• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A joyous day for Tyson foods

Help Support Ranchers.net:

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Congradulations on another economic BSE victory. The continued closure of the Canadian border to OTM cattle has nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with Rcalf. Rcalf may have helped stop movement of UTM cattle, but the truth of the matter is, more groups are benefiting from the politics of BSE than meet the eye.

Oh but hold on Randy!!!! As long as there are two bidders for your friggin cows in Canada, the marketplace is functioning normally. Hogwash I say. BSE has been nothing but an oportunity for massive movement in the control game by the mutinational packer chess game, all on the backs of the Canadian producer pawns.

PACKER BWAMER - YOU BETCHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be proud Tyson foods, the victory today is yours. --------------------


Cattle Alert: Swift & Company Announces Closure Of Idaho Cow Plant

GREELEY, COLO. – August 5, 2005 – Swift & Company today informed the employees of its cow processing plant in Nampa, Idaho, that the facility will not resume operations and is being closed permanently due to market conditions and the inability to secure enough cattle to support continued operations. The plant already was closed the past two weeks for these same reasons.

The Nampa plant most recently employed 408 people, down from 560 in May 2003 when the U.S. border was closed to live Canadian cattle after a single case of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) was first discovered in Canada.

Last month, the USDA succeeded in opening the U.S. border to live Canadian cattle under 30 months of age. The Nampa plant, however, processes older animals. With access to the over 30-month cattle supply from Canada cut off – combined with a lingering drought in the Northwest that has pushed domestic cow herds toward the Midwest – the plant has been forced to gradually reduce operating hours and staffing over the past two years.

“This is a very sad day for Swift & Company and for more than 400 employees and their families in and around Nampa,” said Dennis Henley, chief operating officer of Swift & Company. “We’ve worked very hard over the past two years to sustain operations at Nampa without adequate cattle supplies, but we can’t afford to any longer.”

Swift & Company will work with various government agencies and the United Food & Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) to help the affected employees with the transition and job placement assistance. The company also will look throughout the Swift system to determine if there are transfer opportunities within the company.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
randy the packer blamer: "The continued closure of the Canadian border to OTM cattle has nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with Rcalf. Rcalf may have helped stop movement of UTM cattle, but the truth of the matter is, more groups are benefiting from the politics of BSE than meet the eye."

WHO IS BENFITTING FROM CLOSING PACKING PLANTS THAT USED TO SLAUGHTER CANADIAN CATTLE RANDY?????

WHERE THE HECK IS THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF ANY PACKING COMPANY CLOSING A PLANT?????

You are so full of packer blame that you can't even think straight.


HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE AMI FILING SUIT AGAINST THE USDA TO OPEN THE CANADIAN BORDER WHEN YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT THEY BENEFIT FROM KEEPING IT CLOSED????


Randy: "As long as there are two bidders for your friggin cows in Canada, the marketplace is functioning normally. Hogwash I say. BSE has been nothing but an oportunity for massive movement in the control game by the mutinational packer chess game, all on the backs of the Canadian producer pawns."

You know damn well that Canada had more cattle than slaughter capacity.

Did the packers benefit from that situation IN CANADA? YES!

HOWEVER, in the U.S. these same companies closed plants and shut down shifts that used to slaughter Canadian cattle.

THE NET WAS A LOSS FOR THESE COMPANIES AND THAT IS WHY THEY WANTED THE BORDER OPENED BUT YOU SUGGEST THEY BENEFIT FROM KEEPING IT CLOSED.

Truth is, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

How can keeping the border closed to Canada benefit the large packers when R-CULT is arguing that the large packers are wanting Canadian cattle.

You want to take the blame off R-CALF WHEN YOUR ARGUMENT IS CONTRADICTING THEIR'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You say the large packers are benefitting from keeping it closed and R-CULT is saying the the large packers are benefitting from an opened border.

WHO IS RIGHT RANDY??????


