Cattlemen's Group Wrangles With Its Former Allies

[Mike]

MRJ wrote:

Fortunately, NCBA prepared well by gathering the best, science based information about BSE, starting long before much of anyone in this nation had heard of it, and continues to add to that base of information and to share it with the media and consumers. I realize you will be extremely unlikely to give any credit to NCBA for that effort. However what is more important is that people outside our industry respect the history of NCBA for accuracy and credibility.

MRJ

I hope you remember the article where Dr. Gary Webber pooh-poohed the Western Blot test and said the IHC is the "Gold Standard" of all the BSE tests and would never be replaced for accuracy.

Yep, the WB had been used in Europe for years with total accuracy. We all know how the Texas cow was found positive too, don't we?

Dr. Webber even accused Dr. Moser who was co-inventor of the test for trying to make a fast buck.

Yea buddy, the NCBA is on top of it alright. Dr. Webber must've been drinking some more USDA juice that day.

So much for the NCBA's "Best Science Available".

 

[Anonymous]

Rancher: "SH, you can't do that until we have as many cattle coming across the border as we did in preBSE days. Gas, lack of truckers, paperwork, and slaughtering them at home have kept the flood of cattle back."

Rancher, tell me, what is the current level of Canadian imports in both boxed beef and live cattle and tell me how that compares with pre BSE times?

That is the only way your argument will have any credibility. Until then, you are just throwing out a "red herring" to cover for the ignorance of the average R-CULTer on the affects of Canadian imports.

Admit it, Canadian imports do not have the affect you thought they did.



~SH~

 

[rancher]

Here is the 2005 report on live cattle. Have to dig for the other.

Date Slaughter Feeder Daily Total
07/18/05 35 0 35
07/19/05 80 0 80
07/20/05 204 0 204
07/21/05 224 0 224
07/22/05 528 538 1,066
07/25/05 95 371 466
07/26/05 1,744 196 1,940
07/27/05 1,034 1,040 2,074
07/28/05 716 1,165 1,881
07/29/05 846 1,689 2,535
08/01/05 1,294 2,341 3,635
08/02/05 1,097 1,078 2,175
08/03/05 1,369 735 2,104
08/04/05 1,899 341 2,240
08/05/05 807 1,329 2,136
08/08/05 1,763 2,610 4,373
08/09/05 1,171 808 1,979
08/10/05 1,048 474 1,522
08/11/05 1,460 925 2,385
08/12/05 1,964 2,120 4,084
08/15/05 2,127 1,125 3,252
Totals 21,505 18,885 40,390

Cum. Total 07/18/05 to date: 40,390

 

[Econ101]

[/quote]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.

 

[Murgen]

Murgen, I am a consumer of a lot of beef and I would not hesitate to buy Canadian beef as long as I thought it was safe. My wife's sister may not want any Brazilian beef, not because she knows anything about it, but because she thinks they are destroying the rain forest for it. Consumers do not really know a lot about the meat they are buying except when they take it home and cook it and eat it. Country differentation may be a good thing for Canada if your meat is "a cut above the rest". It would be good for Canada, Brazil, the U.S. and others to have to compete for safety issues for the consumer. It would be good for them all to compete for quality or any other attribute the consumer wants. I know my sister-in-law eats a lot more meat when she thinks it is organic. Without COOL they can not make that happen.

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.

Econ101, In my opinion, COOL will not enhance anything that you have written here. If there is money to be made by providing organic, less rain forest destruction etc. private companies will build that business.

As for food safety, all Americans should be assured that if an importing country has the same regulations as the US, then safety sill be equal. And attacking the USDA in the press is a tool for a protectionist org. What they are trying to accomplich can be done behind closed doors, (if it is in the name of food saftey), without alarming the consumer. It becomes political, when you involve the media and the general population, and attack the processes used at present.

I'm all for labelling Canadian beef as such, it's done already! Have you ever seen a box cross the border without, "product of Canada" stamped on it?

And explain again, how a "real " regulatory system would be anymore of an incentive, than being shut out of your biggest market? Bring on COOL, Canada is years ahead in food safety and proof of said safety.

