Randy: "Cargill and Tyson did not want the border open until they saw the end of the salmon run was near."
Tyson foods also continues to support efforts to reopen the U.S. border to Canadian cattle. Last mont the company filed a brief in support of a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) appeal of a court decision that delayed the reopening of the U.S. border to Canadian cattle imports. The company brief calls the court decision "bad" law and "bad" for consumers and notes there is no scientific basis for keeping the border closed.
Tyson continues to run it's U.S. beef plants at reduced levels of production due, in part, to the continued U.S. ban on Canadian cattle. About three to five percent of the cattle purchased for the company's domestic plants have historically come from Canada. Earlier this year the company temporarily suspended operations for more than a month at four plants as well as second shift processing at another facility.
Randy Kaiser: "Sounds good to me to cut back on production when you're loosing money on each item through. Looks like Tyson made money on each side of the line. Let's see. I'm losing 50 dollars a head. I kill ten less cattle, I put $500.00 in my pocket. I pay out my employee who I pay $3.00 per head. I still have $470.00 to pay other bills. Call it Kindergarten economics if you like SH, sounds to me that Tyson benefitted on both sides of the border from BSE, not to mention the way their competitors were squashed along the way."
MRJ said:MRJ wrote:
{ "Without COOL they can not make that happen.".......What in COOL do you believe WILL make that happen? The ONLY thing that law will do is label a small portion of imported beef that winds up in the retail meat case as "IMPORTED", with NO country of origin (unless the seller chooses to put that information on), NO identification of producer or premise in the USA, NO means of trace back to quickly stop food borne illnesses (extemely rare as those are), No real information about quality of the product, NO information about age of the animal........NO information beneficial to the consumer in the current flawed COOL law. MRJ}
MRJ, I am not going to argue over your version of the bill in the U. S. Congress. I know congress has the ability to name a bill that means just the opposite and if the packers think they can not buy off the COOL votes this is usually their next step.
When a packer buys meat and processes it, the packer should be responsible for its safety and reputation, not the rancher. A cow sold for dog food by a rancher sometimes does get in the food chain by some unseemly businessmen. If processors can not check out the factors that might make beef safe or not then they should not be in the business. It seems that you would argue that the packers have the right to put all problems through traceback to the rancher. The packers need to be held responsible for the quality of the product they are boxing. Exceptions might be new diseases or other factors that can not be sorted by the packers but these are few.
If you had a real country of origin labling law, the government regulatory agency that regulates the meat industry in that country would have a real incentive to regulate the industry, as it would hurt all exports if they were lapse. This would be a balancing mechanism to what some unseemly businman might want to get away with.
When Tyson has made the kind of deals with Walmart and sells meat by painting it to make it look good, that will hurt meat consumption, not increase it. We all have to be worried when that is the only choice we have. That is what happens when markets are not competitive.
My "version" of the COOL law is simply what the law says!
I've never supported (nor do I believe anyone else has) a bill that shifts ANY responsibility from packer, processor, purveyor, retailer, restaurant, nor any other "handler" of the meat, back to the producer and/or feeder.
BTW, there is at least one very old disease that is extremely easy to intentionally put into cattle herds, or to get there unintentionally. Can you say "Foot and Mouth"? IMO, that and some other diseases that are known to be in hands of terrorists are the major reason the government wants M-ID, and I agree with them! There is more desire in having M-ID to PROTECT the US cattle herd, than there is to place any possible BLAME on individual ranchers, for goodness sake!
What I do believe is needed is ID/labeling capable of recording what each of those puts into the end product, beef in this case, and having the capability to trace it back TO WHERE SOMETHING CAN BE DONE TO REMEDY problems and prevent them from happening again when possible.
BTW, are you saying there are NO "unseemly" ranchers who fudge on withdrawal periods, ship cows that should be euthanized, or in any other way (I'm not up on the latest scams and cons) try to cheat someone on up the line in the beef industry? Thankfully, there are very few, but more than we should have!
Re, incentives for foreign governments to assure safety and quality of their beef exported to the USA, they already DO HAVE to label it as, for example, PRODUCT OF CANADA. So, there is your "incentive" for them. It is not accurate to promote the idea that ONLY beef, or ALL beef that is imported is substandard or of poor quality, as too many people with power of the press in this country have done/are doing. IMO, it is far better to control and monitor imported, AS THE GOV'T DOES TODAY.
Consumers NEED to know that ALL beef is safe to eat. Beyond that, if they WANT to know that the beef they eat came from Canada, AUS, TX, CA, SD, MT, or from the X--Y--Z ranch located near the little rural outpost of GrassRoot, SD and was raised in the most natural way possible, or given the most nutritious diet and treated with respect and love by the owner right down to giving each animal their own name, they may CHOOSE to pay the price for the value of that additional information! Private enterprise should be the determining factor in information above and beyond basic safety and quality which should be, and is, mandated by law.
