5 Years Ago--Same Ole Same Ole

[Sandhusker]

Ben, I didn't say the packers want to expand further up there. I just pointed out that they had done most of their expansion with an open border and that nothing would stop them from expanding further if they wanted.

I agree that South America is where they are looking hardest now.

I really don't see them shipping fats North.

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Ben, I didn't say the packers want to expand further up there. I just pointed out that they had done most of their expansion with an open border and that nothing would stop them from expanding further if they wanted.

I agree that South America is where they are looking hardest now.

I really don't see them shipping fats North.

Well check the stats and documents, laddy, because a local transport company was bringing butcher cattle from Nebraska to Better Beef in Guelph last fall already.

You are badly out of date. Supposition is rarely a good substitute for facts.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Ben, I didn't say the packers want to expand further up there. I just pointed out that they had done most of their expansion with an open border and that nothing would stop them from expanding further if they wanted.

I agree that South America is where they are looking hardest now.

I really don't see them shipping fats North.

Well check the stats and documents, laddy, because a local transport company was bringing butcher cattle from Nebraska to Better Beef in Guelph last fall already.

You are badly out of date. Supposition is rarely a good substitute for facts.

There you go, those Americans, are dumping cattle on our market. Lets file a law suit, and close the border.

Question- does Canada have an M-COOL law?

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Econ101]

Bill, maybe you didn't have a good kindergarten teacher or maybe you were just a slow learner.

If you want to talk about details instead of substance, you misspelled "absolutely". By your own reasoning, does that mean that your attention to detail continues to be absolutely nil? Then the fact that you misspelled "a lot" means that we know your attention to detail is even less so.

Perhaps the Queen's English is different than ours.

I might not have all the high edjucatin that you think you have but at least I know enough to only hit the submit button once.

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Bill, that was hilarious!

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:


Bill, that was hilarious!

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:


There, I saved myself the troulbe of sumbitting this post twice.

When you get smarter and wiser, MLA, you will learn that hitting one button twice is much less work than hitting many more buttons twice. :roll:

Heck, you two might get to the point where substance actually matters.

 

[Sandhusker]

Ben, I didn't say the packers want to expand further up there. I just pointed out that they had done most of their expansion with an open border and that nothing would stop them from expanding further if they wanted.

I agree that South America is where they are looking hardest now.

I really don't see them shipping fats North.

Well check the stats and documents, laddy, because a local transport company was bringing butcher cattle from Nebraska to Better Beef in Guelph last fall already.

You are badly out of date. Supposition is rarely a good substitute for facts.

If it gets to be a problem, make a little noise. You want to compare the traffic in fats for the last 10 years?

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Well how about that, one of my plans actually worked out the way I had intended it to.

I did not have to post it twice because I figured that my little shadow econ would do it for me.




Thank you lil buddy. You are such a handy guy to have around.
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:




Omigosh, that was perfectly priceless. Never underestimate the value of a "Gopher". They will do the job for ya with a little training.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

The difference in the Canadian and USA situations is 100% of USA production can be utilized in the USA...100% of Canadian production can't be utilized by the Canadian market. The Canadian beef industry was expanded to supply beef to the USA market...that supply either displaces USA producers and/or pressures prices lower for the packers biggest expense...USA live cattle!!!!!!!!! These two are R-CALF's concerns for USA producers.

I disagree, RM. Canadian livestock would have never started south in the first place had there not been demand. As it stands, US producers cannot fulfill the demands of the marketplace, as such, Canadian livestock is called upon to fill some of that demand. You cannot force your consumers to eat something they do not want to eat.

However, there is demand, and higher dollar demand, overseas for some that US beef that your consumers do not want. So would you rather 1) try and force your consumers to eat something they don't want, probably by reducing the price, or would you rather 2) leave things open, play by the rules, quit fussing about the BSE non-issue, and have a higher dollar export market for your beef that your consumers don't want?

Its an either/or and you can't have it both ways. US producers cannot supply enough to fulfill demands at home AND have an export market. If you want to give up the bigger dollar export market, by all means, send 'em up north. We'd be happy to have 'em.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Well how about that, one of my plans actually worked out the way I had intended it to.

I did not have to post it twice because I figured that my little shadow econ would do it for me.




Thank you lil buddy. You are such a handy guy to have around.
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:




Omigosh, that was perfectly priceless. Never underestimate the value of a "Gopher". They will do the job for ya with a little training.

Enough of the little games, MLA.

Where is your whisper? Where is your penance? Do you have a plan or are you just a detractor? Please post your plan or can you not come up with one?

I am waiting.