If actions speak louder than words (AMI's lawsuit to open the border to OTM cattle), I'd say R-CULT is right in that the packers want the border opened.

How ironic that you want to side with R-CULT in blaming packers when you both have conflicting arguments regaring the packer's motive.

HAHAHAHA!

Hilarious!

Proof that blamers cannot reason!


~SH~
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rkaiser said:
Congradulations on another economic BSE victory. The continued closure of the Canadian border to OTM cattle has nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with Rcalf. Rcalf may have helped stop movement of UTM cattle, but the truth of the matter is, more groups are benefiting from the politics of BSE than meet the eye.

Oh but hold on Randy!!!! As long as there are two bidders for your friggin cows in Canada, the marketplace is functioning normally. Hogwash I say. BSE has been nothing but an oportunity for massive movement in the control game by the mutinational packer chess game, all on the backs of the Canadian producer pawns.

PACKER BWAMER - YOU BETCHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be proud Tyson foods, the victory today is yours. --------------------


Cattle Alert: Swift & Company Announces Closure Of Idaho Cow Plant

GREELEY, COLO. – August 5, 2005 – Swift & Company today informed the employees of its cow processing plant in Nampa, Idaho, that the facility will not resume operations and is being closed permanently due to market conditions and the inability to secure enough cattle to support continued operations. The plant already was closed the past two weeks for these same reasons.

The Nampa plant most recently employed 408 people, down from 560 in May 2003 when the U.S. border was closed to live Canadian cattle after a single case of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) was first discovered in Canada.

Last month, the USDA succeeded in opening the U.S. border to live Canadian cattle under 30 months of age. The Nampa plant, however, processes older animals. With access to the over 30-month cattle supply from Canada cut off – combined with a lingering drought in the Northwest that has pushed domestic cow herds toward the Midwest – the plant has been forced to gradually reduce operating hours and staffing over the past two years.

“This is a very sad day for Swift & Company and for more than 400 employees and their families in and around Nampa,” said Dennis Henley, chief operating officer of Swift & Company. “We’ve worked very hard over the past two years to sustain operations at Nampa without adequate cattle supplies, but we can’t afford to any longer.”

Swift & Company will work with various government agencies and the United Food & Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) to help the affected employees with the transition and job placement assistance. The company also will look throughout the Swift system to determine if there are transfer opportunities within the company.

I assume you can do simple and basic math if you are not too blinded by your hate for packers. In 1996, at the top of the last inventory cycle, 7.2 million cows were slaughtered in the U.S. This year they will slaughter only 4.8 million head. The annual average number of cows imported from Canada approximates only 330,000 head per year. That hardly compensates for the 2.4 million head reduction in annual U.S cow slaughter since 1996. This is a cow slaughter plant. Could they kill fed cattle? The answer is yes, but how efficient would that be? The more you yap the more glaringly apparent it becomes that you have very limited knowledge of the beef industry and vurtually no knowledge of the packing segment. You should join R-Laugh before they become extinct; all talk, no facts.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I knew I would get that from the two of you.

Talk about a pair of swethearts who can only see from one perspective.

Listen you two sweeties.

It's like a game of chess. You are supposedly capitalist, are you not?

Talk about AMI all you like. Each mutinational packer is out for themselves PERIOD. BSE gave each of these companies their own opportunity to take advantage of something.

TYSON will benefit from Swift closing their plant. It is as simple as that. Now, even if the border opens to OTM cattle, the closest competition for Tyson's plant in Brooks is gone. WHoopee.

Yap about AMI supporting an open border all you want SH. AMI is not Tyson foods. ASK JOHN TYSON himself if he is happy today knowing that Swift is going down. Open border now. Who cares, we have the best and closest place in Canada to kill cows. Truck those worthless old bags a couple thousand miles and see if you can make a buck on them.

Do you two hold hands when you go off to packer sponsored luncheons together?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Talk about not being able to reason.

