5 Min. with Thornsberry

[Jason]

Question for anyone participating in this thread. Can you tell me exactly why the R-calf crew gets such a bad rap. And before anyone jumps me, I am not a member. I am the president of a cattlemen's association, who has never taken the time to read the thousands of pages to get an answer. What are the pro's and the con's?

R-calf is an acrtion legal fund. They started in 96 to harrass Canadian imports. They lie about trade suplus. They lie about safety of the beef supply.

They have affiliated with groups that have agendas to stop cattle production for food.

They are only after 2 things, money for the top guys and protectionism.

The founders are lawyers.

If that isn't enough I'm sure someone can add more.

 

[Angus Breeder]

I am not interested in opinions, I want the cold hard documented facts. There is surely someon out there who can show a documented of who they are affiliated with, or where they lied about beef supply. It seems odd to me that a group of cattle producers would be associated with groups that want to stop beef production for food.

 

[Anonymous]

I am not interested in opinions, I want the cold hard documented facts. There is surely someon out there who can show a documented of who they are affiliated with, or where they lied about beef supply. It seems odd to me that a group of cattle producers would be associated with groups that want to stop beef production for food.

Go to the below website- pretty accurately explains the formation and actions of R-CALF-- and read the archives- gives a pretty good history of the actions they have undertaken....

http://www.r-calfusa.com/

 

[Sandhusker]

Question for anyone participating in this thread. Can you tell me exactly why the R-calf crew gets such a bad rap. And before anyone jumps me, I am not a member. I am the president of a cattlemen's association, who has never taken the time to read the thousands of pages to get an answer. What are the pro's and the con's?

R-calf is an acrtion legal fund. They started in 96 to harrass Canadian imports. They lie about trade suplus. They lie about safety of the beef supply.

They have affiliated with groups that have agendas to stop cattle production for food.

They are only after 2 things, money for the top guys and protectionism.

The founders are lawyers.

If that isn't enough I'm sure someone can add more.

Jason,
What is your definition of "protectionism"?

Who are the "top guys"?

 

[Tommy]

Jason...R-calf is an acrtion legal fund. They started in 96 to harrass Canadian imports. They lie about trade suplus. They lie about safety of the beef supply.

R-CALF USA filed a live cattle and anti-dumping (selling below the cost of production) case against Canada and Mexico , and a countervailing (subsidy) case against Canada. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in January dismissed the Mexico case. In the summer of 1999, the Department of Commerce (DOC) found that Canada was subsidizing the production of live cattle, but not at a high enough rate to warrant penalty tariffs. The DOC in July of 1999 also found Canada was dumping cattle into the U.S. at a high enough rate to warrant tariffs equivalent to the violation to be put on. The U.S. cattle market saw an immediate improvement in their markets.

Jason...They have affiliated with groups that have agendas to stop cattle production for food.

Give us facts Jason that says the groups they affiliate with have that agenda.

Jason...They are only after 2 things, money for the top guys and protectionism.

That is your opinion, and only an opinion.


Jason...The founders are lawyers.

R-CALF USA was founded in 1998 by Leo McDonnell, Jr. of Columbus, MT, Kathleen Kelley of Meeker, CO, and Herman Schumacher of Herreid, SD. All are cattle producers. R-CALF USA became a membership organization in 1999.

Jason...If that isn't enough I'm sure someone can add more.


Talk about someone distorting the facts.[/b]

 

[Bill]

I am not interested in opinions, I want the cold hard documented facts. There is surely someon out there who can show a documented of who they are affiliated with, or where they lied about beef supply. It seems odd to me that a group of cattle producers would be associated with groups that want to stop beef production for food.

High Stakes Poker... the R-CALF Way

Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
3 March 2005

Maybe This Is Montana "Hold'em"

A few months ago, if you had been asked to guess who had made statements like the following to the media, which group would you have guessed was the source?

U.S. beef is not safe and continually puts consumers at risk.
Canadian beef is not safe to eat.
The USDA is not doing its job and is putting consumer's families at risk.
The USDA Inspected stamp is false "advertising" and is misleading.
Would you have guessed:

a) Ralph Nader's Public Citizen?
b) Carol Tucker Foreman's Consumer Federation of America?
c) PETA?
d) Consumer's Union?
e) A rancher's group?