 

[Sandhusker]

The difference in the Canadian and USA situations is 100% of USA production can be utilized in the USA...100% of Canadian production can't be utilized by the Canadian market. The Canadian beef industry was expanded to supply beef to the USA market...that supply either displaces USA producers and/or pressures prices lower for the packers biggest expense...USA live cattle!!!!!!!!! These two are R-CALF's concerns for USA producers.

I disagree, RM. Canadian livestock would have never started south in the first place had there not been demand. As it stands, US producers cannot fulfill the demands of the marketplace, as such, Canadian livestock is called upon to fill some of that demand. You cannot force your consumers to eat something they do not want to eat.

However, there is demand, and higher dollar demand, overseas for some that US beef that your consumers do not want. So would you rather 1) try and force your consumers to eat something they don't want, probably by reducing the price, or would you rather 2) leave things open, play by the rules, quit fussing about the BSE non-issue, and have a higher dollar export market for your beef that your consumers don't want?

Its an either/or and you can't have it both ways. US producers cannot supply enough to fulfill demands at home AND have an export market. If you want to give up the bigger dollar export market, by all means, send 'em up north. We'd be happy to have 'em.

Rod

BSE a non-issue? Come on, Rod. Do you think the Japanese and Koreans ( most of that US export market you mentioned) would agree with that?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

BSE a non-issue? Come on, Rod. Do you think the Japanese and Koreans ( most of that US export market you mentioned) would agree with that?

BSE is a political issue, nothing more. The Japanese protectionists are using it as a blockade to American beef because the US refused to cave to their 100% testing demands a few years back. I think that eventually all the approved export plants will eventually be "bone fragmented" out of the Japanese export market, and then there will be none. And since the Koreans don't have a legal leg to stand on, vis a vis demanding 100% testing, they're using the segregation grey area as a horseshit way to hold their border shut to your beef. Both Japan and Korea know very well that the US and Canada are identical risk level, and identical infection rates, utilizing even their own science, not just OIE's.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

BSE a non-issue? Come on, Rod. Do you think the Japanese and Koreans ( most of that US export market you mentioned) would agree with that?

BSE is a political issue, nothing more. The Japanese protectionists are using it as a blockade to American beef because the US refused to cave to their 100% testing demands a few years back. I think that eventually all the approved export plants will eventually be "bone fragmented" out of the Japanese export market, and then there will be none. And since the Koreans don't have a legal leg to stand on, vis a vis demanding 100% testing, they're using the segregation grey area as a horseshit way to hold their border shut to your beef. Both Japan and Korea know very well that the US and Canada are identical risk level, and identical infection rates, utilizing even their own science, not just OIE's.

Rod

Rod your arguments about Japan are right on. It brings the need for testing to the forefront. This should be approved by both the U.S. and Canada and expedited. Of course we know this probably won't happen because the USDA has sold our democracy to the packers.

 

[Sandhusker]

BSE a non-issue? Come on, Rod. Do you think the Japanese and Koreans ( most of that US export market you mentioned) would agree with that?

BSE is a political issue, nothing more. The Japanese protectionists are using it as a blockade to American beef because the US refused to cave to their 100% testing demands a few years back. I think that eventually all the approved export plants will eventually be "bone fragmented" out of the Japanese export market, and then there will be none. And since the Koreans don't have a legal leg to stand on, vis a vis demanding 100% testing, they're using the segregation grey area as a horseshit way to hold their border shut to your beef. Both Japan and Korea know very well that the US and Canada are identical risk level, and identical infection rates, utilizing even their own science, not just OIE's.

Rod

Looks like this "free trade" concept isn't exactly heartily endorsed by the global players. Maybe some folks can see it for what it really is. Korea and Japan can do whatever they want, they're the ones writing the check. This notion of forcing people to take what they don't want to makes no sense to me.

There's no way you could convice a statistician, insurance underwriter, or a book maker that the US and Canada have identical risks, infection rates, etc....

 

[the chief]

Ron Warfield was perhaps the biggest TOOL that testified that day before the ag committee. Heck, there was even one Pork producer from IOWA that hadn't seen his remarks UNTIL he got there that day. He didn't write them. He had to have a committee of sellouts from the Iowa pork producer to write his speech.

There were also several people from Missouri who were able to testify and told these bozos from DC exactly what was going on in agriculture. When I personally talked to the ag chair, he knew what needed to be done. But when it came to voting, he went with the money. And guess what? The pork industry went to Smithfields and your cattle industry will go to the packers as well.

Sorry to all of you who still believe that the NCBA is your friend. You will find out soon enough and then you, too, will feel as deceived as all those pork producers who trusted NPPC.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

There's no way you could convice a statistician, insurance underwriter, or a book maker that the US and Canada have identical risks, infection rates, etc....

