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

Damn shame,with all the hungry people in the world

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam- R-CALF is a cattle industry organization--AMI, NCBA, NMPA are the beef industry organizations....R-CALF represents cattlemen- these others represent Packers.....
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
Sandhusker wrote....
OT says it pretty well. If R-CALF had their way, US consumers would be able to make the choice between Candian and other beef. I see you are agreeing with them that consumers should have that choice.

Another problem is our feed ban. R-CALF wants the holes closed, which would also be in your favor. Today, infected product could back door us by coming thru hog or chicken feed.

Didn't realize you agreed with R-CALF so much did you? You're welcome to become a member.

Let's pretend, for a moment, that all beef was labeled as to country of origin.What is the difference in BSE risk between USA beef and Canadian beef?? :?
(Look out folks, here comes that lame "number of cases" arguement.) :roll:

The number of cases is immaterial? :lol: Do you understand the concept of odds? Ever been to a horse race, Tim? Do you understand how insurance companies manage risk? If you think the number of cases has no bearing on risk, we have nothing to talk about. You're ignoring reality.

Told ya!!! :lol: :lol:

I'm ignoring reality??? The US border slammed shut to CDN beef after 1(one) native case. R-calf was instrumental in keeping it shut. That is the reality. The USA has had 1(one) native case. Also reality. One native case is obviously enough for a country to lose it's BSE free status. Reality.

If you don't want to answer my question Sandhusker, why not just say so? :roll: No need to start babbling about horse races and insurance companies. :?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
Sandhusker wrote....
OT says it pretty well. If R-CALF had their way, US consumers would be able to make the choice between Candian and other beef. I see you are agreeing with them that consumers should have that choice.

Another problem is our feed ban. R-CALF wants the holes closed, which would also be in your favor. Today, infected product could back door us by coming thru hog or chicken feed.

Didn't realize you agreed with R-CALF so much did you? You're welcome to become a member.

Let's pretend, for a moment, that all beef was labeled as to country of origin.What is the difference in BSE risk between USA beef and Canadian beef?? :?
(Look out folks, here comes that lame "number of cases" arguement.) :roll:

The number of cases is immaterial? :lol: Do you understand the concept of odds? Ever been to a horse race, Tim? Do you understand how insurance companies manage risk? If you think the number of cases has no bearing on risk, we have nothing to talk about. You're ignoring reality.

FOUND CASES Sandhusker, what about all the unfound cases that are missed because of the US testing protocol? It amazes me that when Canada announces an inconclusive test result it comes back positive but when the US reports one it comes back negative. Just how many US cows targeted for BSE testing disappear before a test sample can be taken Sandhusker? The ODDS are that the US has far more cases than they are willing to admit to. And the US industry and the USDA are managing the risk of ever finding anymore real well. :wink: SSS Sandhusker.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tim, "I'm ignoring reality??? The US border slammed shut to CDN beef after 1(one) native case. R-calf was instrumental in keeping it shut. That is the reality. The USA has had 1(one) native case. Also reality. One native case is obviously enough for a country to lose it's BSE free status. Reality."

I agree. But didn't you just claim that number of cases was a lame arguement? One is a number.

Tim, "If you don't want to answer my question Sandhusker, why not just say so? No need to start babbling about horse races and insurance companies."

I have no problems answering your questions, Tim. I'm just giving real examples to show that number of cases does matter. Number of cases are used to compute odds, which policy is based on.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam- R-CALF is a cattle industry organization--AMI, NCBA, NMPA are the beef industry organizations....R-CALF represents cattlemen- these others represent Packers.....
Oldtimer if R-CALF, "the Cattle Organization" keeps spouting damaging lies about the beef industry because of their hate for packers, Beef demand will fall then who will you sell your "cattle" to? You are a complete idiot if you think the "cattle Industry" can survive without the beef industry. When R-CALF goes after the beef industry with lies they are destroying the market to which YOU SELL YOUR CATTLE. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tim, "I'm ignoring reality??? The US border slammed shut to CDN beef after 1(one) native case. R-calf was instrumental in keeping it shut. That is the reality. The USA has had 1(one) native case. Also reality. One native case is obviously enough for a country to lose it's BSE free status. Reality."