Six months ago, would you have believed any rancher's group would be making the statements R- CALF has been making? Yet the answer to the above question is e), a rancher's group - R-CALF.

If you thought the over-the-top moves and statements of recent weeks couldn't go much further, you were wrong.

R-CALF has actually issued and called on its members to distribute - I'm not making this up - a "Safety Alert Fact Sheet" to consumers, grocery store managers, butchers, public health officials and elected officials across the U.S. They've already sent it to elected officials and health departments. Why? To make sure consumers believe that Canadian beef can give them BSE. R-CALF's belief is that if they can get consumers panicked about Canadian beef, they can generate pressure on USDA to rescind the Canadian Final Rule due to go into effect March 7. Then, when panicked consumers find out Canadian boxed beef has been entering the country for months, they can protect themselves by not eating any beef in the U.S. at all until mandatory COOL is implemented, according to R-CALF's wishes.

What it boils down to is this: R-CALF is engaged in a high stakes poker game. The stakes are not just R-CALF's $800,000 a year legal affairs budget. They are gambling your money - if you are at all involved anywhere in the beef chain - that they can scare consumers enough to help them achieve their political goals of cutting off beef imports. To them, risking consumer confidence in beef, indeed, risking the future of the whole industry, is a bet they are willing to make, Texas hold'em style, with all their money - and all yours.

They're not only betting everything, they are trying to fill an inside straight. Because they are gambling that if they destroy consumer confidence, if they create a "mad cow" scare and stop the beef market cold, that it will be temporary and they can re-start it later on whenever they want to do so. Such thinking is not only inconceivably, but unbelievably reckless. It is demonstrative of the naiveté of these people who apparently know so little of consumer habits, beef demand and the struggle of the last 30 years to turn this industry around at the consumer level. They evidently imagine that there are magical control valves somewhere to turn demand and consumer confidence in beef safety off and on.

This from the same people who keeping calling for USDA not to announce inconclusive test results on cows because of the depressing effect it has on the market for a few days.

Probably the luckiest thing about this whole debacle is R-CALF's association with Nader's Public Citizen and Carol Tucker Foreman's Consumer Federation of America and Consumer's Union. It's also demonstrating some nasty side effects, although nothing trumps their horribly misguided risk of consumer confidence and misrepresentation of scientific facts for relatively insignificant political goals.

The good thing is that by allying itself with the aforementioned groups, far from achieving the credibility R-CALF wanted, they have branded themselves as one of those groups who scream loudly about danger, imminent risk and threatened consumers. These groups' pronouncements are often, though not always, taken with a large handful of salt by consumers, businesses and sometimes even the gullible, activist, major media outlets. If all the life-threatening crises these alarmists groups claim to have uncovered were real, the entire U.S. population would have to die several times over each year to fulfill their dire predictions.

On the other hand, this kind of shrill tactic means they are taking more leaves out of the consumer activist's notebook given them by PC and CFA, etc. And while grocery store managers will quickly run them out of their stores, union activists may not. These activist groups have union connections and support. Disgruntled inspectors have tried to raise questions about inspection before. Several grocery store chains are negotiating with unions on contracts now. The last thing we need is to be pawns is some union's play for more publicity.

But if they knew the first thing about dealing with real grocery chains, they'd know meat managers hand out nothing that hasn't been cleared with headquarters; nobody stands around handing out "Safety Alert" leaflets in their departments, and grocery chains do not work at damaging the market for the foods they sell. Any CattleWoman who has worked promotions in the meat department can tell you that. As a good friend of mine would opine, "Amateurs, amateurs, amateurs ..."

Only vegetarian, half-hearted organic food marketers like Whole Foods would entertain such a notion. Their CEO has admitted he wished he didn't have to sell meat at all. And their meat department, after all the carrying on about only buying local produce from local producers, hands out brochures on New Zealand grass-fed beef. But I digress.

The bottom line is that if R-CALF fails in its quest to block Canadian cattle imports, they have stated unequivocally that U.S. consumers should avoid eating beef purchased at U.S. grocery stores unless they wish to risk getting "mad cow" disease. If the USDA goes ahead with implementing the Final Rule on March 7 - as they most likely will - any consumer ignorant of the facts who reads R-CALF's Safety Alert sheet, with its inaccurate information and ridiculous scare tactics, would avoid beef totally.