Theres probably not much point in debating this any further, but several thousand statisticians and scientists agree that the risk between Canada and the US is identical.

Sandhusker, you're a bright guy, so do your own math on it. You know very well you can't simply take the number of positives and divide by the number of slaughter animals to arrive at any meaningful number. The only way this would mean anything is if there was 100% BSE testing, which of course there is not. When you do the numbers properly, then combine this with the US's inability to traceback and their less stringent feed ban, you come up with a country that is identical in risk to Canada.

Rod

 

[andybob]

Look at the pork industry today and tell me how much pork is being exported! No trade groups trying to close the borders no R-pig groups in my area.

Look at the pork industry today and tell me how many independent family farms are still producers. Looks like they needed a R-PIG 10 - 15 years ago.

Taking this point further, Smithfield's expansion in Poland and Romania, puts them in a position to export exclusively from these countries should it prove more economical to do so, and reduce American production. The South American expansion is still in the planning phase, but this ,too, cannot bode well for the future of the United States pork industry.

 

[Sandhusker]

There's no way you could convice a statistician, insurance underwriter, or a book maker that the US and Canada have identical risks, infection rates, etc....

Theres probably not much point in debating this any further, but several thousand statisticians and scientists agree that the risk between Canada and the US is identical.

Sandhusker, you're a bright guy, so do your own math on it. You know very well you can't simply take the number of positives and divide by the number of slaughter animals to arrive at any meaningful number. The only way this would mean anything is if there was 100% BSE testing, which of course there is not. When you do the numbers properly, then combine this with the US's inability to traceback and their less stringent feed ban, you come up with a country that is identical in risk to Canada.

Rod

You're right, Rod, there probably is no point in debating this further, but you've got to use the numbers that you have. Traceback has nothing to do with infection rates and you can't brag on your feed ban when half of your cases were born after it's implemention.

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

There's no way you could convice a statistician, insurance underwriter, or a book maker that the US and Canada have identical risks, infection rates, etc....

Theres probably not much point in debating this any further, but several thousand statisticians and scientists agree that the risk between Canada and the US is identical.

Sandhusker, you're a bright guy, so do your own math on it. You know very well you can't simply take the number of positives and divide by the number of slaughter animals to arrive at any meaningful number. The only way this would mean anything is if there was 100% BSE testing, which of course there is not. When you do the numbers properly, then combine this with the US's inability to traceback and their less stringent feed ban, you come up with a country that is identical in risk to Canada.

Rod

Rod, I'm afraid that you give him too much credit. He will see what he wants to see- truth be damned.

The adage comes to mind - there's liars, damned liars and statisticians .

 

[don]

well, sandhusker i guess the bookmakers, statiticians, etc. better talk to the oie:

=DJ Panel Recommends US, Canada Get Favorable BSE Rating
5:43 PM, February 27, 2007

By Bill Tomson

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES


WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A panel for the World Organization for Animal Health
has recommended to its 167 member countries that the U.S. and Canada be given a
favorable rating on "mad cow" disease safety, a designation both countries
want to spur beef and cattle trade, according to U.S. and Canadian officials.

The organization, known internationally by its French Acronym OIE, is
proposing both countries get a "controlled" risk rating for their handling of
the cattle disease that can be passed to humans through consumption of tainted
meat.

The OIE will meet in May for its annual general session and members will vote
to approve or disapprove rating categories being proposed for several
countries, including the U.S. and Canada.

There are three possible categories and "negligible" status is considered the
best. That rating is reserved for countries with the smallest risk for "mad
cow" disease, known scientifically as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Next best, and the rating U.S. government officials have privately said they
are expecting, is a "controlled" rating. That is the category being proposed by
the OIE Scientific Commission for the U.S. and Canada, government and industry
officials said this week. The third rating is "undetermined."

The officials asked not to be named in this story due to the sensitive nature
of the issue ahead of the OIE vote in May.

A Canadian government official expressed pleasure in the "preliminary" rating
of "controlled" status and called it a positive step.

That commission, after reviewing member country submissions and developing
rating proposals, distributed some copies in February. OIE member countries
will have until the May OIE meeting to review the recommendations.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture sent the U.S. submission to the OIE last
October.

The organization, on its Web site, says: "OIE standards are recognized by the
World Trade Organization as reference (for) international sanitary rules."

Ron DeHaven, administrator of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, was unavailable for immediate comment, but he previously told Dow
Jones Newswires in a December interview that the U.S. would be satisfied with a
"controlled" risk designation.