I agree. But didn't you just claim that number of cases was a lame arguement? One is a number.

Tim, "If you don't want to answer my question Sandhusker, why not just say so? No need to start babbling about horse races and insurance companies."

I have no problems answering your questions, Tim. I'm just giving real examples to show that number of cases does matter. Number of cases are used to compute odds, which policy is based on.

I think that risk management also takes into consideration the credibility of the players. Canada has tested the OIE recommended cattle and yes we found a few more case just like the world knew we probably would. But the US on the other hand it playing games and hiding the truth so who do you think the insurance company is going to believe when it comes to truth risk factors? Take a look at what happen in the case of Japan. We had 5 cases of Native BSE but they took a look at us and said yes they are doing what they said they are so we'll import for them. Then they took a look at the US with ONE NATIVE case and found spinal material in a few boxes and decided we can't take a chance so no more imports from them. So tell us Sandhusker was it the number of cases or the credibility of the player that made Japan do what they did?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam- R-CALF is a cattle industry organization--AMI, NCBA, NMPA are the beef industry organizations....R-CALF represents cattlemen- these others represent Packers.....
Oldtimer if R-CALF, "the Cattle Organization" keeps spouting damaging lies about the beef industry because of their hate for packers, Beef demand will fall then who will you sell your "cattle" to? You are a complete idiot if you think the "cattle Industry" can survive without the beef industry. When R-CALF goes after the beef industry with lies they are destroying the market to which YOU SELL YOUR CATTLE. :roll:

Well Tam- If telling people the truth about fraudulent sales of imported beef, purposely mislabeling for financial gain, inept bureaucracy, outright coverups in both the industry and govt., and safety decisions made based not on science but based on economic gain for the Multinationals offends you, then I guess you and I will never agree...I believe in being open and honest...

You worried there won't be a US beef industry to shirttail on again Tam :???: :lol: :lol: I know it isn't because you worry about your ex-country or countrymen that you seemingly curse daily :wink: ....
 

blackjack

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
Location
west central Alberta
...reader...ask yourself ...have these r-calf ranchers ever have had any downers tested on their ranches... you would get a no answer... cause they want to blame all the woes of their industry on to someone else(usda..packers.. importers) ... and then plead they are the white knights trying to be the saviors ... what a bunch of hypocrites...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Tim, "I'm ignoring reality??? The US border slammed shut to CDN beef after 1(one) native case. R-calf was instrumental in keeping it shut. That is the reality. The USA has had 1(one) native case. Also reality. One native case is obviously enough for a country to lose it's BSE free status. Reality."

I agree. But didn't you just claim that number of cases was a lame arguement? One is a number.

Tim, "If you don't want to answer my question Sandhusker, why not just say so? No need to start babbling about horse races and insurance companies."

I have no problems answering your questions, Tim. I'm just giving real examples to show that number of cases does matter. Number of cases are used to compute odds, which policy is based on.

I think that risk management also takes into consideration the credibility of the players. Canada has tested the OIE recommended cattle and yes we found a few more case just like the world knew we probably would. But the US on the other hand it playing games and hiding the truth so who do you think the insurance company is going to believe when it comes to truth risk factors? Take a look at what happen in the case of Japan. We had 5 cases of Native BSE but they took a look at us and said yes they are doing what they said they are so we'll import for them. Then they took a look at the US with ONE NATIVE case and found spinal material in a few boxes and decided we can't take a chance so no more imports from them. So tell us Sandhusker was it the number of cases or the credibility of the player that made Japan do what they did?

Geeze, Tam, I agree with 90% of your post. We need to write this on the calendar! However, you've answered your own question with "decided we can't take a chance". "Chance" and "odds" are virtual synonyms in gambling (better odds give you a better chance of being correct) and when you're trying to guess on future occurances as the Japanese are with respect to the the US's noncompliance, you are in effect gambling. I think I've established that odds are derived from number of cases.

