COOL closes border to Canada and Mexico live beef imports.

[HAY MAKER]

Bank sweeper: "Via the basic laws of supply/demand, every Canadian beef that comes down here and is mixed with ours increases supply and lowers prices. You can't argue against that. Another thing that you can't argue against is that our prices largely set your prices. Now, with that in mind, how is this current situtation of US packers selling Canadian beef as US benefitting you?"

Via the basic laws of supply/demand in a GLOBAL MARKET, if Canada didn't export to us they would export to our export markets and decrease foreign demand for US beef at that market. You gain nothing financially in a global market by stopping Canadian imports but you'd have to understand global markets to understand that.

You R-CALF import blamers simply can't see this industry past the word "IMPORT" can you? Our competition is not Canada, our competition is poulty and pork in a global market.

Do you honestly think you can enter a trade agreement where you export and not import? Is that how trade agreements work in your mind?

If you combine the value of imports and exports of live cattle, beef, beef variety meats, and hides and ofal. We have historically had a trade surplus in dollars but I have never seen a trade agreement that allowed exports but not imports.

Everything you R-CALFers support would cost this industry money.

1. The costs of "M"COOL are passed to the producer and there is no consumer benefits to "M"COOL as written. "CAN-USA-MEX" .....brilliant!

2. You want to break up large packers into smaller less efficient packers that pay less for fat cattle because they need larger per head margins to continue to operate. In your blindness to the world around you, you somehow believe that industry concentration is unique to the packing industry. LOL!

3. You think competition is determined by more packers rather than more dollars to spend per packer due to increased efficiency.

4. You use BSE "fear mongering" to scare consumers away from beef because you don't understand global markets enough to realize that stopping Canadian imports doesn't remove that beef from the global market.

5. You want producers to absorb the costs of unnecessary BSE testing.

No wonder your organization is coming apart at the seams. You can't keep lying to people without the truth eventually surfacing.

I didn't guess you'd have any comment on the "CAN-MEX-USA" COOL label as a result of your ignorance.

R-CALF - 0
Defense - 9

What a court record!


~SH~

Well....Well,look who made bail,what makes you think we need a global market,I guess that point escapes your pro..packer thought process.
good luck

 

[HAY MAKER]

Tyson Fresh Meats on board with COOL, too
Friday, October 24, 2008, 3:47 PM

by Ken Anderson

You can add Tyson Fresh Meats to the list of meatpackers complying with COOL—Country of Origin Labeling. That means all three of the nation's largest meatpackers are on board. JBS Swift and Cargill have also pledged to label their products with the "Product of USA" label. It is estimated that roughly 90 percent of all fresh retail beef and pork cuts meet the definition of USA and will qualify for the USA label.

 

[Sandhusker]

Exactly, which is why said packers just love it when we are all bickering amongst ourselves instead of working together. Divide and Conquer. The principle has been working since time began. It's been the way big business has succeeded in progressively moving in and taking over food production in much of the world.

They stand back and laugh while cattle producers in one country drag out the lawyers and attack producers in another country who are also supplying the same packers. In the meanwhile they pick and choose what they will buy, and dictate what they will pay.

So what do we do about it?

How about we take away the tools that they use to play us against you?

 

[Beefman]

Bank sweeper: "Via the basic laws of supply/demand, every Canadian beef that comes down here and is mixed with ours increases supply and lowers prices. You can't argue against that. Another thing that you can't argue against is that our prices largely set your prices. Now, with that in mind, how is this current situtation of US packers selling Canadian beef as US benefitting you?"

Via the basic laws of supply/demand in a GLOBAL MARKET, if Canada didn't export to us they would export to our export markets and decrease foreign demand for US beef at that market. You gain nothing financially in a global market by stopping Canadian imports but you'd have to understand global markets to understand that.

You R-CALF import blamers simply can't see this industry past the word "IMPORT" can you? Our competition is not Canada, our competition is poulty and pork in a global market.

