On 26 Dec 2003 19:47:50 GMT, (ConnieG999)
wrote:

> sf > writes:
>
> >My
> >real question is "Why can't cattle be fed extra protein from
> >better suited, vegetative sources, like soya"?
>
> Maybe it's too expensive?

Not a good enough reason.

Think about supply and demand. If there was a demand, the
supply would increase and prices would be lower because of
increased competition.




Practice safe eating - always use condiments

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Dec 2003 19:47:50 GMT, (ConnieG999)
> wrote:
>
> > sf > writes:
> >
> > >My
> > >real question is "Why can't cattle be fed extra protein from
> > >better suited, vegetative sources, like soya"?
> >
> > Maybe it's too expensive?
>
> Not a good enough reason.
>
> Think about supply and demand. If there was a demand, the
> supply would increase and prices would be lower because of
> increased competition.
>

I asked my dad (a college-educated dairy farmer) after this question was
posed yesterday. Animal protein is used for two reasons. Number one is
that it's the protein content is greater per pound. (1 pound animal matter
vs. 1 pound plant matter). The number 2 reason is that animal protein is
not digested in the rumen, but the small intestine. The protein digested in
the rumen is not as available for the animal to use, as the microflora that
are doing the digesting in the rumen use it. Apparently, 70-80% of the
animal protein will by-pass the rumen and get digested later on and is
actually available for the animal to absorb.

In article >,
says...
> On 26 Dec 2003 19:47:50 GMT, (ConnieG999)
> wrote:
>
> > sf > writes:
> >
> > >My
> > >real question is "Why can't cattle be fed extra protein from
> > >better suited, vegetative sources, like soya"?
> >
> > Maybe it's too expensive?
>
> Not a good enough reason.
>
> Think about supply and demand. If there was a demand, the
> supply would increase and prices would be lower because of
> increased competition.

Ah - you forgot the key. Over time that would happen.

Initially large agribusiness would step in (Think ADM in a monopoly
position here.) Then the government would step in and force ADM to allow
smaller competitors into the market. At this point you have an
oligopoly. Not much better.

The entry barriers to creating higher protein non-animal based feed are
numerous. Land acquisition is a biggie, as are the equipment, manpower
etc.

On 12/27/2003 10:16 AM, in article ,
" > opined:

> hahabogus > wrote:
>
>> In other words you get what you pay for... Cheap Beef. Not necessarily a
>> good thing.
>
> This issue got me to thinking about kosher beef. Since
> the kosher tradition bans the use of any part of any cow
> for human consumption if the animal is found to be sick
> in any way, is kosher beef less likely to harbor Mad
> Cow Disease than non-kosher beef?

Don't know but would guess it's cost prohibitive to stamp all beef kosher.
The market for kosher beef in the U.S. Is only about (what's 4% of
300,000,000 people?)
--
================================================== ========================
"When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the
artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner
here, both sides must part with some of their demands," Benjamin Franklin
(1706-1790)
================================================== ========================

Wayne Boatwright wrote in message ...
wrote in :
>
>> hahabogus > wrote:
>>
>>> In other words you get what you pay for... Cheap Beef. Not
>>> necessarily a good thing.
>>
>> This issue got me to thinking about kosher beef. Since
>> the kosher tradition bans the use of any part of any cow
>> for human consumption if the animal is found to be sick
>> in any way, is kosher beef less likely to harbor Mad
>> Cow Disease than non-kosher beef?
>>
>
>Really good question. I wonder if the kashering process is preceded by or
>includes a rigorous health inspection. I have often bought Kosher meats
>just because the quality has often seemed better.
>

as far as i remember, thats basically true, especially with "glatt" kosher
items (animals lungs <and other organs, i think> are inspected and were free
from lesions)

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE

sf wrote:
>
> On 26 Dec 2003 19:47:50 GMT, (ConnieG999)
> wrote:
>
> > sf > writes:
> >
> > >My
> > >real question is "Why can't cattle be fed extra protein from
> > >better suited, vegetative sources, like soya"?
> >
> > Maybe it's too expensive?
>
> Not a good enough reason.
>
> Think about supply and demand. If there was a demand, the
> supply would increase and prices would be lower because of
> increased competition.
>
> Practice safe eating - always use condiments

Regardless of an industry, their objective is to use or sell as much as
you can and have as little scrap to haul away. By feeding cow blood
back to the cow and also feeding it to pigs, chickens and lamb, there is
greater efficency or profit rather than hauling it and other parts away
and buying grains.

Comsumers have made it clear globally they want the lowest price even if
it means making it in a tent in a far off land.

We probably don't want to change a thing. Those that want to eat safe
food will quietly seek alternatives to beef. Those that believe the
beef is safe will cotinue to eat beef. If they fix the problem, it will
cause prices to rise and in the interim other safer food prices will
skirocket. Tell everyone the beef is safe to eat!