The Japanese are notorious gamblers, but not with their food supply.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
OT,I believe Miss Tam to be a protectionist,but for the life of me I cant figure out why she fights M COOL,if the US herd is as infected as she claims and that good ole Canadian prime is so pure,I believe we oughta label it as such,then let the house wives scramble for it..............good luck
PS I have always wondered how that canadian label fell off and was replaced with a USDA stamp.So whata ya say Miss Tam do you support MCOOL.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
blackjack said:
...reader...ask yourself ...have these r-calf ranchers ever have had any downers tested on their ranches... you would get a no answer... cause they want to blame all the woes of their industry on to someone else(usda..packers.. importers) ... and then plead they are the white knights trying to be the saviors ... what a bunch of hypocrites...

My belief is that there is far more incentivization and cooperation in Canada in terms of acknowledging downers and having them tested. At great price to the industry there and to individuals too.

I don't believe that the USDA or ANY of the industry -- that includes NCBA and R-CALF - have pushed for the broad testing of downers that should be being done.

So, yes, you have a good point.

reader-- Remember tho in Socialized Canada the Canadian producer gets paid to have the Vet come test--Vet gets paid- producer gets paid...I think some provinces pay as much as $250 per head to test what down here is worth just coyote food...

It isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts or doing whats right by a long shot---Government had to pay them to get them to comply :???: ........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second) said:
My belief is that there is far more incentivization and cooperation in Canada in terms of acknowledging downers and having them tested. At great price to the industry there and to individuals too.

I don't believe that the USDA or ANY of the industry -- that includes NCBA and R-CALF - have pushed for the broad testing of downers that should be being done.

So, yes, you have a good point.

reader-- Remember tho in Socialized Canada the Canadian producer gets paid to have the Vet come test--Vet gets paid- producer gets paid...I think some provinces pay as much as $250 per head to test what down here is worth just coyote food...

It isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts or doing whats right by a long shot---Government had to pay them to get them to comply :???: ........

I did use the word INCENTIVIZED. What would you recommend the U.S. do?

The US on home testing in this area was a complete farce...It ended almost before anyone knew it began- the ads announcing the testing were on the radio one week and the ads announcing its ending, successfull completion, and thanking everyone came out the next...One vet I talked to said he didn't get instructions or rules until after it ended :???:

But anymore I don't expect anything else from USDA...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Tim, "I'm ignoring reality??? The US border slammed shut to CDN beef after 1(one) native case. R-calf was instrumental in keeping it shut. That is the reality. The USA has had 1(one) native case. Also reality. One native case is obviously enough for a country to lose it's BSE free status. Reality."

I agree. But didn't you just claim that number of cases was a lame arguement? One is a number.

Tim, "If you don't want to answer my question Sandhusker, why not just say so? No need to start babbling about horse races and insurance companies."

I have no problems answering your questions, Tim. I'm just giving real examples to show that number of cases does matter. Number of cases are used to compute odds, which policy is based on.

I think that risk management also takes into consideration the credibility of the players. Canada has tested the OIE recommended cattle and yes we found a few more case just like the world knew we probably would. But the US on the other hand it playing games and hiding the truth so who do you think the insurance company is going to believe when it comes to truth risk factors? Take a look at what happen in the case of Japan. We had 5 cases of Native BSE but they took a look at us and said yes they are doing what they said they are so we'll import for them. Then they took a look at the US with ONE NATIVE case and found spinal material in a few boxes and decided we can't take a chance so no more imports from them. So tell us Sandhusker was it the number of cases or the credibility of the player that made Japan do what they did?

Geeze, Tam, I agree with 90% of your post. We need to write this on the calendar! However, you've answered your own question with "decided we can't take a chance". "Chance" and "odds" are virtual synonyms in gambling (better odds give you a better chance of being correct) and when you're trying to guess on future occurances as the Japanese are with respect to the the US's noncompliance, you are in effect gambling. I think I've established that odds are derived from number of cases.