Somehow Agman and SH beleive that all the packers are one. They all cooperate on policy and work together for the good of the whole Beef industry.

If folks who do not agree with crap like this are lost. SH and Agman should be holding hands in the nuthouse rather than proclaiming their so called knowledge of the industry to us lost blamer souls.

AGMAN AND SH, YOU TWO ARE A JOKE!
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rkaiser said:
I knew I would get that from the two of you.

Talk about a pair of swethearts who can only see from one perspective.

Listen you two sweeties.

It's like a game of chess. You are supposedly capitalist, are you not?

Talk about AMI all you like. Each mutinational packer is out for themselves PERIOD. BSE gave each of these companies their own opportunity to take advantage of something.

TYSON will benefit from Swift closing their plant. It is as simple as that. Now, even if the border opens to OTM cattle, the closest competition for Tyson's plant in Brooks is gone. WHoopee.

Yap about AMI supporting an open border all you want SH. AMI is not Tyson foods. ASK JOHN TYSON himself if he is happy today knowing that Swift is going down. Open border now. Who cares, we have the best and closest place in Canada to kill cows. Truck those worthless old bags a couple thousand miles and see if you can make a buck on them.

Do you two hold hands when you go off to packer sponsored luncheons together?

Another fact filled comment from RK!!!!!!!!!!!!! All talk, no facts.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rkaiser said:
Talk about not being able to reason.

Somehow Agman and SH beleive that all the packers are one. They all cooperate on policy and work together for the good of the whole Beef industry.

If folks who do not agree with crap like this are lost. SH and Agman should be holding hands in the nuthouse rather than proclaiming their so called knowledge of the industry to us lost blamer souls.

AGMAN AND SH, YOU TWO ARE A JOKE!

The only joke is YOU. Can't debate the facts so your comments are guided by hate for packers. That is no joke.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Ya you're right Agman all talk. I can't do a thing about it.

But unlike yourself and your SH I understand the root word in the word capitalism. To be a capitalist you capitalize. All legal, and if leagl doesn't suit you, lobby to make it that way. But all along, look out for the interest of yourself or your company.

The crap the two of you spew about packers working together for the good of the industry or worse the good of producers makes me sick.

Everyone with one once of capitalist blood found a way to capitalize on the BSE issue.

All the two of you can do is twiost a statement like that around into blaming the packers.

WHY?

Because the only thing on either of your minds is to defend yourselves. Defend yourselves for what. For your jobs which are possibly connected to FACTS about the GOOD THAT THE PACKER DO.

Give me a break Agman, facts are words too, and facts are whatever the one spewing them beleives.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rkaiser said:
Ya you're right Agman all talk. I can't do a thing about it.

But unlike yourself and your SH I understand the root word in the word capitalism. To be a capitalist you capitalize. All legal, and if leagl doesn't suit you, lobby to make it that way. But all along, look out for the interest of yourself or your company.

The crap the two of you spew about packers working together for the good of the industry or worse the good of producers makes me sick.

Everyone with one once of capitalist blood found a way to capitalize on the BSE issue.

All the two of you can do is twiost a statement like that around into blaming the packers.

WHY?

Because the only thing on either of your minds is to defend yourselves. Defend yourselves for what. For your jobs which are possibly connected to FACTS about the GOOD THAT THE PACKER DO.

Give me a break Agman, facts are words too, and facts are whatever the one spewing them beleives.

I have posted factual data which you have been unable to refute. So while you think I am supporting packers I am really supporting getting to the truth. You are just one more person on the outside looking in who thinks you know more about their business than they do. Typical of R-Calf mentality.