Do you honestly think you can enter a trade agreement where you export and not import? Is that how trade agreements work in your mind?

If you combine the value of imports and exports of live cattle, beef, beef variety meats, and hides and ofal. We have historically had a trade surplus in dollars but I have never seen a trade agreement that allowed exports but not imports.

Everything you R-CALFers support would cost this industry money.

1. The costs of "M"COOL are passed to the producer and there is no consumer benefits to "M"COOL as written. "CAN-USA-MEX" .....brilliant!

2. You want to break up large packers into smaller less efficient packers that pay less for fat cattle because they need larger per head margins to continue to operate. In your blindness to the world around you, you somehow believe that industry concentration is unique to the packing industry. LOL!

3. You think competition is determined by more packers rather than more dollars to spend per packer due to increased efficiency.

4. You use BSE "fear mongering" to scare consumers away from beef because you don't understand global markets enough to realize that stopping Canadian imports doesn't remove that beef from the global market.

5. You want producers to absorb the costs of unnecessary BSE testing.

No wonder your organization is coming apart at the seams. You can't keep lying to people without the truth eventually surfacing.

I didn't guess you'd have any comment on the "CAN-MEX-USA" COOL label as a result of your ignorance.

R-CALF - 0
Defense - 9

What a court record!


~SH~

Well....Well,look who made bail,what makes you think we need a global market,I guess that point escapes your pro..packer thought process.
good luck

Haymaker - are you saying we don't need a global market? If that's your thought, what point did SH make that you don't agree with, and why?

 

[RobertMac]

Our competition is not Canada, our competition is poulty and pork in a global market.

The majority of beef is sold by corporations that also sell poultry and pork...what does that do to competition?

1. The costs of "M"COOL are passed to the producer and there is no consumer benefits to "M"COOL as written. "CAN-USA-MEX" .....brilliant!

Selling mystery meat has helped producers, how?

2. You want to break up large packers into smaller less efficient packers that pay less for fat cattle because they need larger per head margins to continue to operate. In your blindness to the world around you, you somehow believe that industry concentration is unique to the packing industry. LOL!

The top five processor's market share has gone from ~40% to ~90%...how has that benefitted producer's profits?
There is only 10% of processing capacity to form producer-owned branded programs...the only way producers will effect their bottom line!

3. You think competition is determined by more packers rather than more dollars to spend per packer due to increased efficiency.

Again, how has producer's profits been impacted by increased efficiency?
Large packers eliminate small packers to increase market share!

4. You use BSE "fear mongering" to scare consumers away from beef because you don't understand global markets enough to realize that stopping Canadian imports doesn't remove that beef from the global market.

5. You want producers to absorb the costs of unnecessary BSE testing.

BSE has scared consumers away from beef...not implementing an effective and reassuring testing program has kept them away. Not testing as also given the anti-meat fear mongers a bigger stick to beat us with.

I didn't guess you'd have any comment on the "CAN-MEX-USA" COOL label as a result of your ignorance.

All the major packers are moving away from that label.

Too bad therapy isn't helping...your hatred for R-CALF continues to cloud your judgment!!!!

 

[HAY MAKER]

Via the basic laws of supply/demand in a GLOBAL MARKET, if Canada didn't export to us they would export to our export markets and decrease foreign demand for US beef at that market. You gain nothing financially in a global market by stopping Canadian imports but you'd have to understand global markets to understand that.

You R-CALF import blamers simply can't see this industry past the word "IMPORT" can you? Our competition is not Canada, our competition is poulty and pork in a global market.

Do you honestly think you can enter a trade agreement where you export and not import? Is that how trade agreements work in your mind?

If you combine the value of imports and exports of live cattle, beef, beef variety meats, and hides and ofal. We have historically had a trade surplus in dollars but I have never seen a trade agreement that allowed exports but not imports.

Everything you R-CALFers support would cost this industry money.

