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

Congress Delays COOL Behind Closed Doors Again

Econ101 said:
Tam said:
HAY MAKER said:
Alright Miss Tam,if you were teasing,then I apologize,I dont think you will admitt this,but I bet you know,without an org. like R CALF keeping these packers/usda/ncba, in the spot lite,and fighting for fairness,it would'nt take some street wise bean counter one day to come up with some BS story about how the operating costs have sky rocketed and the cost of fuel,wages etc...........so fat cattle are $56,take it or leave it,and since the price of fat cattle drives the markets your calves arent worth much.....................good luck

If R-CALF had not been organized to stop beef trade with Canada would it have been organized at all? :wink:
Haymaker do you think it is fair to stop import cattle trade when it costs two sectors of the whole beef industry billions just so you can keep a monopoly on the cattle supply? I thought R-CALF hated the Packers having a capitive supply of cattle but if the packers can't access cattle from anywhere else doesn't the give the US producers a capitive market for their supply.

Tam, I know you must be speaking out of desperation on this post. The pain of producers in Canada is heard. BSE was a packer made problem, however, and it is an issue packers are using through the USDA.

You can condemn r-calf and everyone else but if the issues regarding concentration are not solved you will still be in the same cement boat with a hole in it. U.S. cattlemen do not hate Canadian cattlemen, except to the extent that Canadian cattlemen are not getting the laws needed to stop the abuses of market power in the industry. It is causing a big rift.

If you would spend just half of your time on this issue instead of throwing your hands up in the air, you would probably get a lot more sympathy to your positions. If Canadian cattlemen do not want to face these issues then they will always be looked down upon by r-calfers and politically active cattlemen in the U.S. Can you find some common interests? I would much rather have r-calf be a supporter of Canadian proposals to correct the current abuses than fight other producers. The problem is that the packers have you split. Think about how the split was made and who made it. You don't need to fight your closest kin when the big bad wolf is blowing down your house. Your closest kin aint goin to help you if you are not doing a little fighting yourself.



Econ you need a history lesson on the formation of R-CALF. They were formed to start a trade action against Canada. Period. Their were many issues that the US and Canadian cattleman could work together on but R-CALF polarized the cattle industry.

You might think you know economics but you don't know diddle about the cattle industry. You can blame packers for all the woes of the rancher but we need a working market place and options for manageing risk. Yes the packers look out for their own best interests but so do the order buyers, the feedlot operaters, the auction barns and even the poor old truckers . But it is the rancher that get's whats left after the rest get payed so we had better have a interest in the consumption of beef and the promotion thru our check off's . If it takes bigger more efficent packers to beable to pay more for our cattle let it be as we we need efficency to make it in this competative world. So much different then the world of academia.
 
BMR,
I would like to hear a little more about this. From what I am told, r-calf was formed to keep the packers from playing all the economic frauds on the cattle producers. Canadian cattle came into the picture for two reasons: 1) packers were using them as a form of "captive supply" and 2) real issues regarding the BSE (which I still think the USDA has little credibility on) and its impact on closing the border in the first place.

I have not looked at the cattle industry in these respects very closely. What I have seen is that the Canadians have given tax money to the accused market abusers for exactly the same issues the U.S. producers have issue with. That only exacerbated the feelings between the r-calfers and the Canadian producers.

If you have another take on it, let me hear it. As SH has pointed out, the BSE border closing has been almost entirely a USDA move and not an r-calf move. Why are there so many Canadians on this forum giving support to the packers? Why should the U.S. producers allow the USDA to have standards on BSE that change when it seems in the best interest of the packers?

I am really open to hearing what you feel on this subject. Please don't take the above paragraphs as an indication of any hostility. My economic interests are to the producer whether they be in the U.S., Canada, or China, or Australia.

It may seem that lower prices help beef demand but this is not the case. When the natural supply/demand equilibrium is met, the producers get their share, the consumers get their share, and the packers get their share. When market power is used, the producers usually lose and the other two gain.
 
Econ101 said:
BMR,
I would like to hear a little more about this. From what I am told, r-calf was formed to keep the packers from playing all the economic frauds on the cattle producers. Canadian cattle came into the picture for two reasons: 1) packers were using them as a form of "captive supply" and 2) real issues regarding the BSE (which I still think the USDA has little credibility on) and its impact on closing the border in the first place.

I have not looked at the cattle industry in these respects very closely. What I have seen is that the Canadians have given tax money to the accused market abusers for exactly the same issues the U.S. producers have issue with. That only exacerbated the feelings between the r-calfers and the Canadian producers.