Packers do work for their best interest but explain how destroying the producer base is in their best interest. It is amazing how much you might learn by working with people instead of against them. As I previously stated, complainers like you are a dime a dozen at R-Calf meetings-don't forget to join.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
. COW SLAUGHTER STILL LARGE

Until just recently, weekly Federally Inspected cow slaughter was above a year earlier. Weekly cull cow slaughter during the second quarter totaled 1.42 million head. That was 7 percent greater than 2002’s and about 5 percent higher than the prior five-year average. Cow slaughter continued to be driven by larger numbers of dairy cows being culled in response to low milk prices.


Compared to a year ago, dairy cow slaughter in the second quarter was up 12 percent, an increase of 71,000 head in the slaughter cow mix. For the week ending June 28th, dairy cow slaughter finally posted a yearly decline for the first time this year. Dairy cow slaughter was 3 percent below the respective week last year, which might suggest dairy producers are beginning to moderate culling rates based on expectations for better milk prices. Dairy cows accounted for 46 percent of the total number of cows slaughtered which is down from 50 percent in the first quarter and more in line with the five-year average of 45 percent.

FI beef cow slaughter totaled 772 thousand head in the second quarter, 4 percent (about 309 thousand head) larger than a year ago. Compared to the prior five-year average, beef cow slaughter was about 2 percent larger following more of the normal seasonal


slaughter pattern than dairy cow slaughter. The moderate year-to-year increase in beef cow slaughter may be attributed to the lingering impacts of poor pasture and range conditions in 2002 on pregnancy rates. For the second quarter, beef cows accounted for 54 percent of the slaughter mix, which is about even with the average trend for this time of the year. However given the normal seasonal trend, the number of beef cows in the slaughter mix is expected to increase over the next few months to reach its yearly peak in October.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I don't argue with your factual data Agman because I don't study it or try to let on that I know about it.

What I question is the reality that you and SH live in.

You argued with me for days over the fact that Cargill and Tyson had increased production in Canada in an attempt to help the producers. That was and is not a fact. It is your own warped view of a simple capitalist situation. BUT you and your sidekick called me a packer bamer for pointing out simple reality.

This more recent crap about the AMI being the voice of ALL packers and their solidarity in supporting the whole beef cattle industry makes me sick.

I have said before that the cattle industry will never go away for numerous reasons, however you want to use this garbage to dispell any thoughts I have about the one track thought of each and every packer, and each and every business in a true capitalist model. Make money at the expense of everyone but yourself.

The dreamworld you live in is far more dangerous than mine Agman. You have to live there to keep your job. So keep on telling yourself and others that the packers are one big ethically responsible group. Killing cattle to help producers. BS.

Keep the chapstick handy Agman, ass kissin can be a dry job at times.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
PORKER said:
. COW SLAUGHTER STILL LARGE

Until just recently, weekly Federally Inspected cow slaughter was above a year earlier. Weekly cull cow slaughter during the second quarter totaled 1.42 million head. That was 7 percent greater than 2002’s and about 5 percent higher than the prior five-year average. Cow slaughter continued to be driven by larger numbers of dairy cows being culled in response to low milk prices.


Compared to a year ago, dairy cow slaughter in the second quarter was up 12 percent, an increase of 71,000 head in the slaughter cow mix. For the week ending June 28th, dairy cow slaughter finally posted a yearly decline for the first time this year. Dairy cow slaughter was 3 percent below the respective week last year, which might suggest dairy producers are beginning to moderate culling rates based on expectations for better milk prices. Dairy cows accounted for 46 percent of the total number of cows slaughtered which is down from 50 percent in the first quarter and more in line with the five-year average of 45 percent.

FI beef cow slaughter totaled 772 thousand head in the second quarter, 4 percent (about 309 thousand head) larger than a year ago. Compared to the prior five-year average, beef cow slaughter was about 2 percent larger following more of the normal seasonal


slaughter pattern than dairy cow slaughter. The moderate year-to-year increase in beef cow slaughter may be attributed to the lingering impacts of poor pasture and range conditions in 2002 on pregnancy rates. For the second quarter, beef cows accounted for 54 percent of the slaughter mix, which is about even with the average trend for this time of the year. However given the normal seasonal trend, the number of beef cows in the slaughter mix is expected to increase over the next few months to reach its yearly peak in October.

