of testing everything will have long term implications on our industry, and introduce some new costs compared to the status quo. Are we ready to deal with all this?

[chaffmeister]

I can't believe what I'm reading...

Interesting that those complaining about Tom's dominance in postings, are names I don't see here much - if at all.

Something to think about. You seem to rely on someone else to lead the discussion for you but now you're not seeing value in how he's doing it and want to change it. Sounds like the CWB debate. Perhaps you have more in common with Tom that you thought.

Keep up the great contributions Tom. I learn a lot and appreciate it.

[rkaiser]

And how are you dealing with this now Cattleman?
I am not saying that I support testing every animal; I do not. I do support testing if it changes the dysfunctional market that producers of this country live in and opens new markets.

Your comments follow the lines of ABP/CCA, but fall short of discussion and hold a hard line.
Our line has always been,"It's not so much how much it costs to test, but how much it cost us not to test."

Your suggestions about consumer confidence are simply speculation.
One might also speculate that the consumers of this country embrace testing of animals for export to get the damn ranchers out of there pocket.

Like I said before, this stand you take is very much the stand of ABP/CCA which reaks of arrogance, and smells of bowing to the so called harmonization rules of the USDA.

Discussion is what is needed to get on with something other than the dictate of the USDA. But opposition is not allowed under the umbrella of the ABP/CCA. It's their way or the hiway, either your with us or your agin us. The old axis of evil thing.

Good luck

[Cattleman]

I agree there may be a cost of not testing, but will testing guarantee us anything? This thing is so political right now, even if we decide to test, and they find some sort of contamination issue, or any other off the wall reason that our beef is stull unsafe, we still may not open markets. It didn't work CWD. We are way outside of science on this one, I worry more about the politics! We are both making big assumptions in coming up with the results we want. You are assuming testing will fix everything.
You make good points Randy, and I am being a bit of a devils advocate, but I do make my points because they will help us look at all aspects of these different ideas.

[JACKFLASH]

All:

I value Tom's comments very much. He informs us of dark secrets behind the curtain,and we should take note.I also value all other contributions just as well from all participants...