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

DOES THIS ARTICLE HAVE THAT GOOD OLE NCBA SLANT

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Ken Hughes, herd manager at Camp Cooley Ranch located in Franklin, gives a tour of the ranch during the Young Cattleman’s Forum that was June 27-29. A variety of speakers gathered to discuss cow herds and the future of the cattle industry
— Photo by Mindy Poehl

July 13, 2006 - An 11,750-acre ranch, located between Franklin and Marquez, is home to 3,500 Brangus, Angus and Charolais cattle. This ranch, named Camp Cooley Ranch, is an advanced beef operation that includes registered cows as well as embryo-recipient cows. Camp Cooley’s responsibility is to provide performance-driven genetics, marketing advantages, superb customer service, and the knowledge of a professional staff that will help turn ranches into a profitable venture.

On June 27-29, Camp Cooley Ranch hosted the Young Cattleman’s Forum, in which participants and speakers from across the country discussed where the beef industry is headed and learned about challenges facing their cattle operations.

Producers have many tools available to use in making genetic improvement, but the trick is to know which tools are appropriate for their operations. To help make those choices, a producer must first identify goals for the operation.

“A reasonable goal for the beef industry is to produce low-cost, high-profit cattle that yield competitively priced, highly palatable, lean products while conserving and improving the resources utilized,” said Dr. Tom Fields, professor of animal science at Colorado State University.

Several factors, such as consumer marketplace, structural challenges within the beef production system, the cost-effectiveness of the program and the availability of genetic tools, must be taken into account to determine how to best reach the goals you set, explained Fields. He said there are three primary genetic tools available to cow-calf producers — selection pressure, breed differences and mating systems.

“Crossbreeding is one tool that can maximize genetic benefits by exploiting breed differences and creating heterosis because no breed does all things well; careful matching of breed strengths and weaknesses can yield optimal trait combinations, hybrid vigor provides a buffer against environmental stress; and the advantage of heterosis is greatest in reproductive performance,” Fields said.

However, if the crossbreeding system is not designed properly, it could yield less-than-desirable results.

Fields provided four primary reasons crossbreeding systems might fail: 1. The overuse of independent cattle breeds that have too much in them, such as milk, birth weight, mature size, etc.; 2. Using a system that is too complicated or not implemented in a systematic way; 3. Seedstock producers’ failing to develop the expertise and a service orientation to assist in developing a good crossing system; and 4. Using poor-quality bulls.

Fields discussed the future of the beef industry.

“The good news is that the bad news is wrong,” he said.

Fields believes 2007 will be a time of strong business expansion. The main reasons for this growth, he noted, are the demographics of U.S. consumers, predicted low interest rates and the incredible productivity of the U.S. workforce.

Fields mentioned the importance of lowering taxes and of government deregulation.

“Freedom is the main spring of economic prosperity,” Fields emphasized. “For the cattle industry, that means the golden age of the American beef industry is in front of us, not behind us. Good things do not come without hard work, and not one of us is doing this by ourselves.”

Joe Fuller, vice-president of marketing with Camp Cooley discussed a variety of topics.

“Agricultural trade exports are forecasted to reach $64.5 billion this year - that’s 25 percent more than in 2000,” Fuller stated.

He pointed out that 95 percent of the world’s population lives outside of the United States, which means, “95 percent of our potential customers cannot be reached through domestic sales,”
Fuller said. “We are experiencing unprecedented change in the beef industry. We can either direct it, or let it direct us.”

Troy Marshall, editor of Seed Stock Digest said, “It is time that we stand up for what we do well - care for our natural resources, raise strong, hardworking families and produce safe, healthy food for the world. It is time that we learn to stand up against misinformed consumers who are scared into believing that food is contaminated because of our production techniques.”

The greatest risk of food-borne illness lies beyond the production phase. Food-borne illnesses are caused by: improper holding temperatures (59 percent); poor personal hygiene (35 percent); inadequate cooking (28 percent); contaminated equipment (18 percent); and unsafe food sources (11 percent), explained Marshall.

“We’ve got to be proactive to make sure we win the battle of consumer confidence,” Marshall said. “We’re part of a global economy, and there’s nothing we can do about it but participate.”

Fuller concluded by saying, “The future of our industry depends on our young people. We must develop an atmosphere of pride and success in our professions so that we may pass on this legacy to our future generations,” he said. ”We need to continue to encourage our young people to stay involved in agriculture, to tell the proud stories of their family's operation and to speak up for a lifestyle that they love.”