If R-CALF's lawsuit is successful and the border reopening is delayed, another genie's bottle is uncorked. Any number of R-CALF's misleading, exaggerated and inaccurate conjectures in its legal filing could be quoted in the court's ruling, giving more credence and broad media coverage to such scare statements in the general media. And just as many people feel courts should not be making laws; legal briefs throwing everything attorneys can think of against the wall is not the proper and accurate way to establish scientific fact.

And if the curiosity of consumers is aroused and they read R-CALF's other ridiculous statements about beef's supposed continual "health risks to U.S. consumers," disaster could result.

Frankly, I cannot believe there are 12,000 R-CALF members out there who approve of such reckless brinkmanship with their livelihood. If they are concerned about this high stakes poker game with their life on the line, we suggest they get control of their leadership and its attorneys. This is not about turf. This is about survival of an industry.

No one I'm aware of in America is doing more to try to wreck the beef industry than R-CALF is right now. And the local rural communities they claim to be trying to save better be ooking at their sheep and wheat hole cards very carefully. They could be the only cards worth anything in the American West if R- CALF gets its way and all beef cards end up in the discard pile.

The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain. The AFF believes it is possible to value the traditions and heritage of the past while embracing the future and the changes it brings. The AFF is a communications and educational initiative striving to preserve the freedom of the agricultural food chain to operate and innovate in order to continue the success of American agriculture.

 

[Bill]

If the above isn't good enough Angus Breeder give the NDSA a call and ask them for the proof.

For immediate release
July 21, 2004

For more information, contact:
Wade Moser, NDSA executive vice president
Julie Schaff Ellingson, NDSA communications director
(701) 223-2522 • [email protected]
Jeff Dahl, NDSA president • (701) 485-3762

Stockmen's Association calls on R-CALF
to sever ties with anti-beef groups

"The North Dakota Stockmen's Association (NDSA) has a 75-year reputation of being a credible source of cattle industry information and policy," said NDSA President Jeff Dahl of Gackle, N.D. That's why the NDSA Board of Directors is dissatisfied with R-CALF USA, one of its national organizations, for partnering with some less-than-credible associations that poke holes in the industry's cause and reputation, he said.

In a resolution passed at their meeting July 14 in Mandan, N.D., NDSA board members directed R-CALF USA officials to: 1) Stop their association with and distance themselves from groups that have a history of promoting anti-beef industry agendas; 2) Use sound science in their press releases and statements; and 3) Immediately stop making damaging statements that will lead to the erosion of consumer confidence in the U.S. beef supply; by Oct. 1, 2004, or the NDSA will withdraw its affiliation.

Specifically, the Board rejected R-CALF's partnership with the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Policy Institute and Public Citizen in blasting American efforts to protect the U.S. cattle herd and beef supply in regards to BSE and confusing consumers about the threat of the disease in this country.

The NDSA is concerned about the quality of R-CALF's company, since the Consumer Federation of America has been a vocal supporter of plant-based diets and has muddied the waters of truth about irradiation and American food safety standards. The Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop referred to cancer scare claims regarding biotechnology by the Consumer Policy Institute's Michael Hansen as "baseless, manipulative and completely irresponsible ... and as part of a long-running campaign to scare consumers about perfectly safe food." Public Citizen likewise has a long list of anti-beef moves and has aligned itself with such radical animal rights activists as the Animal Welfare Institute and Farm Sanctuary.

"The NDSA believes strongly in most of the work R-CALF USA accomplishes on behalf of cow-calf producers around the nation. If we didn't, we wouldn't have invested some of our members' dollars to become affiliate members for the last three years, and we wouldn't care what the organization did or with whom," Dahl explained. "However, as affiliate members, we believe it is our right – and responsibility – to speak up when North Dakota cattlemen have concerns."

Dahl has already made contact with R-CALF USA President Leo McDonnell of Columbus, Mont., to schedule a meeting next month where directors of both organizations can discuss – and hopefully resolve – any differences.