What is your evidence for your claims against Walmart beef? What is the "paint" you reference? From what I have read, the Walmart deal with beef is that it is safer product with fewer people handling it, so cuts are individually vacuum packed at the "factory" and not touched by human hands again till the consumer opens it at home.
Isn't it still law that beef cannot contain adulterants, excepting in the case of marinades, and must be labeled to tell the consumer that fact?
MRJ
agman said:MRJ said:MRJ wrote:
{ "Without COOL they can not make that happen.".......What in COOL do you believe WILL make that happen? The ONLY thing that law will do is label a small portion of imported beef that winds up in the retail meat case as "IMPORTED", with NO country of origin (unless the seller chooses to put that information on), NO identification of producer or premise in the USA, NO means of trace back to quickly stop food borne illnesses (extemely rare as those are), No real information about quality of the product, NO information about age of the animal........NO information beneficial to the consumer in the current flawed COOL law. MRJ}
MRJ, I am not going to argue over your version of the bill in the U. S. Congress. I know congress has the ability to name a bill that means just the opposite and if the packers think they can not buy off the COOL votes this is usually their next step.
When a packer buys meat and processes it, the packer should be responsible for its safety and reputation, not the rancher. A cow sold for dog food by a rancher sometimes does get in the food chain by some unseemly businessmen. If processors can not check out the factors that might make beef safe or not then they should not be in the business. It seems that you would argue that the packers have the right to put all problems through traceback to the rancher. The packers need to be held responsible for the quality of the product they are boxing. Exceptions might be new diseases or other factors that can not be sorted by the packers but these are few.
If you had a real country of origin labling law, the government regulatory agency that regulates the meat industry in that country would have a real incentive to regulate the industry, as it would hurt all exports if they were lapse. This would be a balancing mechanism to what some unseemly businman might want to get away with.
When Tyson has made the kind of deals with Walmart and sells meat by painting it to make it look good, that will hurt meat consumption, not increase it. We all have to be worried when that is the only choice we have. That is what happens when markets are not competitive.
My "version" of the COOL law is simply what the law says!
I've never supported (nor do I believe anyone else has) a bill that shifts ANY responsibility from packer, processor, purveyor, retailer, restaurant, nor any other "handler" of the meat, back to the producer and/or feeder.
BTW, there is at least one very old disease that is extremely easy to intentionally put into cattle herds, or to get there unintentionally. Can you say "Foot and Mouth"? IMO, that and some other diseases that are known to be in hands of terrorists are the major reason the government wants M-ID, and I agree with them! There is more desire in having M-ID to PROTECT the US cattle herd, than there is to place any possible BLAME on individual ranchers, for goodness sake!
What I do believe is needed is ID/labeling capable of recording what each of those puts into the end product, beef in this case, and having the capability to trace it back TO WHERE SOMETHING CAN BE DONE TO REMEDY problems and prevent them from happening again when possible.
BTW, are you saying there are NO "unseemly" ranchers who fudge on withdrawal periods, ship cows that should be euthanized, or in any other way (I'm not up on the latest scams and cons) try to cheat someone on up the line in the beef industry? Thankfully, there are very few, but more than we should have!
Re, incentives for foreign governments to assure safety and quality of their beef exported to the USA, they already DO HAVE to label it as, for example, PRODUCT OF CANADA. So, there is your "incentive" for them. It is not accurate to promote the idea that ONLY beef, or ALL beef that is imported is substandard or of poor quality, as too many people with power of the press in this country have done/are doing. IMO, it is far better to control and monitor imported, AS THE GOV'T DOES TODAY.
Consumers NEED to know that ALL beef is safe to eat. Beyond that, if they WANT to know that the beef they eat came from Canada, AUS, TX, CA, SD, MT, or from the X--Y--Z ranch located near the little rural outpost of GrassRoot, SD and was raised in the most natural way possible, or given the most nutritious diet and treated with respect and love by the owner right down to giving each animal their own name, they may CHOOSE to pay the price for the value of that additional information! Private enterprise should be the determining factor in information above and beyond basic safety and quality which should be, and is, mandated by law.
What is your evidence for your claims against Walmart beef? What is the "paint" you reference? From what I have read, the Walmart deal with beef is that it is safer product with fewer people handling it, so cuts are individually vacuum packed at the "factory" and not touched by human hands again till the consumer opens it at home.
Isn't it still law that beef cannot contain adulterants, excepting in the case of marinades, and must be labeled to tell the consumer that fact?