___________________________________________________________

I agree with Mr Fuller's statement,that 95% of the worlds population lives outside the UNITED STATES,but what he fails to mention is..........95% of that 95% can not afford shoes ,much less beef.
The beef market is right here in the good ole USA,youngsters need to know that, and they need to protect their way of life for future generations...........good luck
 

Brad S

Well-known member
HM I mostly agree that the US is the big bang in the beef trade, but with changing realities in labor forces, this will change. We don't want to ignore the thousands of high skilled workers in Pakistan/Turkey/China and the rest. While many in the US and for that matter US and CAnada are pi$$ing themselves about exporting tech jobs, that's our Huckleberry. Let's access these newly affluent workers arround the globe.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Brad,I do believe you are right about the exporting of jobs,I have a lady friend that got caught up in that scenario, lost a 85k per anum job to a pakistan,will that pakistan make 85k ? If so why export jobs.
Its a well known fact,the AMI wants these trade agreements not to access the foreign consumer,they want to access the cheap beef and labor force and pawn it off to the American consumer as a product of the good ole USA,that is why we need M COOL and why we need to choose our trade partners wisely...............good luck
PS I will be straight up about these south/central american trade deals......I dont look forward to competing against these folks for consumer dollars that hire labor for 3 dollars a day and have no winters,especially when it has that good ole USDA stamp and nothing more.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Sure, I can understand your aprehension about competing with low wages, but here's the unanswerable question if we protect some segment of economy: Who or what is a fair determinant of economic value if we dismiss the market as the decider? Unless I'm the economic czar, I'm not going to be happy with political solutions defining occupation A worth $X/hr while occupation B worth $Y/hr.

I'd suggest that while the Pakistani programmers may make less than half as much as US programmers - they'll still make enough to consume beef. So what about the US programmers that now make $50K? Shouldn't they have the perogative of consuming beef at a world price instead of a US protectionist price?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Sure, I can understand your aprehension about competing with low wages, but here's the unanswerable question if we protect some segment of economy: Who or what is a fair determinant of economic value if we dismiss the market as the decider? Unless I'm the economic czar, I'm not going to be happy with political solutions defining occupation A worth $X/hr while occupation B worth $Y/hr.

I'd suggest that while the Pakistani programmers may make less than half as much as US programmers - they'll still make enough to consume beef. So what about the US programmers that now make $50K? Shouldn't they have the perogative of consuming beef at a world price instead of a US protectionist price?

We have no guarantee this "world price" will be any less than prices are now,and with little competion in the beef trade for the packing industry I remain a skeptic,but lets give Brad the benefit of the doubt and say "World prices" create a lil competion and less price,while we are being fair lets also tell the consumer where the product that they are feeding to their children originated ?
I aint biting Brad,I dont see how these trade deals with 3rd world countries will help the American rancher/farmer, competition is what will put down pressure on prices,not cheap labor,explain to me how cafta has been good for the USA rancher,and while I am sympathetic to some of our neighboring countries and wish them well ,I have always believed America first. The only competition these trade deals have created is for the American farmer/rancher.............good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The one thing we need to do is to start being honest to the consumers that have been so loyal to us for so long-- the US consumer...Now that things are changing in the world and importing meat products from the cheaper areas of the world has become big we need to tell them what country their beef comes from....

US consumer expect that the USDA label guarantees them US beef- and now with the big raise in importing beef we need to stop the fraud that the Packers have been allowed to slip thru the loopholes with.....

I don't mind competing- but I want to compete on an honest playing field...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The one thing we need to do is to start being honest to the consumers that have been so loyal to us for so long-- the US consumer...Now that things are changing in the world and importing meat products from the cheaper areas of the world has become big we need to tell them what country their beef comes from....

US consumer expect that the USDA label guarantees them US beef- and now with the big raise in importing beef we need to stop the fraud that the Packers have been allowed to slip thru the loopholes with.....

I don't mind competing- but I want to compete on an honest playing field...

OT the USDA label guarantees a product that has been inspected by the USDA. Sell to a branded program that labels your beef PRODUCT of USA
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
The one thing we need to do is to start being honest to the consumers that have been so loyal to us for so long-- the US consumer...Now that things are changing in the world and importing meat products from the cheaper areas of the world has become big we need to tell them what country their beef comes from....

US consumer expect that the USDA label guarantees them US beef- and now with the big raise in importing beef we need to stop the fraud that the Packers have been allowed to slip thru the loopholes with.....

I don't mind competing- but I want to compete on an honest playing field...

