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

Argentina to be Opened Up for Beef!!!!!

A

Anonymous

Guest
USDA Reassures Lawmakers On Fear Of Argentina Cattle Disease



5:31 PM, March 25, 2008

By Bill Tomson

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

Agriculture Online



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--John Clifford, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's

chief veterinarian, met with lawmakers Tuesday to try to calm concerns over the

USDA's plan to partially lift a ban on meat imports from Argentina, a country

that has a history of trouble with livestock disease.




The possibility of importing the highly contagious foot-and-mouth livestock

disease is the primary fear expressed by U.S. lawmakers and cattle ranchers,

but Clifford told Dow Jones Newswires that the USDA believes there is no need

for concern.



The USDA is planning only to resume imports from the southern Patagonia

region of Argentina, which produces and exports mainly lamb and goat meat,


Clifford said.



"Patagonia hasn't had a case of foot-and-mouth disease since something like

1976," he said.



Jess Peterson, a spokesman for the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, said the

group doesn't trust Argentina to prevent ranchers from taking cattle from

infected regions to Patagonia and shipping beef from there to the U.S.



Foot-and-mouth disease, an extremely contagious disease in ruminant animals

that has never been found to be a danger to humans, was detected in northern

Argentina as recently as February 2006, Clifford said.




But he also said Argentina has demonstrated to the U.S. "very strict movement

controls." Slaughter facilities in Patagonia, said Clifford, wouldn't be able

to process livestock from other regions.



Peterson said he wasn't reassured. He said he doesn't believe "Argentina can

be trusted to enforce this imaginary zone."






-By Bill Tomson, Dow Jones Newswires



agriculture.com
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Not without Full-Chain-Traceability. We don't need a Hondurian melon incidient in the form of Foot and Mouth disease.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
JBS expansion would damage US meat industry, claims group
By Linda Rano

27-Mar-2008 - The acquisitions planned by a major US beef packager - JBS Swift - will have far-reaching effects on the nation's meat packaging industry, according to industry members that have voiced opposition to the deals.

In a letter to the US Department of Justice, 72 animal producer associations and agricultural, consumer interest and religious groups have outlined their concerns about JBS Swift's purchase of National Beef Packing, Smithfield Foods' beef operations and Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding.

The letter envisages that the merger, in reducing the number of major US meat packers from five to three, would damage other players in the industry.

JBS last year acquired Swift & Co to form JBS USA, making it the third largest US beef packer.

According to R-CALF, which represents US cattle producers on trade and marketing issues, if the new deal goes through JBS would become the largest beef packer in the US and the world, followed by Tyson Foods and Cargill Meat Solutions.

Increased vertical integration, reduced cattle prices

The letter notes that that the JBS purchase would eliminate two national packers "and will increase vertical integration because Swift will now control Smithfield's substantial feeding operations" which are situated near the slaughter houses. "This will drive prices down for all feeders of cattle."

R-CALF maintains that the proposed acquisition of Five Rivers Cattle Feeding together with pre-existing relationships with other large feedlots would ensure the number of cattle that JBS buys in the competitive cash market would be greatly reduced. Increased vertical integration by ownership and contract has already restricted access to the cash market and prices for all classes of cattle have been impacted. It is estimated that the open market, competitive bid percentage of cattle, is currently less than 35 per cent.

Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding is an independently operated joint venture between the cattle feeding businesses of Smithfield Foods and ContiGroup Companies. According to Smithfield, Five Rivers is the world's largest cattle feeder and has a combined feeding capacity of more than 800,000 head of cattle.


The letter notes that if the acquisition goes ahead, in those areas with only one active buyer the prices will go down. The elimination of a major competing buyer will directly affect the prices paid on all sales in the region and will have a ripple effect as those lower prices get factored into formulas and market prices in other regions.

Increased packer power

The letter adds that even without further concentration existing packers are able to exert market power by increasing "the number of captive supply arrangements offered with mathematically precise impacts on price"

The letter states that the effect of increased captive supply arrangements is that "there is lower trading volume and, price volatility increases because the open market cattle prices are buffeted by packer decision making on price, shift shut-downs, and mere market rumours."

Reduced Competition

The letter predicts that the acquisition would also harm "innovation and competition" in the beef industry and adds it is "likely to have adverse effects on consumers".