The Japanese are notorious gamblers, but not with their food supply.
WORD GAMES Face it the ODDS are not in the US's favor when it comes to the Japanese market and the number of BSE cases has nothing to do with it. The Japanese gambled and they don't like the ODDS of losing again so they have cut the ODDS right along with your imports. And again their decision had NOTHING TO DO WITH BSE CASES BUT CREDIBILITY OF THE PLAYERS.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tam, it is a shame that both the USDA and the Canadian govts. and cattle industry groups both need outside trade to make them a little more honest when it comes an issue that could wreck the cattle industry ---BSE. It shows the integrity of the people who have landed at the top of these govts. and organizations.

Before you can brag about how clean your house is, you need to clean up the dirt that has been swept under the rug.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
HAY MAKER said:
OT,I believe Miss Tam to be a protectionist,but for the life of me I cant figure out why she fights M COOL,if the US herd is as infected as she claims and that good ole Canadian prime is so pure,I believe we oughta label it as such,then let the house wives scramble for it..............good luck
PS I have always wondered how that canadian label fell off and was replaced with a USDA stamp.So whata ya say Miss Tam do you support MCOOL.

NOT AS IT IS WRITTEN.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Sandhusker said:
Tim, "I'm ignoring reality??? The US border slammed shut to CDN beef after 1(one) native case. R-calf was instrumental in keeping it shut. That is the reality. The USA has had 1(one) native case. Also reality. One native case is obviously enough for a country to lose it's BSE free status. Reality."

I agree. But didn't you just claim that number of cases was a lame arguement? One is a number.

Tim, "If you don't want to answer my question Sandhusker, why not just say so? No need to start babbling about horse races and insurance companies."

I have no problems answering your questions, Tim. I'm just giving real examples to show that number of cases does matter. Number of cases are used to compute odds, which policy is based on.

One more time then, Sandhusker,exactly what is the difference in BSE risk between a package of beef labeled "Product of USA" and one labeled "Product of Canada"??
Weasel out of answering again ,if you must. I won't waste any more effort asking a third time. :)
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
TimH said:
Sandhusker said:
Tim, "I'm ignoring reality??? The US border slammed shut to CDN beef after 1(one) native case. R-calf was instrumental in keeping it shut. That is the reality. The USA has had 1(one) native case. Also reality. One native case is obviously enough for a country to lose it's BSE free status. Reality."

I agree. But didn't you just claim that number of cases was a lame arguement? One is a number.

Tim, "If you don't want to answer my question Sandhusker, why not just say so? No need to start babbling about horse races and insurance companies."

I have no problems answering your questions, Tim. I'm just giving real examples to show that number of cases does matter. Number of cases are used to compute odds, which policy is based on.

One more time then, Sandhusker,exactly what is the difference in BSE risk between a package of beef labeled "Product of USA" and one labeled "Product of Canada"??
Weasel out of answering again ,if you must. I won't waste any more effort asking a third time. :)

The biggest difference, Tim H., is that the voters in the USA can get mad enough to vote out the current leadership in power right now and hold them accountable if they don't do their job to make sure the beef is being protected by the inspections. We can not do that with Canadian inspectors. Since the USDA has credibility problems why shouldn't the consumer have the choice. If your BSE program is good in Canada now then it should not be a problem with consumers. I beleive that Canada can handle this issue if they want to. The next question is what do we do about Canada not having market protections for their producers. We could have insisted that Canada have a PSA law or provision, and it would have helped the average Canadian producer in the recent "salmon run" as well have reduced the "war chest" of money Tyson's has for buying up the competition in this market concentration game they are playing.

Tell me Tim, why do you think they are looking at acquisitions if profitablity in the beef and proteins industry are not that good? I will tell you, it is the market power that they can use to extract profits from producers and consumers. I just don't understand why you do not see it that way when it comes to the "salmon run".