OT the USDA label guarantees a product that has been inspected by the USDA. Sell to a branded program that labels your beef PRODUCT of USA

But 99.95% of all imported product is not looked at by a USDA inspector- or even a US person...This is part of the deception and the fraud...

This is one of the reason HHS secretary Tommy Thompson, during his departure speach, said that imported food products are wide open to terrorist threat.......

With an escalating World War going on and the terrorist threat of today- US consumers have the right (like most of the consumers of the world already do) to know what country the food they are making buying decisions about comes from.....
 

Brad S

Well-known member
I'm not sure global competition is "good" for ranchers when compared to unilateral protection. As long as our steel inputs are world priced, our fuel, our clothes and on and on. Sure it would be nice to be the lone protected industry in the economy, but this is not fair. So what is fair? If the carmaker is forced to compete with Hundai then he should also have the perogative of buying cheaper beef out of Canada.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Brad S said:
I'm not sure global competition is "good" for ranchers when compared to unilateral protection. As long as our steel inputs are world priced, our fuel, our clothes and on and on. Sure it would be nice to be the lone protected industry in the economy, but this is not fair. So what is fair? If the carmaker is forced to compete with Hundai then he should also have the perogative of buying cheaper beef out of Canada.

I don't think anybody here is asking for special protection. Just throw some common sense in there and label beef to it's COO like virtually every other product we use already is. Then tweak the checkoff so that it only promotes the home team. I think that would be a one-two punch that would greatly help us compete.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Brad S said:
I'm not sure global competition is "good" for ranchers when compared to unilateral protection. As long as our steel inputs are world priced, our fuel, our clothes and on and on. Sure it would be nice to be the lone protected industry in the economy, but this is not fair. So what is fair? If the carmaker is forced to compete with Hundai then he should also have the perogative of buying cheaper beef out of Canada.

I don't think anybody here is asking for special protection. Just throw some common sense in there and label beef to it's COO like virtually every other product we use already is. Then tweak the checkoff so that it only promotes the home team. I think that would be a one-two punch that would greatly help us compete.

Not asking for special protection? What about R-CALF's anti dumping suit ?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Brad S said:
I'm not sure global competition is "good" for ranchers when compared to unilateral protection. As long as our steel inputs are world priced, our fuel, our clothes and on and on. Sure it would be nice to be the lone protected industry in the economy, but this is not fair. So what is fair? If the carmaker is forced to compete with Hundai then he should also have the perogative of buying cheaper beef out of Canada.

Maybe,but remember Brad;
#1 We are talking our food source,I do believe you are comparing apples to oranges,one you put in your garage the other you put in your kids mouths,do you really want foreign countries controlling your food source?
#2 The products you use as compareables are plainly marked as to country of orgin,but not beef..........are you starting to get the picture ?maybe you believe its much more important to know where your Hudai comes from than your food ?.........................good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Brad S said:
I'm not sure global competition is "good" for ranchers when compared to unilateral protection. As long as our steel inputs are world priced, our fuel, our clothes and on and on. Sure it would be nice to be the lone protected industry in the economy, but this is not fair. So what is fair? If the carmaker is forced to compete with Hundai then he should also have the perogative of buying cheaper beef out of Canada.

I don't think anybody here is asking for special protection. Just throw some common sense in there and label beef to it's COO like virtually every other product we use already is. Then tweak the checkoff so that it only promotes the home team. I think that would be a one-two punch that would greatly help us compete.

Not asking for special protection? What about R-CALF's anti dumping suit ?

If I remember right the ruling came back that Canada was dumping cattle into the US- they just said it hadn't been shown by the evidence that it negatively influenced the US cattle price...Now with the experience, history, and precedent set by the record high US prices while the border was shut tight I think the evidence is there....
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
I don't think anybody here is asking for special protection. Just throw some common sense in there and label beef to it's COO like virtually every other product we use already is. Then tweak the checkoff so that it only promotes the home team. I think that would be a one-two punch that would greatly help us compete.
Not asking for special protection? What about R-CALF's anti dumping suit ?

If I remember right the ruling came back that Canada was dumping cattle into the US- they just said it hadn't been shown by the evidence that it negatively influenced the US cattle price...Now with the experience, history, and precedent set by the record high US prices while the border was shut tight I think the evidence is there....
(Let me finish your post for you),

............although there is no evidence that the record prices were soley attributed to the border closure as there was little price drop when the border reopened.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Brad S said:
I'm not sure global competition is "good" for ranchers when compared to unilateral protection. As long as our steel inputs are world priced, our fuel, our clothes and on and on. Sure it would be nice to be the lone protected industry in the economy, but this is not fair. So what is fair? If the carmaker is forced to compete with Hundai then he should also have the perogative of buying cheaper beef out of Canada.