The letter concludes that "no efficiencies or benefits will arise from this acquisition" Each of the current big five enterprises is larger than necessary for efficient operation.

The letter notes that new entry into the packing business already requires "extraordinary amounts of cash and liquidity to compete beyond a niche level…..Beef packing is a mature industry in which competition must be preserved."

The letter urges officials to scrutinise the merger, issue a second request for more information from JBS and seriously consider blocking the deal.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
JBS addresses R-CALF concerns about acquisitions

(MEATPOULTRY.com, March 27, 2008)
by Bryan Salvage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Related stories
Tyson following JBS S.A. acquisitions 'with interest'
(MEATPOULTRY.com, March 07, 2008)

JBS acquires Smithfield, National, Tasman businesses
(MEATPOULTRY.com, March 05, 2008)

JBS-Swift to buy trucks, build maintenance facility
(MEATPOULTRY.com, February 22, 2008)

JBS reducing beef slaughter to counter market
(MEATPOULTRY.com, December 13, 2007)


GREELEY, COLO. ― JBS Swift & Co. officials want to establish a dialogue with beef producer groups claiming its planned acquisitions of National Beef Packing, Smithfield Foods' beef operations and Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding would have a negative impact on U.S. cattle producers and beef consumers, said Chandler Keys, vice president of government and industry relations.

Mr. Keys said in a Greeley Tribune article that JBS executives are meeting with cattle growers in Colorado and the surrounding region to tell them that the investments of the Sao Paulo, Brazil-based JBS S.A., the parent company of JBS Swift, in the United States is a good thing. "They believe in the U.S. beef industry," he said.
One day earlier, the nonprofit cattle industry advocacy group Ranchers-Cattleman Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice urging it to "strongly consider blocking the deal." A Justice Department spokeswoman said the department is reviewing the proposed acquisitions.

If the proposed acquisitions are approved, the number of large beef packers in the United States will shrink from five to three. JBS Swift will become the largest beef packer in the U.S., leaving Cargill Meat Solutions and Tyson Foods as its major competitors.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Mr. Keys said in a Greeley Tribune article that JBS executives are meeting with cattle growers in Colorado and the surrounding region to tell them that the investments of the Sao Paulo, Brazil-based JBS S.A., the parent company of JBS Swift, in the United States is a good thing. "They believe in the U.S. beef industry," he said.

How ironic...an ex-NCBA official working to convince producers that the sell-out of the USA beef industry is a good thing for them. Mr. Keys was well prepared...NCBA has been selling out the USA cattle producer for years and convincing them it was a good thing!!!!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
RM, you claim here is beyond ridiculous!

Chandler Keys was an EMPLOYEE of NCBA.

MEMBERS of NCBA set policy and Keys CARRIED OUT policy as directed.

The members of NCBA will decide what the organization should do about the PROPOSED merger beynd the call for proper scrutiny by appropriate agencies already issued by our leaders.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
RM, you claim here is beyond ridiculous!

Chandler Keys was an EMPLOYEE of NCBA.

MEMBERS of NCBA set policy and Keys CARRIED OUT policy as directed.

The members of NCBA will decide what the organization should do about the PROPOSED merger beynd the call for proper scrutiny by appropriate agencies already issued by our leaders.

mrj

But you've said that policy can be changed and even reversed by leadership..... That means the membership makes policy to the extent that leadership allows them to. It's like me telling my wife that she can paint the house any color she wants, she's the boss. But then I have the power to change that color at my whim. Therefore, is it really her choice on color or is it mine?

When did the MEMBERS of NCBA instruct leadership to eliminate 3 VP positions? If NCBA is member-driven, those would be positions elected by membership and thus could only be changed by membership. Is that how it happened?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker, there you go again.......attributing words to me that I NEVER wrote!

Here's what I HAVE said, and what I believe is quite standard among large organizations with geographically wide distribution of members: Leaders and staff have teleconferences with directors and state affiliate leaders to address sudden changes and issues affecting the cattle business or the organization which occur between membership meetings. The members have opportunity to address those actions at the next meeting.

Re. the "3 VP positions", we need to establish what you mean, or believe about those VP's in order for me to answer your question regarding them.. Were they staff, or were they members?