This is not the first time the NDSA has taken a national organization to task for not representing its members as the NDSA saw fit. It passed a similar resolution calling on the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to improve its cow-calf representation in 1999.

"Stockmen's members were pleased with the progress we made at that time, and we're confident we will be able to work out our concerns with R-CALF as well," Dahl said. "In the end, we all have the same goals in mind."

In other business at the meeting July 14, the NDSA Board of Directors approved a bylaw change to increase member participation in voting. The change, which is effective at the upcoming NDSA Convention Sept. 23-25 in Medora, N.D., will allow members to vote at any time during the convention after nominations close. Stockmen's leaders also discussed the U.S. Department of Agriculture's BSE surveillance testing, the State Health Department's animal-feeding operation rules, zoning issues, irradiation workshops, prairie dog management and more.

 

[Sandhusker]

And Bill brings out the one-man "foundation" that claims "The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain", yet can only rant about R-CALF. :roll: :lol:

Bill, don't you think it's kind of fishy that, first of all, one man calls himself a "foundation"? Isn't it the least bit strange that the "foundation" is concerned with the agricultural food chain, but has yet to write on corn, wheat, rice, beans, any feed grain, hogs, sheep, poultry, vegtables, fruit, sugar, cotton, etc...? Aren't those part of agriculture? Don't you think a topic other than R-CALF would come up sometime with a mission statement such as that?

 

[Bill]

And Bill brings out the one-man "foundation" that claims "The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain", yet can only rant about R-CALF. :roll: :lol:

Bill, don't you think it's kind of fishy that, first of all, one man calls himself a "foundation"? Isn't it the least bit strange that the "foundation" is concerned with the agricultural food chain, but has yet to write on corn, wheat, rice, beans, any feed grain, hogs, sheep, poultry, vegtables, fruit, sugar, cotton, etc...? Aren't those part of agriculture? Don't you think a topic other than R-CALF would come up sometime with a mission statement such as that?

We all know your take on Dittmer. What about the NDSA Sandhusker are they full of crap too or did you you even read that one?

 

[Sandhusker]

And Bill brings out the one-man "foundation" that claims "The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain", yet can only rant about R-CALF. :roll: :lol:

Bill, don't you think it's kind of fishy that, first of all, one man calls himself a "foundation"? Isn't it the least bit strange that the "foundation" is concerned with the agricultural food chain, but has yet to write on corn, wheat, rice, beans, any feed grain, hogs, sheep, poultry, vegtables, fruit, sugar, cotton, etc...? Aren't those part of agriculture? Don't you think a topic other than R-CALF would come up sometime with a mission statement such as that?

We all know your take on Dittmer. What about the NDSA Sandhusker are they full of crap too or did you you even read that one?

Are you going to comment on the questions I posed?

Yeah, I read what you posted from NDSA. I also read something you didn't highlight; "The NDSA believes strongly in most of the work R-CALF USA accomplishes on behalf of cow-calf producers around the nation."

They had a gripe with R-CALF, aired it, and made R-CALF leadership address their concerns. That's the way things should be. If you'll do a followup, you'll find the NDSA has not withdrawn their affiliation.

The majority of members gave leadership approval on the same topic. I thought long and hard about it and then realized these "anti-beef" groups were not what they were labeled. I also realized these folks were our customers and that we could only benefit from a stronger relationship with them. Any anti-beef sentiments from any parts of these outfits would be harder for them to express if they knew us as good folks equally as concerned with food quality as they were. A caustic relationship benefits nobody.

 

[Anonymous]

Angus Breeder,

You want the facts on R-CALF, here's the facts:

R-CALF was started by Leo McDonnel to address "PERCEIVED" isssues of unfair trade with Canada. As time went on, R-CALF's agenda became the agenda of the LMA and other industry blamers.

Here's R-CALF's legal track record:

R-CALF filed a dumping case against Canada and lost.

R-CALF supported Pickett in Pickett vs. IBP and lost.

R-CALF supported an appeal of the Pickett vs. IBP decision and lost at the 11th circuit level.

R-CALF filed an injunction against USDA and used BSE as a catalyst to stop Canadian live cattle imports and lost.

R-CALF filed an appeal of the USDA injunction decision and lost at the 9th circuit court of appeals.