If you have another take on it, let me hear it. As SH has pointed out, the BSE border closing has been almost entirely a USDA move and not an r-calf move. Why are there so many Canadians on this forum giving support to the packers? Why should the U.S. producers allow the USDA to have standards on BSE that change when it seems in the best interest of the packers?

I am really open to hearing what you feel on this subject. Please don't take the above paragraphs as an indication of any hostility. My economic interests are to the producer whether they be in the U.S., Canada, or China, or Australia.

It may seem that lower prices help beef demand but this is not the case. When the natural supply/demand equilibrium is met, the producers get their share, the consumers get their share, and the packers get their share. When market power is used, the producers usually lose and the other two gain.


Econ Canadian cattle equal about 5% of the US market. How does that few of cattle make a effective captive supply?

R-CALF filed a dumping case against Canada because we were selling cattle below the cost of production. If that was the case have US ranchers ever sold cattle below the cost of production? Have they ever done it on purpose or just because that was the market? How do you sell for more then the cost of production if you costs are higher then the market?

Yes the USDA closed the border because of BSE. But since the world has become more informed about BSE it's causes and effects the rules needed changing. The US would be held accountable to the same rules they held Canada to so they felt in their producers and consumers best interests that the rules needed to be changed. Lo and behold here come R-CALF with court cases in a attempt to keep the border closed and hold US producers hostage to outdated rules on the gamble that the USDA would not or could not or would cover up any BSE found in the US native herds. Guess what?

The money that the packers recieved in the summer of 03 was a diasater progam to keep the feeding sector from collapse. Tho it may have directed money to the packers it kept most feeders operating and alive to fight another day.
Tell me how the USDA run progams make sure only small farmers get program money and not the biggest farms getting the lions share?
 
BMR, the facts are the packers will pay as little as they can for their cattle as possible, same as any business watches over inputs. Being larger simply gives them more power to "influence" lower prices. Yes, everybody is looking out for their own backsides, but who is getting their way in Washington via "contributions"? Do you think size and marketshare might have bearing on how much can be "contributed"?

BMR, "The US would be held accountable to the same rules they held Canada to so they felt in their producers and consumers best interests that the rules needed to be changed."

BMR, if you compare our regulations concerning importing your product verses what we are being held to, you will find that you are wrong.
We are being held to stricter standards than we require of you. Even Egypt has higher standards! The US is not the world's volume or price leader. We have to hang our hat on quality, yet third world countries have higher standards than we do, and we can't privately test for BSE to give our customers a feeling of security! There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture, and the trail leads to the USDA. R-CALF recognizes this, but they're labeled "protectionist" for their efforts. :roll:
 
Sandhusker said:
BMR, the facts are the packers will pay as little as they can for their cattle as possible, same as any business watches over inputs. Being larger simply gives them more power to "influence" lower prices. Yes, everybody is looking out for their own backsides, but who is getting their way in Washington via "contributions"? Do you think size and marketshare might have bearing on how much can be "contributed"?

BMR, "The US would be held accountable to the same rules they held Canada to so they felt in their producers and consumers best interests that the rules needed to be changed."

BMR, if you compare our regulations concerning importing your product verses what we are being held to, you will find that you are wrong.
We are being held to stricter standards than we require of you. Even Egypt has higher standards! The US is not the world's volume or price leader. We have to hang our hat on quality, yet third world countries have higher standards than we do, and we can't privately test for BSE to give our customers a feeling of security! There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture, and the trail leads to the USDA. R-CALF recognizes this, but they're labeled "protectionist" for their efforts. :roll:

Sandhusker, what I see "fundamentally wrong" with your picture, is that you want to "give our customers A FEELING OF security". What our customers want and need IS SECURITY, not the false security of "a FEELING of" it! Our government and the cattle/beef industry is doing what is warranted by the best available science to provide the best security possible for beef. There is too much that is not known about BSE to say absolutely that a total testing program would be beneficial to that security at this point in time. A preponderance of the research and evidence indicates that the current actions are what is warranted. IF the tests were unquestionnably accurate, there might be a science based reason for testing all animals. IF there were absolute connection between BSE and vCJD, there might be. Right now, the evidence does not support it, and government is the entity responsible for animal health, so giving the testing responsibility to an independent business is not possible, under current law/rules of law.