1. The costs of "M"COOL are passed to the producer and there is no consumer benefits to "M"COOL as written. "CAN-USA-MEX" .....brilliant!

2. You want to break up large packers into smaller less efficient packers that pay less for fat cattle because they need larger per head margins to continue to operate. In your blindness to the world around you, you somehow believe that industry concentration is unique to the packing industry. LOL!

3. You think competition is determined by more packers rather than more dollars to spend per packer due to increased efficiency.

4. You use BSE "fear mongering" to scare consumers away from beef because you don't understand global markets enough to realize that stopping Canadian imports doesn't remove that beef from the global market.

5. You want producers to absorb the costs of unnecessary BSE testing.

No wonder your organization is coming apart at the seams. You can't keep lying to people without the truth eventually surfacing.

I didn't guess you'd have any comment on the "CAN-MEX-USA" COOL label as a result of your ignorance.

R-CALF - 0
Defense - 9

What a court record!


~SH~

Well....Well,look who made bail,what makes you think we need a global market,I guess that point escapes your pro..packer thought process.
good luck

Haymaker - are you saying we don't need a global market? If that's your thought, what point did SH make that you don't agree with, and why?

My question was simple,but since sh has had his bond forfeited,feel free to answer the question,and Please dont use packer logic,sh making a point is like getting struck by lightning,it can happen,but aint likely.
good luck

 

[Beefman]

Well....Well,look who made bail,what makes you think we need a global market,I guess that point escapes your pro..packer thought process.
good luck

Haymaker - are you saying we don't need a global market? If that's your thought, what point did SH make that you don't agree with, and why?

My question was simple,but since sh has had his bond forfeited,feel free to answer the question,and Please dont use packer logic,sh making a point is like getting struck by lightning,it can happen,but aint likely.
good luck

My question was directed toward you, not SH. Yes, SH makes very a very compelling arguement on why we DO need export markets. I guess if you were capable of countering anything he said, you would.

 

[Tex]

Haymaker - are you saying we don't need a global market? If that's your thought, what point did SH make that you don't agree with, and why?

My question was simple,but since sh has had his bond forfeited,feel free to answer the question,and Please dont use packer logic,sh making a point is like getting struck by lightning,it can happen,but aint likely.
good luck

My question was directed toward you, not SH. Yes, SH makes very a very compelling arguement on why we DO need export markets. I guess if you were capable of countering anything he said, you would.

"Do you honestly think you can enter a trade agreement where you export and not import? Is that how trade agreements work in your mind? "

China has basically done that with their manipulated currency and our huge trade imbalances. The U.S. just used them like they do the illegal aliens, take what you can get at a lower price, and forget what it does to the domestic work force or economy.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tex, don't be trying to confuse SH with real-life examples. You know how he hates to deal with reality.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Haymaker - are you saying we don't need a global market? If that's your thought, what point did SH make that you don't agree with, and why?

My question was simple,but since sh has had his bond forfeited,feel free to answer the question,and Please dont use packer logic,sh making a point is like getting struck by lightning,it can happen,but aint likely.
good luck

My question was directed toward you, not SH. Yes, SH makes very a very compelling arguement on why we DO need export markets. I guess if you were capable of countering anything he said, you would.

SH makes a very compelling argument??????????????? the only thing compelling about sh's arguments is the lack of substance.
sh's compelling arguments beefman you damn packer lackeys all think the same,I dont think yall have enough sense to pour -------------outa a boot if the directions were on the heel,this so called free trade and globalization is ruinning the country,I believe even a nitwit can see that ?

good luck

 

[Beefman]

My question was simple,but since sh has had his bond forfeited,feel free to answer the question,and Please dont use packer logic,sh making a point is like getting struck by lightning,it can happen,but aint likely.
good luck

My question was directed toward you, not SH. Yes, SH makes very a very compelling arguement on why we DO need export markets. I guess if you were capable of countering anything he said, you would.