 

[mrj]

MRJ wrote:

Fortunately, NCBA prepared well by gathering the best, science based information about BSE, starting long before much of anyone in this nation had heard of it, and continues to add to that base of information and to share it with the media and consumers. I realize you will be extremely unlikely to give any credit to NCBA for that effort. However what is more important is that people outside our industry respect the history of NCBA for accuracy and credibility.

MRJ

I hope you remember the article where Dr. Gary Webber pooh-poohed the Western Blot test and said the IHC is the "Gold Standard" of all the BSE tests and would never be replaced for accuracy.

Yep, the WB had been used in Europe for years with total accuracy. We all know how the Texas cow was found positive too, don't we?

Dr. Webber even accused Dr. Moser who was co-inventor of the test for trying to make a fast buck.

Yea buddy, the NCBA is on top of it alright. Dr. Webber must've been drinking some more USDA juice that day.

So much for the NCBA's "Best Science Available".

Mike, you are real quick with the accusations and using partial quotes to "prove" your points.

Can you come up with the total story of ALL the work done by Dr. Weber and all the rest of the NCBA staff who DO have a very CREDIBLE body of work in the effort to deal with BSE?

Surely, if you have such a basis for your claims, you will be eager to copy and paste it to convince everyone of the accuracy of your claims.

MRJ

 

[Twotimer]

ditorial: Mad cow/A good step by USDA
September 17, 2005 ED0917A



Since the first American case of mad cow disease turned up in December 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has acted as if the threat might disappear if only federal regulators didn't look very hard to find it. The department has been casual about testing livestock, inconsistent about banning the slaughter of high-risk animals and slow to devise a system for tracking animals before they reach the slaughterhouse.

This is not reassuring to anyone who puts hamburgers or beef stew on the family menu, and it is not adequate for a state like Minnesota, one of the nation's Top 10 beef producers, whose farmers have already lost millions of dollars in export business because foreign customers have lost confidence in the American herd.

Late last month, however, the USDA issued an important and welcome update on its mad cow surveillance program. Since June 2004 the government has tested more than 460,000 "high risk" beef cows -- animals culled by veterinarians or renderers because they showed nerve disorders or other potential symptoms of mad cow disease, formally called bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The idea is not to test for food safety, since the animals had been pulled from the food chain anyway, but to estimate how far BSE had spread in the American herd. So far, only one of the tested cows has turned up positive. Now the department will expand its tests to 20,000 animals that show no symptoms but are old enough to have developed the disease. Europe includes such animals in its testing program and has found many cases of BSE, so this is a valuable addition to the nation's surveillance protocol.

The announcement came in response to an inquiry from Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Dick Durbin of Illinois, who say the USDA has been slow and sloppy in expanding the surveillance program. A department spokesman says his agency always intended to add the 20,000 clinically normal animals but wanted to test high-risk animals first. Never mind the finger-pointing; consumers should thank Harkin, Durbin and the new agriculture secretary, Mike Johanns, who seems to be bringing a new vigor and transparency to his department.

It must be said that the risk of mad cow to American consumers seems extremely low. Most beef cattle are slaughtered at 18 to 20 months, which is thought to be well before the disease develops, and since 1997 the federal government has banned the kind of cattle feed thought to transmit mad cow. Still, BSE has produced nasty and fatal surprises in England and Europe, and a more vigorous testing regime in the United States should prevent the same from happening here.

 

[mrj]

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

 

[Murgen]

The announcement came in response to an inquiry from Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Dick Durbin of Illinois, who say the USDA has been slow and sloppy in expanding the surveillance program. A department spokesman says his agency always intended to add the 20,000 clinically normal animals but wanted to test high-risk animals first. Never mind the finger-pointing; consumers should thank Harkin, Durbin and the new agriculture secretary, Mike Johanns, who seems to be bringing a new vigor and transparency to his department

Sounds like these two have changed the song they sing since the US has found a case. I would encourage you to check to see what was said by them before the Texas cow and their opinions on the Canadian border opening!

 

[PORKER]

Now the department will expand its tests to 20,000 animals that show no symptoms but are old enough to have developed the disease. Europe includes such animals in its testing program and has found many cases of BSE, so this is a valuable addition to the nation's surveillance protocol.