Saerah wrote:
>
> Wayne Boatwright wrote in message ...
> wrote in :
> >
> >> hahabogus > wrote:
> >>
> >>> In other words you get what you pay for... Cheap Beef. Not
> >>> necessarily a good thing.
> >>
> >> This issue got me to thinking about kosher beef. Since
> >> the kosher tradition bans the use of any part of any cow
> >> for human consumption if the animal is found to be sick
> >> in any way, is kosher beef less likely to harbor Mad
> >> Cow Disease than non-kosher beef?
> >>
> >
> >Really good question. I wonder if the kashering process is preceded by or
> >includes a rigorous health inspection. I have often bought Kosher meats
> >just because the quality has often seemed better.
> >
>
> as far as i remember, thats basically true, especially with "glatt" kosher
> items (animals lungs <and other organs, i think> are inspected and were free
> from lesions)
>
> --
> Saerah
>

Also a truly kosher herd would never be fed anything but grain/vegetable
matter.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:11:55 GMT, "DRB" >
wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> >
> > Think about supply and demand. If there was a demand, the
> > supply would increase and prices would be lower because of
> > increased competition.
> >
>
> I asked my dad (a college-educated dairy farmer) after this question was
> posed yesterday. Animal protein is used for two reasons. Number one is
> that it's the protein content is greater per pound. (1 pound animal matter
> vs. 1 pound plant matter). The number 2 reason is that animal protein is
> not digested in the rumen, but the small intestine. The protein digested in
> the rumen is not as available for the animal to use, as the microflora that
> are doing the digesting in the rumen use it. Apparently, 70-80% of the
> animal protein will by-pass the rumen and get digested later on and is
> actually available for the animal to absorb.
>

Thanks for the information - and education!


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:19:04 GMT, "Bob Westcott"
> wrote:

>the standard test used to detect BSE in cows is to cut off its head and
>study the brain cells. Unfortunately, once an animal is subjected to the
>test, it's shelf life is greatly reduced.....
>
>Living deep in the heart of Canadian cattle country, and having family and
>friends that raise them, my heart goes out to the US ranchers... we've seen
>what ignorance, overreaction and press hype can do to the cattle
>industry.....
>
>Bob
>
There's apparently a new test coming available Bob, that can be used
in the "field [slaughterhouse]" - which costs about $20/animal to
administer enabling 100% testing.. This, coupled with the 100%
computer tracking of ear tags, should see us all clear in three years
when the last of the current regime animals is long gone. The other
part needs to be regulated, especially in America, concerns what goes
into the make up of cattle [and pork, and poultry, ] feed.

I have actually heard somebody defend the use of chicken feces being
recycled back into feed after being "cleaned up" because they are very
inefficient at processing their food. If the stuff is that rich, then
perhaps it should go into fertilizer.

Harry
>
>"Jeff Davis" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:21:16 -0800, "Diggery Dew"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Gentlemen,
>> > >
>> > > What horse shit these people are spewing!! I live in Yakima,
>> Washington the
>> > > dairy this cow came from sent it to market SICK, the vet took samples
>> to be
>> > > tested and they still sent it to a slaughter house in Moses Lake
>> Washington,
>> > > split it up then sent parts to Centralia Washington. Then parts of
>the
>> > > processed meat was sent to Oregon.
>> > >
>> > > This cow had SYMPTOMS, it was SICK. 73 percent of all SICK and
>injured
>> cows
>> > > are butchered for human consumption! The only reason they are able
>to
>> track
>> > > the cows lineage and history is that it is a dairy cow. Plan old
>beef
>> > > steers have no paper work.
>> > >
>> > > To pass this off as a "Oh, I thought there was more to the story" is
>> dumb.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I'd like to know why they were feeding dairy cows grain
>> > laden with animal protein.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I'd like to know why the cow was sent off before the test results were
>> returned.
>> The government said the beef supply is safe.
>> I'm sure gonna miss my steaks.
>>
>>
>>
>

On 27 Dec 2003 18:16:27 GMT, wrote:

>hahabogus > wrote:
>
>> In other words you get what you pay for... Cheap Beef. Not necessarily a
>> good thing.
>
>This issue got me to thinking about kosher beef. Since
>the kosher tradition bans the use of any part of any cow
>for human consumption if the animal is found to be sick
>in any way, is kosher beef less likely to harbor Mad
>Cow Disease than non-kosher beef?

Might save some grief, Stan, especially if the butcher knows where the
animal came from, but those nasty little prions may get past the
kashering.

Harry

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:23:35 GMT, "Bob Westcott"
> wrote:

>We'll wait and see if it actually came from Canada... I'm betting its just a
>bunch of hype to be honest. Unfortunately, the USA has a tough time finding
>accountability at home and likes to find others to blame... Of course, if
>the US industry insisted on keeping track of animals better, they'd be able
>to say with some certainty where the animal came from.
>
>There is nothing allowed in Canadian feed that can cause BSE, just like US
>feed. However, due to whatever circumstances, I'm sure feed in both
>countries gets "tainted" in the manufacturing process, blame the feed
>manufacturers if you like, I'd consider them open game.....
>
Going to fun to figure it out as the Ear ID tags have apparently gone
"astray".