Prominent R-CALF proponents and directors filed a lawsuit against the beef checkoff and lost.

R-CALF has not won a single court decision yet. WHY? Because they are an organization that is based on lies and deception. They are driven by a need to blame large corporate packers and imports. When it comes crunch time, they can't back their positions with facts. R-CALF runs on emotion and blame, not facts.

R-CALF thinks they need a government mandate for every perceived problem. They supported "MANDATORY" price reporting when volunatary reporting was working just fine. They support "MANDATORY" country of origin labeling because they think they know more about selling beef than those who actually sell beef. They support the communist captive supply reform act which allows the federal government to pick and choose who can and who cannot own cattle and how those cattle will be marketed (an attempt to save the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms).
"M"COOL as written exempts 75% of the imported beef into this country and prohibits the means to enforce it. The hypocrites who thought we needed another government mandate to save consumers from themselves demanded proof of where beef was "born, raised, and slaughtered" yet prohibited "M"ID which is the only way to enforce what they themselves demanded. They claim that "M"COOL could be enforced like the school lunch program. That is another lie. Cattle that are born in Canada and fed and slaughtered in the U.S. qualify for the school lunch program yet they do not qualify for "M"COOL. "M"COOL is the classic symbolism over substance law which would segregate 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption as imported beef which only creates a novelty status at the expense of labeling all beef. Ridiculous!

R-CALF lies about the impact of captive supplies. Their solution to this "perceived" problem is yet another government mandate to save the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms based on a market manipulation conspiracy theory that they could not prove in court. This law is called the captive supply reform act and is nothing more than a cleverly disguised LMA ploy to keep fat cattle routed through the sale barns so the LMA can carve their commission dollars out of the sale of fat cattle too.

R-CALF lies about the impact of imports. In their legal brief against USDA they claimed significant dollar losses to Canadian imports. Look at cattle prices now and the border is opened. What more proof does anyone need that they lie?

R-CALF lied about being in a trade deficit position for two years. When questioned about it, they deceptively suggested they were only considering live cattle and beef imports which painted their gloom and doom trade picture while they neglected to mention the value of hides and beef variety meats. The total trade picture, prior to BSE, was a 7 year average $1.3 BILLION DOLLAR surplus in the trade of cattle, beef, and beef by products. They only report the aspects of trade that supports their anti trade bias. They claim not to be anti trade but R-CALF's CEO, Bill Bullard, Stated, "Because you don't produce enough beef to satisfy your own domestic market, you don't need an export market to distribute your production". When asked at another meeting what it would be like without trade Bullard responded, "We would be in a favorable postition because we don't produce enough beef to satisfy our own domestic market now". Which is a real stupid statement because the question is AT WHAT PRICE IT'S SOLD AT. Typical of their ignorant ways.

R-CALF took out an add in the Washington Post stating that Canadian beef is "high risk" due to BSE in their native herd. They publicly stated that USDA does not care about food safety and has not gone far enough to assure the safety of our beef. This was nothing more than a political ploy to stop Canadian imports. When the U.S. had BSE in their native herd, R-CALF said that we have the safest beef in the world due to the firewalls we have in place. THOSE WERE THE SAME FIREWALLS CANADA HAD IN PLACE. R-CALF risked the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption (domestic production) by lying about the dangers of BSE to stop 4% of our U.S. beef consumption. That's how ignorant they really are. NCBA and USDA were there to do their damage control when BSE was discovered in the U.S. and present the facts to the media preventing a potential disaster while R-CALF is pointing a finger at Canada. That was absolutely the dumbest political move I have ever seen in my life. As if they would have really accomplished something by stopping Canadian imports by lying about the potential problems with BSE. Canadian beef would not have been removed from the world market. Canada would have eventually taken an equivelant portion of our export market. That's how ignorant R-CALF is.

You do not want to support an organization of government mandate loving blamers that bases their opinions on emotional rhetoric instead of facts and is willing to risk the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption by lying about BSE to stop the importation of 4% of our U.S. beef consumption (Canadian live cattle).

Look no further than their record in court to see how they are driven by emotion, not facts.

Proud not to be an R-CULT member!



