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

beef cow/calf weekly

Help Support Ranchers.net:

sw

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
Our Perspective
After The Gold Rush
Politicians and cattlemen were bouncing around like those Russian squat dancers after a Montana judge stiff-armed USDA's planned March 7 opening of the Canadian border. The border, set to swing open to imports of Canadian cattle less than 30 months of age, was rebolted March 2 by Judge Richard Cebull's decision to prevent the "serious irreparable harm that will occur when Canadian cattle and meat enter the U.S. and commingle with the U.S. meat supply."

Beyond a bunch of hippies trying to burn the Stars and Stripes outside a Grange meeting, there's likely never been an issue as emotional as this border issue. The situation is reminiscent of one of those old Miller Lite commercials where two sides of a stadium face off with shouts of "Tastes Great" and "Less Filling."

Those in favor of keeping the border closed have pulled out all stops in portraying the campaign as a crusade to protect the American consumer. R-CALF even took out an ad in the March 15 issue of the Washington Post invoking the words "mad cow," and using words and phrases like "fatal disease" and "high-risk."

Gulp!

As Agribusiness Freedom Foundation ( www.agribusinessfreedom.org) executive director Steve Dittmer points out, the ad was: " the latest effort to scare consumers about BSE -- bought, paid for and placed on purpose in a nationally circulated newspaper published in the city that sets national policy."

There's no doubt, however, that the real motive is protecting the robust U.S. cattle market that has roughly coincided with the May 2003 closure of the border to Canadian cattle. After all, if Canadian cattle are so dangerous, where's the conscience of R-CALF members who reportedly have invested in Canadian cattle since the Canadian BSE discoveries? How can these folks sleep at night as convinced as they are that Canadian cattle will kill consumers? Is it okay to kill Canadian consumers but not American consumers?

And, R-CALF's claim that U.S. consumers will turn away from all beef if Canadian product is allowed into the U.S. ignores the fact Canadian beef muscle products have been available in the U.S. since September 2003. If such a crisis of consumer confidence actually exists, it's one R-CALF (along with its anti-globalist, anti-beef cohorts) has whipped up with its two years of bleating about the issue.

Like it or not, this is a North American cattle industry and the Canadian and U.S. systems are largely the same, including their BSE prevention and surveillance strategies. Once R-CALF has helped "consumer" groups the likes of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Carol Tucker Foreman's Consumer Federation Of America, and the Consumer Union dispense with Canada, what's to prevent these anti-meat groups from going after the domestic beef industry. After all, the seeds of consumer doubt on beef safety and USDA's watchdog role already have been well-planted and nurtured -- with R-CALF's help.

The Bible says: "The lion and the lamb shall lay down together." Woody Allen once reworked that to say: "The lion and the lamb will lay down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep." R-CALF not only has lain down with the lion but took a sleeping potion before nestling the industry's jugular into the lion's mouth.

What's more, R-CALF has set the stage for a real beef crisis in this country should a domestic case of BSE be discovered, which experts say is more likely than not. Having used hysteria reminiscent of what happened some 15 years ago when BSE was first discovered in Europe to whip up consumer and political support, what's their fallback position when a U.S. case is discovered? I doubt "just kidding" will suffice.

The long-accepted, almost sacrosanct, tenet of trade decisions is that they should be based on the best available science. In fact, in a mid January e-mail survey of BEEF magazine readers, 81% of respondents said that, as a general principle, the U.S. beef industry should always stand on the best available science in determining its positions on key industry issues.

Yet, of those same respondents, 68.9% said the National Cattlemen's Beef Association should insist U.S. beef trade be re-established with Japan and South Korea and expanded in Mexico before the U.S. border is reopened to Canadian cattle, even if it violates World Trade Organization rules. So much for science.

One can hardly blame folks for trying to lengthen the run of great prices they perceive as being the result of a closed border. Analysts say, however, that the prices aren't driven by supply but by the phenomenal domestic demand growth of the past few years. Thank the checkoff.

The reality is that the U.S. has set a dangerous precedent in departing from the "best science" principle. We've opened the door for trading partners to justify doing the same to us.
-- Joe Roybal

Back to Top

R-CALF Attempts To Leverage Its Court Victory
R-CALF placed a half-page ad in the Washington Post this week. It thanked the U.S. Senate for passing a resolution supporting the continued closure of the U.S. border to Canadian cattle under 30 months of age, and urged the U.S. House to do the same.