Harry
>
>
>"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
>> DRB wrote:
>> >
>> > "sf" > wrote in message
>>
>> > > I'd like to know why they were feeding dairy cows grain
>> > > laden with animal protein.
>>
>> > My family has a dairy farm. We would never intentionally feed our cows
>the
>> > stuff that they're not supposed to have. We don't want them getting
>sick.
>> > There is a certain amount of trust you put in the manufacturer that
>they're
>> > doing what they're supposed to and making a safe product for your
>animals to
>> > eat, and it's maddening when something like this happens.
>>
>> Well, unless I'm out of date, as of this morning they were still
>> tracing the origin of the cow. If it came from Canada, it might
>> have been legally fed something banned here, at some point.
>>
>> nancy
>

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:37:01 -0600, BubbaBob
> wrote:

>Harry Demidavicius > wrote:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2003 18:16:27 GMT, wrote:
>>
>
>> Might save some grief, Stan, especially if the butcher knows
>> where the animal came from, but those nasty little prions may
>> get past the kashering.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
>Prions get by anything short of a plasma torch, a nuclear detonation
>or about an hour in a reactor core. They are released intact in the
>smoke when infected animals are burned.
>
>When CJD patients are operated on, the medical instruments are melted
>down and then entombed in a glass substrate before burial at a toxic
>waste site. Reusing them after any form of practical disinfection has
>spread CJD to a lot of people who never ate infected beef.
>
Not quite.

Acquired CJD accounts for about 1% to 5% of all cases. 10% to 15% are
hereditary. 80% to 85% are what is known as "Sporadic CJD" and are
caused by a random mutation.

BSE, or Bovine Spongifom Encephalopathy is referred to as vCJD or
Variant Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease. It is not exactly the same as CJD
and the brain lesions more closely resemble those from a cow with
(BSE) than brain lesions from a human with CJD. CJD generally affects
those between 50 and 70. vCJD is usually seen in younger persons.

A person cannot contract CJD from "infected beef." Surgical instrument
spread of CJD has been minimal, even with the lengthy incubation
period. . There have been a goodly number of cases traced to corneal
transplant, though and from use of human-derived growth hormone, and
transplantation of dura matter. Only a handful come from instrument
contamination.

Both CJD and vCJD are caused by prions, which withstand standard
sterilization procedures.

I have seen no recommendation of "glass substate" you mentioned for
disposal of the contaminated surgical instruments. Can you provide a
citation? There is talk of a newer, enzyme based treatment that
dissolves the proteins and seems promising for investigation. You can
read about it he

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...?id=ns99993999

Boron

"Harry Demidavicius" > wrote in message
...
> >
> There's apparently a new test coming available Bob, that can be used
> in the "field [slaughterhouse]" - which costs about $20/animal to
> administer enabling 100% testing.. This, coupled with the 100%
> computer tracking of ear tags, should see us all clear in three years
> when the last of the current regime animals is long gone. The other
> part needs to be regulated, especially in America, concerns what goes
> into the make up of cattle [and pork, and poultry, ] feed.
>

One would hope that this latest incident will force the packing industry to
finally get with the program and test EACH animal BEFORE putting it into the
food supply. I've read about this testing, but haven't seen anything in
regard to how long it takes to get results. I know around here, the big
resistance is the cost. Go figure, $1500 for an animal, but no one wants to
charge $30 (all prices in Canadian dollars) to insure that it is safe to
eat. Furthermore, one could reasonably expect that once the test becomes
widely used, economies of scale should drop the price down substantially.

As for the ear tags, that is wholly a USA issue. All Canadian animals are
tagged and tracked. It seems that once they hit the border, somebody pulls
the tags off. Go figure.....


Bob

On 12/29/2003 6:38 AM, in article f%WHb.865080$9l5.164283@pd7tw2no, "Bob
Westcott" > opined:

>
> "Harry Demidavicius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> There's apparently a new test coming available Bob, that can be used
>> in the "field [slaughterhouse]" - which costs about $20/animal to
>> administer enabling 100% testing.. This, coupled with the 100%
>> computer tracking of ear tags, should see us all clear in three years
>> when the last of the current regime animals is long gone. The other
>> part needs to be regulated, especially in America, concerns what goes
>> into the make up of cattle [and pork, and poultry, ] feed.
>>
>
> One would hope that this latest incident will force the packing industry to
> finally get with the program and test EACH animal BEFORE putting it into the
> food supply. I've read about this testing, but haven't seen anything in
> regard to how long it takes to get results. I know around here, the big
> resistance is the cost. Go figure, $1500 for an animal, but no one wants to
> charge $30 (all prices in Canadian dollars) to insure that it is safe to
> eat. Furthermore, one could reasonably expect that once the test becomes
> widely used, economies of scale should drop the price down substantially.
>
> As for the ear tags, that is wholly a USA issue. All Canadian animals are
> tagged and tracked. It seems that once they hit the border, somebody pulls
> the tags off. Go figure.....
>
>
> Bob
>
>
Why use ear tags that can come off, why not use DNA id?
--
================================================== ===================
"New Orleans food is as delicious as the less criminal forms of sin."
-- Mark Twain, 1884
================================================== ===================