~SH~

 

[Bill]

And Bill brings out the one-man "foundation" that claims "The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain", yet can only rant about R-CALF. :roll: :lol:

Bill, don't you think it's kind of fishy that, first of all, one man calls himself a "foundation"? Isn't it the least bit strange that the "foundation" is concerned with the agricultural food chain, but has yet to write on corn, wheat, rice, beans, any feed grain, hogs, sheep, poultry, vegtables, fruit, sugar, cotton, etc...? Aren't those part of agriculture? Don't you think a topic other than R-CALF would come up sometime with a mission statement such as that?

We all know your take on Dittmer. What about the NDSA Sandhusker are they full of crap too or did you you even read that one?

Are you going to comment on the questions I posed?

Yeah, I read what you posted from NDSA. I also read something you didn't highlight; "The NDSA believes strongly in most of the work R-CALF USA accomplishes on behalf of cow-calf producers around the nation."

They had a gripe with R-CALF, aired it, and made R-CALF leadership address their concerns. That's the way things should be. If you'll do a followup, you'll find the NDSA has not withdrawn their affiliation.

The majority of members gave leadership approval on the same topic. I thought long and hard about it and then realized these "anti-beef" groups were not what they were labeled. I also realized these folks were our customers and that we could only benefit from a stronger relationship with them. Any anti-beef sentiments from any parts of these outfits would be harder for them to express if they knew us as good folks equally as concerned with food quality as they were. A caustic relationship benefits nobody.

Seems odd to me that if NDSA believed "stongly in MOST of the work R-Calf USA accomplishes that they thought it important enough to issue that press release to distance themselves as quickly as possible from the R-Calf circus which was going on at that time. :roll:

According to NDSA this is what your Consumer Beef support groups have done Sandhusker.

the Consumer Federation of America has been a vocal supporter of plant-based diets and has muddied the waters of truth about irradiation and American food safety standards. The Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop referred to cancer scare claims regarding biotechnology by the Consumer Policy Institute's Michael Hansen as "baseless, manipulative and completely irresponsible ... and as part of a long-running campaign to scare consumers about perfectly safe food." Public Citizen likewise has a long list of anti-beef moves and has aligned itself with such radical animal rights activists as the Animal Welfare Institute and Farm Sanctuary.

Not anti-beef beef? :roll:

You make up your own mind Angus Breeder.

 

[Econ101]

We all know your take on Dittmer. What about the NDSA Sandhusker are they full of crap too or did you you even read that one?

Are you going to comment on the questions I posed?

Yeah, I read what you posted from NDSA. I also read something you didn't highlight; "The NDSA believes strongly in most of the work R-CALF USA accomplishes on behalf of cow-calf producers around the nation."

They had a gripe with R-CALF, aired it, and made R-CALF leadership address their concerns. That's the way things should be. If you'll do a followup, you'll find the NDSA has not withdrawn their affiliation.

The majority of members gave leadership approval on the same topic. I thought long and hard about it and then realized these "anti-beef" groups were not what they were labeled. I also realized these folks were our customers and that we could only benefit from a stronger relationship with them. Any anti-beef sentiments from any parts of these outfits would be harder for them to express if they knew us as good folks equally as concerned with food quality as they were. A caustic relationship benefits nobody.

Seems odd to me that if NDSA believed "stongly in MOST of the work R-Calf USA accomplishes that they thought it important enough to issue that press release to distance themselves as quickly as possible from the R-Calf circus which was going on at that time. :roll:

According to NDSA this is what your Consumer Beef support groups have done Sandhusker.

the Consumer Federation of America has been a vocal supporter of plant-based diets and has muddied the waters of truth about irradiation and American food safety standards. The Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop referred to cancer scare claims regarding biotechnology by the Consumer Policy Institute's Michael Hansen as "baseless, manipulative and completely irresponsible ... and as part of a long-running campaign to scare consumers about perfectly safe food." Public Citizen likewise has a long list of anti-beef moves and has aligned itself with such radical animal rights activists as the Animal Welfare Institute and Farm Sanctuary.

Not anti-beef beef? :roll:

You make up your own mind Angus Breeder.

Bill:"Public Citizen likewise has a long list of anti-beef moves and has aligned itself with such radical animal rights activists as the Animal Welfare Institute and Farm Sanctuary."