Depends on which Tests are used.Would like them use the Case Western urine test or the new super accurate protien test that can read the smaller Pirons.

 

[rancher]

Rancher: "SH, you can't do that until we have as many cattle coming across the border as we did in preBSE days. Gas, lack of truckers, paperwork, and slaughtering them at home have kept the flood of cattle back."

Rancher, tell me, what is the current level of Canadian imports in both boxed beef and live cattle and tell me how that compares with pre BSE times?

That is the only way your argument will have any credibility. Until then, you are just throwing out a "red herring" to cover for the ignorance of the average R-CULTer on the affects of Canadian imports.

Admit it, Canadian imports do not have the affect you thought they did.



~SH~

Whoa, you had me going there for awhile, you know I meant since we opened our borders to live that there are not enough cattle coming across to change the price that much. I posted what we have got since we opened to live. A nap does wonders, you up from yours yet?

 

[Econ101]

Murgen, I am a consumer of a lot of beef and I would not hesitate to buy Canadian beef as long as I thought it was safe. My wife's sister may not want any Brazilian beef, not because she knows anything about it, but because she thinks they are destroying the rain forest for it. Consumers do not really know a lot about the meat they are buying except when they take it home and cook it and eat it. Country differentation may be a good thing for Canada if your meat is "a cut above the rest". It would be good for Canada, Brazil, the U.S. and others to have to compete for safety issues for the consumer. It would be good for them all to compete for quality or any other attribute the consumer wants. I know my sister-in-law eats a lot more meat when she thinks it is organic. Without COOL they can not make that happen.

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.

Econ101, In my opinion, COOL will not enhance anything that you have written here. If there is money to be made by providing organic, less rain forest destruction etc. private companies will build that business.

As for food safety, all Americans should be assured that if an importing country has the same regulations as the US, then safety sill be equal. And attacking the USDA in the press is a tool for a protectionist org. What they are trying to accomplich can be done behind closed doors, (if it is in the name of food saftey), without alarming the consumer. It becomes political, when you involve the media and the general population, and attack the processes used at present.

I'm all for labelling Canadian beef as such, it's done already! Have you ever seen a box cross the border without, "product of Canada" stamped on it?

And explain again, how a "real " regulatory system would be anymore of an incentive, than being shut out of your biggest market? Bring on COOL, Canada is years ahead in food safety and proof of said safety.

Murgen,
It seems to me we are arguing about a tactical move by R-Calf with real possible BSE and health implications that has dramatically affected you Canadian ranchers. If SH was right that boxed beef sets cash prices then you people just got the shaft but it came from the packers. Aside from the possible BSE debate, you got the shaft nevertheless and I see that. I am not that interested in this part of the debate except in the way that it affects the producer. When I talk about the producer, it also means Canadian producers. The boxed beef produced by the Canadian located companies still increased the profits by the Canadian located companies, no matter who owned them. Produceres in Canada did not share the increase in prices that boxed beef got because of the reduced supply in the U.S. market. It hurt some Canadian producers that had been shipping their cattle to the U.S. plants like the one in Kuna, ID, and the Canadian beef market in general. Only the packers came out on that one.

It seems to me we need to make sure that the packers do not receive all the extra profits in this business and that the producers share in those profits. Maybe we should have a discussion on how that can happen. Meanwhile, I still have problems with market power exerting its influence to take producer profits, whether it be in Canada, China, or the United States. I think all the producers should share the profits of their production instead of some bottleneck like the packers extracting the producers surplus. That is why I am very concerned about the court's rulings of the Packers and Stockyard's Act of 1921. The ineffective and inefficient enforcement of that act led, in part, to the border closing.

As far as BSE is concerned, it might hurt in the short run to make sure that BSE is not in the food supply and not controlled by regulatory agencies that are captive to the packers, but Great Brittain's experience shows that it should never be decided by politics; just science.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ: "It hurt some Canadian producers that had been shipping their cattle to the U.S. plants like the one in Kuna, ID, and the Canadian beef market in general. Only the packers came out on that one."