That data source is completely WRONG. Whatever your source is Porker that data is incorrect for this year and last year or it is seriously outdated. Domestic cow slaughter peaked at 7.2 million head in 1996. Domestic cow slaughter in 2004 was 5.1 million head down from 6.05 million head in 2003. This year cow slaughter will not exceed 4.8 million head. Weekly cow slaughter YTD has been BELOW year ago level by approximately 6,700 head per week.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rkaiser said:
I don't argue with your factual data Agman because I don't study it or try to let on that I know about it.

What I question is the reality that you and SH live in.

You argued with me for days over the fact that Cargill and Tyson had increased production in Canada in an attempt to help the producers. That was and is not a fact. It is your own warped view of a simple capitalist situation. BUT you and your sidekick called me a packer bamer for pointing out simple reality.

This more recent crap about the AMI being the voice of ALL packers and their solidarity in supporting the whole beef cattle industry makes me sick.

I have said before that the cattle industry will never go away for numerous reasons, however you want to use this garbage to dispell any thoughts I have about the one track thought of each and every packer, and each and every business in a true capitalist model. Make money at the expense of everyone but yourself.

The dreamworld you live in is far more dangerous than mine Agman. You have to live there to keep your job. So keep on telling yourself and others that the packers are one big ethically responsible group. Killing cattle to help producers. BS.

Keep the chapstick handy Agman, ass kissin can be a dry job at times.

Maybe if you did study some data you might know something about what you speak of. Unless you do you are the one not living in reality. Until you do study the industry to learn the facts you are an outsider just looking in. Drawing conclusions from the latter is a flawed practice which is very eveident in your comments.

Many of the statements you espouse that I have made in support of packers have been made up by you and your imagination. If you can't debate the facts then why try to support your defenseless positions? I support the truth regarding packers and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept. If their actions are not in the best interests of the industry I will be the first to say so.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
AGman Quote,That data source is completely WRONG. Whatever your source is Porker that data is incorrect for this year and last year or it is seriously outdated. Domestic cow slaughter peaked at 7.2 million head in 1996. Domestic cow slaughter in 2004 was 5.1 million head down from 6.05 million head in 2003. This year cow slaughter will not exceed 4.8 million head. Weekly cow slaughter YTD has been BELOW year ago level by approximately 6,700 head per week.

The Source was USDA records for 2002-2003 http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/2003/ldpm109f.pdf and I believe that when the price increased for cows when the border closed ,there were so many animals pulled foward as the prices were highest on record that every one dumped cows an now there is a shortage .There are just not the cow inventory out there anymore.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
PORKER said:
AGman Quote,That data source is completely WRONG. Whatever your source is Porker that data is incorrect for this year and last year or it is seriously outdated. Domestic cow slaughter peaked at 7.2 million head in 1996. Domestic cow slaughter in 2004 was 5.1 million head down from 6.05 million head in 2003. This year cow slaughter will not exceed 4.8 million head. Weekly cow slaughter YTD has been BELOW year ago level by approximately 6,700 head per week.

The Source was USDA records for 2002-2003 http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/2003/ldpm109f.pdf and I believe that when the price increased for cows when the border closed ,there were so many animals pulled foward as the prices were highest on record that every one dumped cows an now there is a shortage .There are just not the cow inventory out there anymore.

Your assumption is not correct. Cow slaughter was in a steady decline since 1996. For the year domestic cow slaughter in 2003 was up less than 400,000 head. There was no large numbers of cows pulled forward. The year 2003 was the last year of herd liquidation. As the drought broke in many regions, except in the west, breeding stock was retained. That would have occurred even if the border had remained open. Average annual cow imports from Canada approximate 330,000 head. Total domestic cow slaughter averaged 5.65 million head annually for the previous five years.