What are these anti beef moves? Pointing out the money trail in the industry?

As far as Farm Sanctuary is concerned, more power to them. If people want to take care of animals out of the kindness of their heart and their own pocketbook, let them do it. Who does it hurt? I know very little about this organization, but how does it hurt the beef industry? If some people want to take in animals, why should anyone stop them? Almost every farmer's family has done this at some time or another and often with an animal(pet) that has brought great joy to the family.

Animal Welfare Institute? I know little about this group either. It is good to know that there are these groups out there. They do not have to be mainstream, and you do not have to listen to some of the cooks in them, but who do they hurt? Sometimes the cooks in these organizations help to bring a little rational thought to those who see them in action doing cooky things. That is not a bad thing either.

What are these Public Citizen connections and alignments you speak about? I think knowing the money trail is a good thing. Tenuous relationships that are suggested with the radical groups are just that--tenuous. What kind of conspiracy theory are you onto, Bill?

(Things are a little too quiet for me)

 

[Bill]

Econ wrote:

Bill:"Public Citizen likewise has a long list of anti-beef moves and has aligned itself with such radical animal rights activists as the Animal Welfare Institute and Farm Sanctuary."

What are these anti beef moves? Pointing out the money trail in the industry?

As far as Farm Sanctuary is concerned, more power to them. If people want to take care of animals out of the kindness of their heart and their own pocketbook, let them do it. Who does it hurt? I know very little about this organization, but how does it hurt the beef industry? If some people want to take in animals, why should anyone stop them? Almost every farmer's family has done this at some time or another and often with an animal(pet) that has brought great joy to the family.

Animal Welfare Institute? I know little about this group either. It is good to know that there are these groups out there. They do not have to be mainstream, and you do not have to listen to some of the cooks in them, but who do they hurt? Sometimes the cooks in these organizations help to bring a little rational thought to those who see them in action doing cooky things. That is not a bad thing either.

What are these Public Citizen connections and alignments you speak about? I think knowing the money trail is a good thing. Tenuous relationships that are suggested with the radical groups are just that--tenuous. What kind of conspiracy theory are you onto, Bill?

(Things are a little too quiet for me)

You must have missed this part above Econ:

According to NDSA this is what your Consumer Beef support groups have done............

Ask the NDSA. They were concerned enough to put it in a press release and take R-Calf to task over it.

 

[S.S.A.P.]

From the Max Thornsberry, DVM, Region VI Director for R-CALF USA, interview that started this thread.

Anytime a market expands, producers should benefit. In the past, prices to Japan were much higher than domestic beef, but producers realized very little of that price differential. I seriously doubt if grassroots producers will directly benefit from the Japanese market this time, either.



Local market outlets for very high quality beef could pass on some of that price differential to local cattle feeders. What is really sad about all this concerns the Japanese request for testing of animals for BSE. The U.S. could have sold all the beef it wanted to Japan immediately after the Canadian cow was discovered in Washington state, if the USDA had allowed packers to simply perform a BSE screening test (ELISA) followed by a confirmatory Western Blot test, costing about $30 to $40 per carcass for the Japanese market place. Japan has been performing such tests on all beef carcasses in its own country, and has identified 21 cases of BSE, thereby preventing the movement of BSE-contaminated beef to the consuming public.



The economics are there. A $30 - $40 test to generate a $300 to $400 return for each carcass does not require a degree in agriculture economics to realize the potential profit to the industry. The U.S. could have had the Japanese market back much sooner. The market we now have is quite limited by comparison, and we have not yet regained the Japanese consumers' confidence.

So - according to Thornsberry do producers benefit from export ... or not!

 

[Econ101]

From the Max Thornsberry, DVM, Region VI Director for R-CALF USA, interview that started this thread.

Anytime a market expands, producers should benefit. In the past, prices to Japan were much higher than domestic beef, but producers realized very little of that price differential. I seriously doubt if grassroots producers will directly benefit from the Japanese market this time, either.