DeHaven said in December the primary difference between "controlled" and
"negligible" is that with a "controlled" status countries must have
comprehensive surveillance and safeguard measures in place. He said the U.S.
already has established those measures.

An internationally approved favorable BSE-risk status for the U.S. is what is
needed to convince countries around the world that they should drop barriers to
U.S. beef, National Cattlemen's Beef Association Vice President Jay Truitt said
Tuesday.

Many foreign markets have at least partially re-opened to U.S. beef since BSE
was first found there more than three years ago, but there are still plenty of
barriers to trade. Truitt named Japan as an example. Japan maintains
trade-restricting regulations that allow in only beef from very young cattle
from a select number of U.S. production facilities.

"This is about the final chapter on BSE," Truitt said. "This should remove
all the rest of the excuses from other countries that trade (beef) with the
United States."

-By Bill Tomson; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-646-0088; bill.tomson@dowjones.com.


(END) Dow Jones Newswires

 

[Bill]

There's no way you could convice a statistician, insurance underwriter, or a book maker that the US and Canada have identical risks, infection rates, etc....

Theres probably not much point in debating this any further, but several thousand statisticians and scientists agree that the risk between Canada and the US is identical.

Sandhusker, you're a bright guy, so do your own math on it. You know very well you can't simply take the number of positives and divide by the number of slaughter animals to arrive at any meaningful number. The only way this would mean anything is if there was 100% BSE testing, which of course there is not. When you do the numbers properly, then combine this with the US's inability to traceback and their less stringent feed ban, you come up with a country that is identical in risk to Canada.

Rod

You're right, Rod, there probably is no point in debating this further, but you've got to use the numbers that you have. Traceback has nothing to do with infection rates and you can't brag on your feed ban when half of your cases were born after it's implemention.

You are always big into numbers when it comes to Canada Sadhusker.

Why is it that you always fail to mention that half is also a significant number when native American BSE cases enters the discussion. As I recall it was 50% of the native US cases that were covered up, case closed, hidden, whatever you want to call it until the OIG shone a huge light on the whole situation. Then factor in the Washington cow and we are up to 2/3s. No one is sure why the US discovered that one but it must have been accidental that it was reported as it entered the human food chain and had to be superficiously dealt with by an only partial recovery through a beef recall.

That's the whole evening out process that the Asians won't soon forget and the rest of the world is still shaking their heads over. You can yap all you want about Canada being a higher risk herd when in fact very few if any of our foreign markets view it that way. We may agree with you if you were testing the same risk animals, in the same numbers, WITH THE SAME TEST and finally with same honesty. Unfortunately you're not and in fact ready to slink back into the shadowy corner by reducing testing by 90%.

Although I suppose the next question is what is 90% of nothing?

 

[Econ101]

Theres probably not much point in debating this any further, but several thousand statisticians and scientists agree that the risk between Canada and the US is identical.

Sandhusker, you're a bright guy, so do your own math on it. You know very well you can't simply take the number of positives and divide by the number of slaughter animals to arrive at any meaningful number. The only way this would mean anything is if there was 100% BSE testing, which of course there is not. When you do the numbers properly, then combine this with the US's inability to traceback and their less stringent feed ban, you come up with a country that is identical in risk to Canada.

Rod

You're right, Rod, there probably is no point in debating this further, but you've got to use the numbers that you have. Traceback has nothing to do with infection rates and you can't brag on your feed ban when half of your cases were born after it's implemention.

You are always big into numbers when it comes to Canada Sadhusker.

Why is it that you always fail to mention that half is also a significant number when native American BSE cases enters the discussion. As I recall it was 50% of the native US cases that were covered up, case closed, hidden, whatever you want to call it until the OIG shone a huge light on the whole situation. Then factor in the Washington cow and we are up to 2/3s. No one is sure why the US discovered that one but it must have been accidental that it was reported as it entered the human food chain and had to be superficiously dealt with by an only partial recovery through a beef recall.

That's the whole evening out process that the Asians won't soon forget and the rest of the world is still shaking their heads over. You can yap all you want about Canada being a higher risk herd when in fact very few if any of our foreign markets view it that way. We may agree with you if you were testing the same risk animals, in the same numbers, WITH THE SAME TEST and finally with same honesty. Unfortunately you're not and in fact ready to slink back into the shadowy corner by reducing testing by 90%.

Although I suppose the next question is what is 90% of nothing?

This whole idea of statistical significance and of rate of infection based on this policy assumes that there is an acceptable loss.

I don't think reader or flounder would agree with this premise.

The question is, if the loss were the person you loved the most (for SH it would be himself), would you?