Washington analysts say it's highly unlikely the House will pass such a motion. And, any such measure reaching the President's desk will be promptly vetoed anyway.

Thus, the advertisement certainly wasn't about pressuring the House. It was designed to raise public concerns about the safety of beef. R-CALF realizes if it can raise consumer concerns about the safety of the product, regardless of what USDA, the World Trade Organization, the world community or the federal courts ultimately decide, it will be too much of a risk to reopen the border.

It's a brilliant gambit; it's right out of the activist manifesto playbook. It's also a highly dangerous tactic because of the potential implications on domestic beef demand, especially if we were to discover a case of domestic BSE.

According to an article in Inside Washington Today, Japanese officials met with R-CALF recently to tell them the R-CALF actions are delaying the reopening of the Japanese market to U.S. beef. The Japanese told R-CALF that its court action and others have created an opposition campaign in Japan that has been picked up by the Japanese media.

Most of the people involved in the Japanese negotiations were surprised and devastated by Judge Cebull's March 2 injunction on USDA's March 7 timetable for reopening the Canadian border. That, combined with the intense pressure by Congress and the Bush Administration, has the Japanese saying there either will be a major breakthrough in the next two weeks or all the progress made so far will evaporate and the process will take much longer than anticipated.

The point is crystal clear. The entire world, with the exception of some U.S. cattle producers, feels the risks for BSE between Canada and the U.S. are similar. Consider that there's tremendous integration of both the U.S. and Canada's feed and cattle industries, and each nation's feed bans, testing programs and firewalls (which are similar) were all implemented at roughly the same time.

Thus, raising the anxiety level about the safety of Canadian beef has the chilling effect of raising concern about U.S. beef. Not to mention that muscle cuts of Canadian beef have been coming into the U.S. for the past 15 months.

Most cattlemen would agree the USDA rule to open the border was flawed, and few wanted it opened March 7. The question now is how many are willing to risk the future of the beef trade to keep it closed?
-- Troy Marshall
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"Most cattlemen would agree the USDA rule to open the border was flawed, and few wanted it opened March 7. The question now is how many are willing to risk the future of the beef trade to keep it closed?"

Why didn't USDA take back the rule- rework it and work with all the groups (NCBA, R-CALF, NFU, AFB) that called for changes before the border opened, rather than their full speed ahead, the border must open no matter the consequences attitude.....This is what gives them the image of not caring for the health or welfare of the US consumer or producer........
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Two great articles SW, these could have been written by Ranchers. net members months ago. Seem that they fit with the majority of memeber s here, American and Canadian.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Oldtimer said:
"Most cattlemen would agree the USDA rule to open the border was flawed, and few wanted it opened March 7. The question now is how many are willing to risk the future of the beef trade to keep it closed?"

Response...Most cattlemen do not agree on keeping the border closed. R-Calf does not represent the majority by any measurement. More producers everyday realize the folly and danger in R-Calf's reckless gambit. Ultimately science will win over R-Calf's science fiction. That will the the first chapter to the end of R-Calf as a viable organization. They will go the way of the AAM and NFO; it is only a matter of time. Have a great day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
"Most cattlemen would agree the USDA rule to open the border was flawed, and few wanted it opened March 7. The question now is how many are willing to risk the future of the beef trade to keep it closed?"

Response...Most cattlemen do not agree on keeping the border closed. R-Calf does not represent the majority by any measurement. More producers everyday realize the folly and danger in R-Calf's reckless gambit. Ultimately science will win over R-Calf's science fiction. That will the the first chapter to the end of R-Calf as a viable organization. They will go the way of the AAM and NFO; it is only a matter of time. Have a great day.

Every major Ag organization including NCBA, R-CALF, Farm Bureau, and Farmers Union requested the USDA change their rule or keep the border closed until certain requirements have been met- that sounds like a pretty fair majority to me that thought the proposal was flawed... Oh I forgot- Your AMI was for opening the border to anything and everything......
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Oldtimer .. Oh I forgot- Your AMI was for opening the border to anything and everything......[/quote said:
Response...Wrong again OT, I have nothing to do with th AMI. Another phony assumption on your part-typical R-calf mentality. Have a great day.
 
Top