Feed availability combined with profitability are required to stop herd liquidation. Most cow/calf producers were profitable since 1999. Lack of feed prevented them from expanding sooner than 2004, the first year of herd buildup. Yes, cow slaughter was down by the numbers I indicated previously. However, it should be very clear that the sharp reduction in cow slaughter is the result of domestic herd rebuilding, not the closure of the Canadian border as many incorrectly assume. I hope this clarifies the situation.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
Agman, you stated:

Packers do work for their best interest but explain how destroying the producer base is in their best interest

Go to Alberta Beef Producers webpage:

http://www.albertabeef.org/cabidf/02resource/molecbio/molecl.html

(taken from: "Will molecular biology strengthen beef breeding programs?"
There are five fundamental steps involved in genetic improvement, Kemp says. He feels the most important consideration is to define goals and targets. Creating genetic change is next.

“Once we decide what we’re going to do, then we need to create that genetic change,” he says. “In the past, we focused strictly on the purebred side. Unfortunately, in that case, we didn’t do a very good job of number one, defining our goals and targets.”

The third step in the chain towards genetic improvement is multiplying the improved genetics, followed by transferring the new genetics to the commercial industry. The final step is monitoring the performance of the cattle in the purebred and commercial populations. This gives breeders real-world feedback, from both their own herds and those of their customers, on their selection and breeding decisions.

One answer to your question: With the small family ranches gone, the resistance to the cloned beef industry will be minimized. Instead of buying bulls from a neighbor; you'll be buying sperm from a dealer. The vets will be busy, the artificial inseminators will be busy and the rancher will be faced with more costs, just like the GE grain farmers that are tied to using a certain companies herbicides. Vertical integration.

It's the ball and chain effect. Tell us we can't live with out it, give it to us slow, and before long, we won't remember what things were like before.

All progress is not good. Sometimes we have to use balance or we will soon destroy ourselves.

I personally believe that anyone that thinks cloning our animals for consumption is "a nut with a few screws loose".

Selecting our cattle with a narrow vision for tenderness and taste will only lead to the loss of generations of genetics which have adapted to change in the best manner out there.

Mans' God complex has given us enough to deal with already. We need to leave the production of food as natural as possible.

I will remind you that Tyson's and Cargill's goals are not necessarily my goals. Yet, my cattle organization listens to the feeders and the packers, and ignores the unrest of the cow-calf producer. Packers sell beef and beef byproducts. I convert grass to beef. How does the tenderness gene improve my bottom-line? I suppose if I am forced to subject my cattle to tenderness testing they could push me in that direction. They said cattle with no brands would earn you more money - but there is not evidence of that. If my genetically tender cow is handled wrong at the packer, no gene will guarantee tenderness or taste.

I am very concerned that by altering the diverse genetic base we have into a monoculture of beef, we will have huge winners and huge losers, just as Randy stated. I don't want to use GMCs - Genetically Modified Cows. I will campaign hard to make the consumer realize that they are being fed a load of crap. The evidence for natural verses synthetic is out there. Don't piss off Mother Nature, I'm afraid she'll kick our @sses.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Kathy said:
Agman, you stated:

Packers do work for their best interest but explain how destroying the producer base is in their best interest

Go to Alberta Beef Producers webpage:

http://www.albertabeef.org/cabidf/02resource/molecbio/molecl.html

(taken from: "Will molecular biology strengthen beef breeding programs?"
There are five fundamental steps involved in genetic improvement, Kemp says. He feels the most important consideration is to define goals and targets. Creating genetic change is next.

“Once we decide what we’re going to do, then we need to create that genetic change,” he says. “In the past, we focused strictly on the purebred side. Unfortunately, in that case, we didn’t do a very good job of number one, defining our goals and targets.”