SH makes a very compelling argument??????????????? the only thing compelling about sh's arguments is the lack of substance.
sh's compelling arguments beefman you damn packer lackeys all think the same,I dont think yall have enough sense to pour -------------outa a boot if the directions were on the heel,this so called free trade and globalization is ruinning the country,I believe even a nitwit can see that ?

good luck

Oh, come on Haymaker. You're acting like Jerry Jones when he's asked why the Cowboys stink so bad. I'm trying to learn from you. What'd SH say that was so wrong?

 

[RobertMac]

Beefman, feel free to answer any of the questions I asked SH...I'm not expecting him to.

 

[HAY MAKER]

beefman,the only real question I see in sh's post was about the packers "can mex USA" label,did you not see my post directly under his about packers implementing cool ?
good luck

PS I was the one asking the question..............Does the USA cattleman need an export/import market ? Why ? and once again,no packer logic.
maybe that expert of yours will jump back in here and explain how the so called free trade agreements will put more money in the cattlemans pocket.
But I dont look for him back for awhile,he would rather lurk,reminds me of some of these curr dogs that wander up around my barns with their tail tucked between their legs.


And the cowboys stink because jj is to cheap to hire a coach.

 

[Beefman]

Beefman, feel free to answer any of the questions I asked SH...I'm not expecting him to.

Yep, I'll do it. Hope to get to it today. Stay tuned.

 

[Beefman]

beefman,the only real question I see in sh's post was about the packers "can mex USA" label,did you not see my post directly under his about packers implementing cool ?
good luck

PS I was the one asking the question..............Does the USA cattleman need an export/import market ? Why ? and once again,no packer logic.
maybe that expert of yours will jump back in here and explain how the so called free trade agreements will put more money in the cattlemans pocket.
But I dont look for him back for awhile,he would rather lurk,reminds me of some of these curr dogs that wander up around my barns with their tail tucked between their legs.

And the cowboys stink because jj is to cheap to hire a coach.

Yes, the Cowboys stink. Glad we can agree on something. I'd also bet that JJ has a better chance of returning to the Super Bowl than you do pocketing extra cash due to COOL.

I did see you post regarding the major packers and COOL. Most will be phasing out / decreasing use of the US/Can/Mex label. As SH pointed out, the costs of MCOOL will go downhill to the producer, with no real benefit to the consumer. Did you see the article in the Seattle Times regarding the feedlot suing USDA over COOL?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008318180_apwalabelinglawsuit1stldwritethru.html?syndication=rss

This article, if correct, is living proof COOL will have (at best) a neutral effect on domestic pricing, and a negative effect on Can/Mex pricing. Is that what you want? Your state is brim full of Mexican cattle on feed, just as Neb/CO/ID has a bunch of Canadians.

Also, do we need an export market? Please. Those that wish to remain in the beef business are counting on a healthy, long term sustained export market.

 

[HAY MAKER]

beefman,the only real question I see in sh's post was about the packers "can mex USA" label,did you not see my post directly under his about packers implementing cool ?
good luck

PS I was the one asking the question..............Does the USA cattleman need an export/import market ? Why ? and once again,no packer logic.
maybe that expert of yours will jump back in here and explain how the so called free trade agreements will put more money in the cattlemans pocket.
But I dont look for him back for awhile,he would rather lurk,reminds me of some of these curr dogs that wander up around my barns with their tail tucked between their legs.

And the cowboys stink because jj is to cheap to hire a coach.

Yes, the Cowboys stink. Glad we can agree on something. I'd also bet that JJ has a better chance of returning to the Super Bowl than you do pocketing extra cash due to COOL.

I did see you post regarding the major packers and COOL. Most will be phasing out / decreasing use of the US/Can/Mex label. As SH pointed out, the costs of MCOOL will go downhill to the producer, with no real benefit to the consumer. Did you see the article in the Seattle Times regarding the feedlot suing USDA over COOL?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008318180_apwalabelinglawsuit1stldwritethru.html?syndication=rss

This article, if correct, is living proof COOL will have (at best) a neutral effect on domestic pricing, and a negative effect on Can/Mex pricing. Is that what you want? Your state is brim full of Mexican cattle on feed, just as Neb/CO/ID has a bunch of Canadians.