MRJ
Where did you hear that Wal-Mart paints meat? They add a solution to enhance flavor, tenderness and most of all shelf life through high-oxygen packaging which is a direct benefit to consumers. The added shelf life, reduced spoilage and shrink has allowed them to offer that product at a cheaper price to consumers. The solution is generally about 3-4% and varies by cut. The percentage you see on the listed on the label is merely the allowable legal limit set by current government regulation, not the actual level of added solution. Needless to say there are many food safety advantages to their case-ready product.
Wal-Mart's meat business has increased contrary to your opinion that case-ready product , which is the correct nomenclature for their product, hurts beef demand. Their competitors only wish they could match Wal-Mart's growth in beef and meat demand.
rkaiser said:Sorry SH, if Randy is wrong Randy is wrong, is all you can come up with you're pretty pathetic.
You say the plants in America were losing money on every head. Why would they want to lose more on more cattle coming in from Canada?
Randy is right SH, Tyson and Cargill could not give a rats a%% if the border was open. They were doing just fine with a closed border.
I love the way you keep dodging the proof you supposedly have to support your fairy tale. "Phone Tyson" SH says :lol: What a joke.
Funny how you tried to shake me off woth personal cracks about management. If you were somehow to land a job with Cargill and Tyson, they could never even bring you near the front office. A puppet like you only belongs in front of the media, supporting every move made, but never waking up to the big business picture Cargill, Tyson, or Canadian Celtic have in mind.
Wake up SH. Tyson and Cargill made gains on every front by the border being closed.
Listen Agman, I don't have time to go around proving everything I claim to be true. If you and SH want to make it your life work, go to her. I'm here to make statements, show opinion and cause discussion. I guess I accomplish all of that. Sure stirs you boys up now doesn't it.
Not one of us here on ranchers can really prove our points beyond shadow of a doubt since most of what we discuss is relative.
And I'm not going to waste my life proving anything to you, or SH, or MRJ, or Tam, or any one of the other packer lovers who are roped into thinking that the current system is without flaws and is adhered to morally and ethically by Tyson and Cargill.
If you would like to dismiss me as an ignorant packer blamer Agman, be my guest. But I'll BE BACK.
Quote:
Listen Agman, I don't have time to go around proving everything I claim to be true. If you and SH want to make it your life work, go to her. I'm here to make statements, show opinion and cause discussion. I guess I accomplish all of that. Sure stirs you boys up now doesn't it.
Not one of us here on ranchers can really prove our points beyond shadow of a doubt since most of what we discuss is relative.
Well note to all, Randy will not be proving any of his claims so don't bother reading anything he post if you care about the truth backed up by facts.
Quote:
And I'm not going to waste my life proving anything to you, or SH, or MRJ, or Tam, or any one of the other packer lovers who are roped into thinking that the current system is without flaws and is adhered to morally and ethically by Tyson and Cargill.
Randy can you tell us just how many dollars you have collected for Big C coffers with your OPINIONS that you have no intention on backing up with facts if question about the them?
Quote:
If you would like to dismiss me as an ignorant packer blamer Agman, be my guest. But I'll BE BACK.
But the next time we will all know your claims are just, making statements, and showing opinions with nothing backing them. Thanks for the warning.
rkaiser said:Listen Agman, I don't have time to go around proving everything I claim to be true. If you and SH want to make it your life work, go to her. I'm here to make statements, show opinion and cause discussion. I guess I accomplish all of that. Sure stirs you boys up now doesn't it.
Not one of us here on ranchers can really prove our points beyond shadow of a doubt since most of what we discuss is relative.
Sure Tyson and Cargill lost a few bucks when the border first closed. Then they collected a government cheque. Did it pay all their losses, probably not. Did the government cheque pay for the losses to the producer, definately not.
Might have been a few days here and there throughout the salmon run that things got light, but overall times were good for Tyson at Brooks and Cargill at High River.
Ad this to the my opinion (almost said fact there) that their competition was at a distinct disadvantage and you have a very profitable time for Tyson and Cargill in Alberta, in more ways than one.
Any lieing so far.
Can I prove that Cargill and Tyson made more in their Canadian plants than they lost in America due to the closed border - NO. Just as you cannot prove that they lost more in their American plants than they did in Canada due to the closed border. And we haven't even discussed the competitve advantages over other companies.
Thus my statement that Cargill and Tyson had no real will to cause the border to open. They always knew it could not last forever and therefore kept the public comfortable with the ever famous Amicus Brief.
And I'm not going to waste my life proving anything to you, or SH, or MRJ, or Tam, or any one of the other packer lovers who are roped into thinking that the current system is without flaws and is adhered to morally and ethically by Tyson and Cargill. (thanks for teaching me how to spell Cargill correctly Agman, now my Packer Bwamin can at least be literatly correct.)
If you would like to dismiss me as an ignorant packer blamer Agman, be my guest. But I'll BE BACK.