Obviously, the CEO and leadership has some leeway in running the offices.

Hiring and firing employees is not something requiring a full meeting of membership. Should it be?

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You're asking me if Vice Presidents are staff?

I can buy the idea that leadership sometimes has to make a call when things come up suddenly. However, there were no "sudden changes" that came up between members directing leadership on the 11 points and leadership reversing what membership dictated. You're just making up excuses again.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker, you wrote that "those( VP's) would be positions elected by membership and thus could only be changed by membership".

The fact is, they were STAFF positions. Same as Jay Truitt in the Washington, DC office is.

You have been working overtime to make a decision to streamline and combine duties of some departments at NCBA into some sort of scandal.

It just won't fly! Get over it!

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandhusker, you wrote that "those( VP's) would be positions elected by membership and thus could only be changed by membership".

The fact is, they were STAFF positions. Same as Jay Truitt in the Washington, DC office is.

You have been working overtime to make a decision to streamline and combine duties of some departments at NCBA into some sort of scandal.

It just won't fly! Get over it!

mrj

Is the elimination of staff positions one of those things that suddenly came up?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
You have been working overtime to make a decision to streamline and combine duties of some departments at NCBA into some sort of scandal.

mrj

Well Maxine- apparently it wasn't a decision made by the entire NCBA membership- and/or the leadership forgot to tell anyone about it- because I know of several NCBA members that were just as surprised and perplexed by the move as I was....Especially those that think Stokes is an idiot and can't believe they actually left him alone in D.C. without a seeing eye dog ..... :shock: :wink: :lol:
 

mrj

Well-known member
OT, what on earth has Keys got to do with this???? He has been gone from NCBA for several years now! And there are many members who value his work for the association.

So, that multitude of NCBA members who keep you posted........do they all live in Glasgow, MT???

While I didn't happen to know ahead of time that staff changes were in the works, I do understand that occasional shifts of duties and staff cuts to focus on most areas most essential to the cattle industry is not a bad idea, no matter how much I may personally like the staff people who are no longer there.

You all forget that due to the illness and recent death of Paul Hitch, there was a sooner than anticipated change in officers at the helm of NCBA. It isn't unusual for a new president to make some changes in committees and even in staff of an organization.

Of course, you all are hoping for some sort of implosion or scandal to undermine the power of NCBA. You can stir that pot all you want, but it just isn't in the cards.

I also believe strongly that staff changes can properly be handled by leadership rather than only at a membership meeting.

why would you think these issues are not solely the business of NCBA members?

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
It's everybody who is in the cattle industry's business if a certain group or individual claims to represent your best interest to policy makers when in fact the are representing your adversary.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker, that is yet another lie! NCBA talking with packers does not equate to representing them, no matter how much you try to paint that picture.

Your refusal to understand that automatically doing the opposite of what packers do legislatively does not necessarily serve the cattle producer well is not shared by the over 40,000 NCBA members. We will work with them when it serves our needs, and won't when it doesn't

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Another question that she has avoided completely is one you have asked several times, RM. I'll throw it out there again;

MRJ, when the packers that NCBA calls their "partners in industry" replace beef from your cattle with beef from South American cattle, will they still be our partners?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandhusker, that is yet another lie! NCBA talking with packers does not equate to representing them, no matter how much you try to paint that picture.

Your refusal to understand that automatically doing the opposite of what packers do legislatively does not necessarily serve the cattle producer well is not shared by the over 40,000 NCBA members. We will work with them when it serves our needs, and won't when it doesn't

mrj

Working with them on the hypocracy to ban private BSE testing didn't serve our needs - it cost us all $140/head according to Dowd - but NCBA sure heeled on that one. Same with CAFTA. Same with Canada. Same with lying on the farm bill. Need I go on?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
OT, what on earth has Keys got to do with this???? He has been gone from NCBA for several years now! And there are many members who value his work for the association.

Oops--Meant Stokes- if thats the guy with the Adams apple that bounces every time he opens his mouth-- thats what/who they were talking about....The Adams apple guy...

So, that multitude of NCBA members who keep you posted........do they all live in Glasgow, MT???

Oh we still got a couple around here- I also do talk to people that live out of the state too- you know we got those fancy newfangled "tely phones" up here now Maxine.... :wink:
 
Top