Also, do we need an export market? Please.

Those that wish to remain in the beef business are counting on a healthy, long term sustained export market.

Why ??????????????Maybe you oughta study your experts post,bout the only sense in it was when he stated....... "you caint have export without import,therein lies the problem,did you miss the post about imported beef ?
The industry rule-of-thumb adopted by the International Trade Commission (ITC) is that a 1 percent increase in supply causes a 2 percent decrease in price.
I would like for one of you trade advocates to explain how this is good for a cattleman,again no packer logic please.............good luck

 

[Sandhusker]

What costs of MCOOL? People throw numbers around, but can't ever seem to say why the costs will be what they will be. I don't see it. A large part of it is already done, and has been for quite some time!

Explain how I can't go into any feedlot in the country and NOT pick out the Canadian/Mexican cattle TODAY.

 

[RobertMac]

It's just one reason he's suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to rewrite the beef labeling provision in what could be one of several attempts to overturn a law long sought by consumer and farm groups.

Beefman, why would you think that the industry could thumb their nose at consumers and they still expect them to buy our product?
Lack of demand is what is hurting our industry...consumer consumption creates demand. As Agman used to say...all dollars come from the consumer. It's time we stop ONLY thinking about "low cost" and start listening to the source of our dollars...consumers. Beef will never compete with pork and poultry on price. It's time to stop worshiping at the feet of the chicken pluckers...beef producers must start selling our beef and giving consumers reason to buy.

 

[burnt]

Another opinion.

http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/AgAnswers/story.asp?storyID=5085

 

[Beefman]

beefman,the only real question I see in sh's post was about the packers "can mex USA" label,did you not see my post directly under his about packers implementing cool ?
good luck

PS I was the one asking the question..............Does the USA cattleman need an export/import market ? Why ? and once again,no packer logic.
maybe that expert of yours will jump back in here and explain how the so called free trade agreements will put more money in the cattlemans pocket.
But I dont look for him back for awhile,he would rather lurk,reminds me of some of these curr dogs that wander up around my barns with their tail tucked between their legs.

And the cowboys stink because jj is to cheap to hire a coach.

Yes, the Cowboys stink. Glad we can agree on something. I'd also bet that JJ has a better chance of returning to the Super Bowl than you do pocketing extra cash due to COOL.

I did see you post regarding the major packers and COOL. Most will be phasing out / decreasing use of the US/Can/Mex label. As SH pointed out, the costs of MCOOL will go downhill to the producer, with no real benefit to the consumer. Did you see the article in the Seattle Times regarding the feedlot suing USDA over COOL?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008318180_apwalabelinglawsuit1stldwritethru.html?syndication=rss

This article, if correct, is living proof COOL will have (at best) a neutral effect on domestic pricing, and a negative effect on Can/Mex pricing. Is that what you want? Your state is brim full of Mexican cattle on feed, just as Neb/CO/ID has a bunch of Canadians.

Also, do we need an export market? Please.

Those that wish to remain in the beef business are counting on a healthy, long term sustained export market.

Why ??????????????Maybe you oughta study your experts post,bout the only sense in it was when he stated....... "you caint have export without import,therein lies the problem,did you miss the post about imported beef ?
The industry rule-of-thumb adopted by the International Trade Commission (ITC) is that a 1 percent increase in supply causes a 2 percent decrease in price.
I would like for one of you trade advocates to explain how this is good for a cattleman,again no packer logic please.............good luck

Haymaker: Here's what SH had to say about trade: If you combine the value of imports and exports of live cattle, beef, beef variety meats, and hides and ofal. We have historically had a trade surplus in dollars but I have never seen a trade agreement that allowed exports but not imports.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why?