Rkaiser may be right about BSE or flounder may be right. We will never know if those in charge are sweeping the data and information under the rug because it benefits the current politician paying packers.

So far BSEconomics has played right into the hands of the packers. Gee, who does it seem is in control of the BSEconomics? I will give you a hint, it is not rcalf. They are just a scapegoat in this battle. Look for the beef (and the chicken).
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second) said:
blackjack said:
...reader...ask yourself ...have these r-calf ranchers ever have had any downers tested on their ranches... you would get a no answer... cause they want to blame all the woes of their industry on to someone else(usda..packers.. importers) ... and then plead they are the white knights trying to be the saviors ... what a bunch of hypocrites...

My belief is that there is far more incentivization and cooperation in Canada in terms of acknowledging downers and having them tested. At great price to the industry there and to individuals too.

I don't believe that the USDA or ANY of the industry -- that includes NCBA and R-CALF - have pushed for the broad testing of downers that should be being done.

So, yes, you have a good point.

reader-- Remember tho in Socialized Canada the Canadian producer gets paid to have the Vet come test--Vet gets paid- producer gets paid...I think some provinces pay as much as $250 per head to test what down here is worth just coyote food...

It isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts or doing whats right by a long shot---Government had to pay them to get them to comply :???: ........

It always comes down to the money doesn't it Oldtimer we aren't going to test because the USDA isn't paying us to test like the CFIA is the Canadian Producers. We aren't going to ID because we don't want to be burdened with the cost like the Canadian Producers are. But when the Packers say that your M"COOL will cost big bucks with little to no added beneifit to the indusrty as you have no way of assuring the label they are to do at anyway just because you say to as it MIGHT put a buck in your pocket right OLDTIMER.
Yes Canadian Producers get a payment to cover the lose of the cow if she is tested but then the rest of our herds are not at record high prices are they? If the US producers really cared about whether you have BSE or not you would give over your animals to prove you don't. After all the price you get for the rest of your cattle should more than cover the lose of one or two diers. And if the US producer cared about their herd health they would bite the bullet and put a NATIONAL M"ID" system in place so you can trace back to birth place like the Canadian INDUSTRY DID By the way Oldtimer the producers in Sask only get $75 not $250. so does that make us less likely to turn over our cattle? We made our testing quota and more. How about you Oldtimer did you turn any of your high price diers over for testing? As far as the incentive to test, the best incentive to test is to PROVE R-CALF WRONG and that we don't have the chronic huge life risking BSE problem that they think we do. :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
TimH said:
Sandhusker said:
Tim, "I'm ignoring reality??? The US border slammed shut to CDN beef after 1(one) native case. R-calf was instrumental in keeping it shut. That is the reality. The USA has had 1(one) native case. Also reality. One native case is obviously enough for a country to lose it's BSE free status. Reality."

I agree. But didn't you just claim that number of cases was a lame arguement? One is a number.

Tim, "If you don't want to answer my question Sandhusker, why not just say so? No need to start babbling about horse races and insurance companies."

I have no problems answering your questions, Tim. I'm just giving real examples to show that number of cases does matter. Number of cases are used to compute odds, which policy is based on.

One more time then, Sandhusker,exactly what is the difference in BSE risk between a package of beef labeled "Product of USA" and one labeled "Product of Canada"??
Weasel out of answering again ,if you must. I won't waste any more effort asking a third time. :)

Right now, the difference is the odds of that package of beef being BSE positive. They are much greater the package labeled "product of Canada" will have BSE. It's not my opinion, it's math, and you can't fart on math.

Figure it out yourself. If you were playing a game of chance where you were rewarded with a $100 bill for blindly pulling a black marble from a jar, would you pick from the jar that had 5 black marbles mixed with 50 white, or would you pick from the jar that had 2 blacks mixed with 200 white?
 

Clarence

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
223
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central Sd
Why don't we test more of those that go to the slaughtering house and forget about those that died on the ranch. No one will contact vCJD from them. It would be different if this would have helped to find the cause, but so far it has done nothing at all.
 

Latest posts

Top