I don't think anybody here is asking for special protection. Just throw some common sense in there and label beef to it's COO like virtually every other product we use already is. Then tweak the checkoff so that it only promotes the home team. I think that would be a one-two punch that would greatly help us compete.

Not asking for special protection? What about R-CALF's anti dumping suit ?

And that has what to do with special protection?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Not asking for special protection? What about R-CALF's anti dumping suit ?

If I remember right the ruling came back that Canada was dumping cattle into the US- they just said it hadn't been shown by the evidence that it negatively influenced the US cattle price...Now with the experience, history, and precedent set by the record high US prices while the border was shut tight I think the evidence is there....
(Let me finish your post for you),

............although there is no evidence that the record prices were soley attributed to the border closure as there was little price drop when the border reopened.

Bill I hate to be the bearer of bad news but,the border aint open...........good luck
 

Bill

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
If I remember right the ruling came back that Canada was dumping cattle into the US- they just said it hadn't been shown by the evidence that it negatively influenced the US cattle price...Now with the experience, history, and precedent set by the record high US prices while the border was shut tight I think the evidence is there....
(Let me finish your post for you),

............although there is no evidence that the record prices were soley attributed to the border closure as there was little price drop when the border reopened.

Bill I hate to be the bearer of bad news but,the border aint open...........good luck

Maybe the news hasn't made it to you but under 30 month cattle are moving from Canada to the US. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Not asking for special protection? What about R-CALF's anti dumping suit ?

If I remember right the ruling came back that Canada was dumping cattle into the US- they just said it hadn't been shown by the evidence that it negatively influenced the US cattle price...Now with the experience, history, and precedent set by the record high US prices while the border was shut tight I think the evidence is there....
(Let me finish your post for you),

............although there is no evidence that the record prices were soley attributed to the border closure as there was little price drop when the border reopened.

Your going to have a hard time finding many cattle producers down here in my area that don't believe the major reason for the record prices wasn't the closed border-- Even some long time NCBA people have ageed with me on that, and the fact that when/if the border ever opens to OTM's the cull prices we have seen will dump again......

Been kind of nice to be able to travel the highways without almost getting run off the road by all the Canadian bullhaulers loaded with old Canadian cows heading south to bring us back to the $20-30 cattle prices we kept seeing....
 

mrj

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
The one thing we need to do is to start being honest to the consumers that have been so loyal to us for so long-- the US consumer...Now that things are changing in the world and importing meat products from the cheaper areas of the world has become big we need to tell them what country their beef comes from....

US consumer expect that the USDA label guarantees them US beef- and now with the big raise in importing beef we need to stop the fraud that the Packers have been allowed to slip thru the loopholes with.....

I don't mind competing- but I want to compete on an honest playing field...

OT the USDA label guarantees a product that has been inspected by the USDA. Sell to a branded program that labels your beef PRODUCT of USA

But 99.95% of all imported product is not looked at by a USDA inspector- or even a US person...This is part of the deception and the fraud...

This is one of the reason HHS secretary Tommy Thompson, during his departure speach, said that imported food products are wide open to terrorist threat.......

With an escalating World War going on and the terrorist threat of today- US consumers have the right (like most of the consumers of the world already do) to know what country the food they are making buying decisions about comes from.....

OT, isn't it a fact that the imported beef, or any other meat for that matter, must be as well, or better inspected than US beef is? Also that the foreign inspectors must be trained by US inspectors to do the job correctly? Also that there are spot checks to assure compliance and failures will result in recalls?

Now, lets get honest with our consumers and admit to them that COOL as written does NOTHING to improve the safety of beef to the consumer. Lets tell them that we are willing to have REAL traceback of all beef to the farm of origin, with a means that will not disappear when the hide is removed.

So, you who fear packer shenanigans should ask Porker how his system can protect you from that by identifying EVERYONE as to exactly when they had control of each piece of beef and what they did that might have caused, or contributed to, any health problem.

We will have a better cattle business, price wise, when the few bad apples in the producer end of things who try to cheat by using off-label treatments or give injections incorrectly are exposed!

Stop telling the consumer that all US beef is perfect and implying that all imported is "crap", and worst of all, that COOL will do anything beneficial for thir health.

MRJ
 
Top