The third step in the chain towards genetic improvement is multiplying the improved genetics, followed by transferring the new genetics to the commercial industry. The final step is monitoring the performance of the cattle in the purebred and commercial populations. This gives breeders real-world feedback, from both their own herds and those of their customers, on their selection and breeding decisions.

One answer to your question: With the small family ranches gone, the resistance to the cloned beef industry will be minimized. Instead of buying bulls from a neighbor; you'll be buying sperm from a dealer. The vets will be busy, the artificial inseminators will be busy and the rancher will be faced with more costs, just like the GE grain farmers that are tied to using a certain companies herbicides. Vertical integration.

It's the ball and chain effect. Tell us we can't live with out it, give it to us slow, and before long, we won't remember what things were like before.

All progress is not good. Sometimes we have to use balance or we will soon destroy ourselves.

I personally believe that anyone that thinks cloning our animals for consumption is "a nut with a few screws loose".

Selecting our cattle with a narrow vision for tenderness and taste will only lead to the loss of generations of genetics which have adapted to change in the best manner out there.

Mans' God complex has given us enough to deal with already. We need to leave the production of food as natural as possible.

I will remind you that Tyson's and Cargill's goals are not necessarily my goals. Yet, my cattle organization listens to the feeders and the packers, and ignores the unrest of the cow-calf producer. Packers sell beef and beef byproducts. I convert grass to beef. How does the tenderness gene improve my bottom-line? I suppose if I am forced to subject my cattle to tenderness testing they could push me in that direction. They said cattle with no brands would earn you more money - but there is not evidence of that. If my genetically tender cow is handled wrong at the packer, no gene will guarantee tenderness or taste.

I am very concerned that by altering the diverse genetic base we have into a monoculture of beef, we will have huge winners and huge losers, just as Randy stated. I don't want to use GMCs - Genetically Modified Cows. I will campaign hard to make the consumer realize that they are being fed a load of crap. The evidence for natural verses synthetic is out there. Don't p*** off Mother Nature, I'm afraid she'll kick our @sses.

If a better beef product is produced how will that not benefit you? To be in this business and not realize that your ultimate market is the consumer is a failed view. For all you know your cattle may have the exact traits they are looking for. I hope that proves to be the result. What will you do if that proves to be the situation? Will you degrade the quality of your product or capitalize on those positive traits?

If you choose to campaign as you indicate you will only serve to harm total beef demand. How will that help you or your neighbor?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Don't throw poor old Agman off with talk like that Kathy. Packer can do no wrong, don't you know and

"If their actions are not in the best interests of the industry I will be the first to say so".

I have never laughed so hard in all my time here on ranchers.

I guess I dreamed up the fact that you said Cargilland Tyson upped production to help out the producers of Canada hey Aghead?

I guess I am also dreaming that you don't think John Tyson will be happy that Swift shut down in Idaho?

I know all I need to know about numbers to more than survive in this business Agman. You need to keep twisting those numbers around to keep your job.

Great post Kathy, but you know you have joined the list of uneducated trailer park packer blamer folks now don't you?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rkaiser said:
Don't throw poor old Agman off with talk like that Kathy. Packer can do no wrong, don't you know and

"If their actions are not in the best interests of the industry I will be the first to say so".

I have never laughed so hard in all my time here on ranchers.

I guess I dreamed up the fact that you said Cargilland Tyson upped production to help out the producers of Canada hey Aghead?

I guess I am also dreaming that you don't think John Tyson will be happy that Swift shut down in Idaho?

I know all I need to know about numbers to more than survive in this business Agman. You need to keep twisting those numbers around to keep your job.

Great post Kathy, but you know you have joined the list of uneducated trailer park packer blamer folks now don't you?

Your ignorance of these subjects is what is laughable. You cannot debate the facts so you spew these other mental lapses or yours. I don't have to twist any numbers. I have been successful in the cattle business as well as my research company and other ventures. Once again you demonstrate how little factual data you truly know.
 

Latest posts

Top