MRJ
 
MRJ, "Sandhusker, what I see "fundamentally wrong" with your picture, is that you want to "give our customers A FEELING OF security". What our customers want and need IS SECURITY, not the false security of "a FEELING of" it! Our government and the cattle/beef industry is doing what is warranted by the best available science to provide the best security possible for beef. There is too much that is not known about BSE to say absolutely that a total testing program would be beneficial to that security at this point in time. A preponderance of the research and evidence indicates that the current actions are what is warranted. IF the tests were unquestionnably accurate, there might be a science based reason for testing all animals. IF there were absolute connection between BSE and vCJD, there might be. Right now, the evidence does not support it, and government is the entity responsible for animal health, so giving the testing responsibility to an independent business is not possible, under current law/rules of law."

Actually, MRJ, I don't believe that our government is doing all they can to provide the best security for beef. The latest FDA proposals on our feed ban is below most of our customer's standards and even below what was recommened by the "experts". We can all guess as to the reasons why.... Regardless, it is not in the consumer's or producer's best interests.

As far as BSE testing, the evidence seems to depend on which test you're using. Still, what is wrong with a private company being allowed to give consumers the choice? Nobody is stumping for a law that says everything has to be tested, only that there is absolutly no good reason why consumers shouldn't be allowed the choice. Is that so much to ask? Why not let the market decide? If people don't want to pay the extra few cents a pound, they won't and the issue will fade away.
 
so giving the testing responsibility to an independent business is not possible, under current law/rules of law.

Creekstone's proposed testing was to be under "Guvment" supervision at all times and the supervision was to paid for by the packers just as meat inspectors are.

The lab technicians were to be "government trained" (an oxymoron) and the schooling was to be paid for by Creekstone.

These consolations were a prerequisite by Japan and very well thought out by all, except the USDA.
 
Mike said:
so giving the testing responsibility to an independent business is not possible, under current law/rules of law.

Creekstone's proposed testing was to be under "Guvment" supervision at all times and the supervision was to paid for by the packers just as meat inspectors are.

The lab technicians were to be "government trained" (an oxymoron) and the schooling was to be paid for by Creekstone.

These consolations were a prerequisite by Japan and very well thought out by all, except the USDA.

Mike, do you want to know one probable reason for BSE not to be tested?
 
Econ101 said:
Mike said:
so giving the testing responsibility to an independent business is not possible, under current law/rules of law.

Creekstone's proposed testing was to be under "Guvment" supervision at all times and the supervision was to paid for by the packers just as meat inspectors are.

The lab technicians were to be "government trained" (an oxymoron) and the schooling was to be paid for by Creekstone.

These consolations were a prerequisite by Japan and very well thought out by all, except the USDA.

Mike, do you want to know one probable reason for BSE not to be tested?

If it's other than protecting the "Big Boys" from jumping through more hoops to keep marketshare, yes I want to know.
 
Mike said:
Econ101 said:
Mike said:
Creekstone's proposed testing was to be under "Guvment" supervision at all times and the supervision was to paid for by the packers just as meat inspectors are.

The lab technicians were to be "government trained" (an oxymoron) and the schooling was to be paid for by Creekstone.

These consolations were a prerequisite by Japan and very well thought out by all, except the USDA.

Mike, do you want to know one probable reason for BSE not to be tested?

If it's other than protecting the "Big Boys" from jumping through more hoops to keep marketshare, yes I want to know.



How many poultry operations are in your neck of the woods? How many of those poultry operations have chicken litter to spread or cattle on the same property?

Which materials are prohibited in feeds for ruminants?

Prohibited materials comprise all protein, including meat and bone meal, derived from mammals such as cattle, sheep and other ruminants.

Salvaged pet food, plate waste and poultry litter may contain prohibited material and are not approved for feeding to ruminants.

Can these prohibited materials be fed to non-ruminants?

Yes, prohibited protein materials can be used in feeds for poultry, swine and other non-ruminant species.

Although not fed to cattle directly, the practice of feeding cattle poultry waste has been advised against. Do cattle ever graze fields where poultry litter has been spread? What would a ban on spreading poultry litter do to your competitor, chicken? Again, the producers pay the cost.
 
Siloam Springs: Farmers told to stop spreading litter
BY CRISTAL CODY
Arkansas Democrat Gazette Thursday, April 24, 2003

SILOAM SPRINGS — Six poultry companies, including Simmons Foods Inc., are ordering farmers to stop spreading chicken litter on land in the Tulsa watershed in Northwest Arkansas and northeastern Oklahoma.

Farmers said this week that companies have threatened to cut off delivery of new chickens if the distribution of the poultry waste on farmland continues. Farmers, acting as middlemen for companies by raising the chickens after they're hatched and until ready for market, rely on these deliveries to stay in business.