How did the packers come out in the NW that used to rely on Canadian cattle that had to close their plants down due to a lack of available cattle?

If packers came out so good, why did they support the opening of the Canadian border?

Once again, the obvious is too obvious for a packer blamer like you.

You can pull your pants up now.


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Yip SH obvious is obviously too obvious for you.

Cargill in High River Alberta and Tyson in Brooks Alberta not only profitted enough to expand and buy new companies. Yes companies Jason. Better beef in Ontario and Caravell foods are two that I know of.

AND Mr. SH the obvious advantage of slaughter plants being shut down in the NW states owned by their competition.

Pretty obvious advantages to me, based on facts with no blaming used in the making of this post. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Randy,

Are you saying that no plants owned by Tyson and Cargill, IN THE NW UNITED STATES, were negatively impacted by a closed Canadian border?

1. Yes Tyson and Cargill did have packing plants in the NW U.S. that were negatively impacted by a closed Canadian border.

2. No Tyson and Cargill did not have packing plants in the NW U.S. that were negatively impacted by a closed Canadian border.

Feel lucky?

Time to divert again huh?



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Not enough to come close to the profits made due to the closed border.

I can not prove that Cargill and Tyson wanted the border closed any more than you can prove they wanted it open, but we both know that the closed border had major advantages for Cargill and Tyson.

Did Cargill and Tyson realize profits due to the closed border to Canada SH? A simple yes or no would suffice.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "I can not prove that Cargill and Tyson wanted the border closed any more than you can prove they wanted it open, but we both know that the closed border had major advantages for Cargill and Tyson."

The fact that they filed an amicus brief supporting the opening of the Canadian border is all the proof I need.

You're right, you have no proof to back your assertion.

The closed border had major disadvantages for Cargill and Tyson in the NW U.S. but you cannot acknowledge that in your compelling need to "Bwame da packah".

Randy: "Did Cargill and Tyson realize profits due to the closed border to Canada SH? A simple yes or no would suffice."

How many times do I have to answer that question for you? The answer is absolutely.

I have said how many times that packers had an advantage in Canada due to more cattle than slaughter capacity. Have I said it a hundred times yet Randy? You can't hear it enough though can you? You also cannot accept that I understand that reality can you?

That doesn't circumvent the fact that their NW U.S. plants were losing money which more than offset the gains in Canada.

That is the part of the equation that you cannot acknowledge. Most Canadian producers have it figured out but you don't and I doubt you ever will because you are a bonafide packer blamer.

That is why the packers filed an amicus brief supporting the opening of the Canadian border. Those surplus cattle in Canada used to be killed in the U.S. and were no longer available for packing plants in the NW U.S.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "That doesn't circumvent the fact that their NW U.S. plants were losing money which more than offset the gains in Canada."

You're talking out of your butt again, SH. I challenge you to back your statement with numbers. How much in US dollars did Tyson make in Canada and how much did they lose in their NW plants?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "You're talking out of your butt again, SH. I challenge you to back your statement with numbers. How much in US dollars did Tyson make in Canada and how much did they lose in their NW plants?"

Your typical response! Always having others prove every statement that you don't agree with so you can create the "ILLUSION" of POSSIBLY BEING RIGHT without backing your position with facts to the contrary.

You accused me of being wrong, the burden of proof is on you to PROVE IT!

I am not about to defend every statement I make to the pathetic likes of you so you can continue your relentless pursuit for the chink in the armour of facts to support your blaming bias.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandman: "You're talking out of your butt again, SH. I challenge you to back your statement with numbers. How much in US dollars did Tyson make in Canada and how much did they lose in their NW plants?"

Your typical response! Always having others prove every statement that you don't agree with so you can create the "ILLUSION" of POSSIBLY BEING RIGHT without backing your position with facts to the contrary.

You accused me of being wrong, the burden of proof is on you to PROVE IT!

I am not about to defend every statement I make to the pathetic likes of you so you can continue your relentless pursuit for the chink in the armour of facts to support your blaming bias.


~SH~

Because you can not. You have no credibility. Dazzle us some more with your illusion and possiblity of being right language. Pickett proved his case to the 12 jurors and it was not credibly refuted.