Local market outlets for very high quality beef could pass on some of that price differential to local cattle feeders. What is really sad about all this concerns the Japanese request for testing of animals for BSE. The U.S. could have sold all the beef it wanted to Japan immediately after the Canadian cow was discovered in Washington state, if the USDA had allowed packers to simply perform a BSE screening test (ELISA) followed by a confirmatory Western Blot test, costing about $30 to $40 per carcass for the Japanese market place. Japan has been performing such tests on all beef carcasses in its own country, and has identified 21 cases of BSE, thereby preventing the movement of BSE-contaminated beef to the consuming public.



The economics are there. A $30 - $40 test to generate a $300 to $400 return for each carcass does not require a degree in agriculture economics to realize the potential profit to the industry. The U.S. could have had the Japanese market back much sooner. The market we now have is quite limited by comparison, and we have not yet regained the Japanese consumers' confidence.

So - according to Thornsberry do producers benefit from export ... or not!

Of course producers benefit from export. They benefit about as much as the Canadian cattlemen benefitted during the "salmon run". Most of the profits went to the packers, not the producers. That is the point of my initial comments on this string, not to say that they don't benefit at all.

It just proves the point once again that the boxed beef prices are not necessarily causative agents at the producer price level. Competition for those cattle by packers is. That is why competition for producer's products are so important and should be the MAIN concern for cattlemen in both countries.

 

[S.S.A.P.]

Thornsberry:

I seriously doubt if grassroots producers will directly benefit from the Japanese market this time, either.

The economics are there. A $30 - $40 test to generate a $300 to $400 return for each carcass does not require a degree in agriculture economics to realize the potential profit to the industry.

How much of $300 to $400 is a "seriously doubt" producer's share.

First he seriously doubts benefits (this time either) for the producer
Second he (sarcastically) references the loss of potential profit for the "industry"....... smooth words.

"Profit for the industry" - I almost think he's including producers! :wink:
What's the word I'm looking for ...? :wink:

 

[Econ101]

Thornsberry:

I seriously doubt if grassroots producers will directly benefit from the Japanese market this time, either.

The economics are there. A $30 - $40 test to generate a $300 to $400 return for each carcass does not require a degree in agriculture economics to realize the potential profit to the industry.

How much of $300 to $400 is a "seriously doubt" producer's share.

First he seriously doubts benefits (this time either) for the producer
Second he (sarcastically) references the loss of potential profit for the "industry"....... smooth words.

"Profit for the industry" - I almost think he's including producers! :wink:
What's the word I'm looking for ...? :wink:

As seen before, the real money will go to the packers until there is real competition for producer's cattle. This is the economic fact as you Canadians well know.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

Are you really so ignorant that you cannot figure out that the closing of the Canadian border created a totally abnormal situation in Canada? Many Canadian cattle used to be slaughtered in U.S. plants. When the Canadian border was closed it created an anti competitive situation in Canada of having more cattle in Canada than slaughter capacity. Anyone with half a brain can figure that out, why can't you?

That has never been the situation in the U.S. We have always had enough slaughter capacity for those cattle and competition has always been there. There is no greater proof than the R.O.I. information that is required to be reported to GIPSA.

One other thing, as far as "the salmon run", can't you come up with something original for once? You're such a mindless follower.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman,

Are you really so ignorant that you cannot figure out that the closing of the Canadian border created a totally abnormal situation in Canada? Many Canadian cattle used to be slaughtered in U.S. plants. When the Canadian border was closed it created an anti competitive situation in Canada of having more cattle in Canada than slaughter capacity. Anyone with half a brain can figure that out, why can't you?

That has never been the situation in the U.S. We have always had enough slaughter capacity for those cattle and competition has always been there. There is no greater proof than the R.O.I. information that is required to be reported to GIPSA.

One other thing, as far as "the salmon run", can't you come up with something original for once? You're such a mindless follower.


~SH~

SH:"Anyone with half a brain can figure that out, why can't you?"

SH, I am not ready to give you credit for even half a brain yet.

As for the reams of information, I have always noticed that people who are trying to commit crimes will wait until they think no one is watching. Sarbanes Oxley addresses some of the failures of regulatory, accounting, and ethics in our corporations. If the courts could do so, we would not need all of these regulations. Regulations are necessary when governmental regulatory, business ethics, or business practices are either incompetent or corrupt. I don't like them any more than you.

I like salmon, and I like fishing. I also like most all of the Canadians I have met. I will use the term if I think it is appropriate.