The poultry companies involved in the case refused to comment. Several spokesmen cited a confidentiality agreement put in place by the court until a drinking-water pollution settlement with Tulsa receives court approval. Farmers say the halt of litter application in the Spavinaw/Eucha watershed, which extends from Northwest Arkansas into northeastern Oklahoma, is part of the settlement.

The Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority approved the settlement in March, but it must be ratified by U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan.

Robert Seay, an agent with Benton County Cooperative Extension Service, said he's had several phone calls from farmers concerned about how the proposed settlement will affect their poultry operations. Spring is when fertilizer usually is applied to fields and pastures. "Basically, what they've been told is producers with litter to sell or even give away, they can't let anyone who's got land in that watershed have it," he said. "I'm not aware of any place to stockpile litter or move it anywhere, so I'm at a loss as to what they're supposed to do with it."

Tulsa filed a lawsuit in December 2001 against the city of Decatur, Tyson Foods Inc., Cobb-Vantress Inc., Peterson Farms Inc., Simmons Foods Inc., Cargill Inc. and George's Inc. The lawsuit alleged the poultry companies were responsible for 170 million pounds of nitrogen- and phosphorus-rich poultry waste spread each year in the watershed that caused a foul taste and odor in drinking water.

Decatur is accused of contributing to the phosphorus load in its treatment of wastewater from a Peterson processing plant. Part of the settlement requires Decatur to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant, according to Decatur Mayor Bill Montgomery.

Jim Cameron, chairman of the Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority, said he couldn't confirm the settlement included orders to cease spreading litter in the area until the agreement is court-approved.

No court date has been set, but Cameron said it should occur before the end of the month.

Farmers in the Tulsa watershed aren't the only ones who face litter regulation.

Gov. Mike Huckabee signed three bills into law earlier this month that require, among other things, property owners who use litter and commercial fertilizer to follow state-approved nutrient management plans. The bills also establish a statewide registration of poultry farms and certification requirements for distributing poultry litter.

The regulations are in response to stricter water-quality limits proposed by Oklahoma, which wants to cut the levels of phosphorus in its scenic rivers.

The litter application ban in the Tulsa settlement is believed to be "only a stopgap measure until we get clearance on what the final phosphorus index will end up being," Seay said of the tool used to write nutrient farm management plans. "That's the carrot dangling at the end."

About 1,500 farmers with at least 20 acres or more operate in the watershed, said Frank Walker, grassland specialist for the Spavinaw/Eucha watershed for the Benton County Conservation District.

Loyd McKenzie, who manages state Sen. Kim Hendren's 500-acre poultry and cattle farm about a mile east of Gravette, said Simmons Foods told him last week that no one in the Spavinaw/Eucha watershed can spread litter. Hendren's farm grows chickens exclusively for Siloam Springsbased Simmons. "As far as I know right now, we either got to pile it up outside and tarp it or build a storage shed for it," said McKenzie, also Hendren's son-in-law. "It's getting to be a pretty big mess. If I get caught spreading litter out here, I will not get any more Simmons chickens."

The farm has about 200 cows and four chicken houses, which each produce about 20,000 chickens every six to eight weeks.

Simmons' President Todd Simmons said it's not appropriate for the company to comment at this time given the court-imposed confidentiality agreement.

Hendren, a Republican from Gravette, said he's heard the provision covers all the farmers in the area. "This has to be a positive cooperative effort involving all of us — the integrators [companies], the farmers, and the consumers," he said. "Chicken is a good food and a good income for our farm families, which we need to preserve. And we need to do that without harming the environment."

Hendren said his family is making arrangements to store the litter or move it out of the area, but he worries about losing the "valuable resource."

Since his family settled in the area in 1858, "we've seen this land here in Benton County go from the point where you could raise a few beans and a few apples to very productive land in regards to cattle grazing," Hendren said. "The primary reason is the nutrient value of the poultry litter."

Seay said he's concerned about expenses farmers will have when they can't use litter and must buy fertilizer to encourage grass growth. Fertilizer costs are higher this year, and a farmer may have to spend about $35 an acre to replace what had been free, he said. "One of the first things that's going to happen is loss of efficiency on maintaining forage production for livestock," Seay said. "Instead of requiring two acres to run a cow/calf unit, it's going to take three, maybe four acres to get the same amount of hay production. They'll realize real quickly they cannot maintain the current number of cattle they have on the farm."
 
The limiting nutrient here is phosphorus. Tyson has overdosed the chicken feed with phosphorus for a long time to promote growth and now there is not enough land base to be able to spread it without having problems with too much phosphorus. Those poultry farmers are left with all the shirt. Tyson makes out, but farmers are left holding something worse than the bag.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top