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

Facts or Rumors?

feeder

Well-known member
I have a couple questions in regard to something I was told. First, what actually are the Canadian beef export rules to export to Japan? Second, has anyone heard or seen fat cattle from the USA shipped to Canada by way of back haul trucks to be slaughtered in Canada and the meat exported to Japan? I did try to find the export rules but I must be looking in the wrong places. Thanks for any info.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Japan has agreed Canada has proper protocol in place for SRM removal and age verification.

As for hauling American fats back to Canada, I seriously doubt it. Prices here are just short of US prices. The difference is enough to pay for transport to the States, but hauling them back would be at a loss.

Those cattle would not be in the Canadian age verification system so would not be eligible for export to Japan.

Right now there are not enough cattle age verified to meet the demand for Japan.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Free ride?

Even backhauls cost money.

Then there are testing protocols, border fees, logistics.

The only "fat" cattle that have ver been profitable to haul into Canadian plants are the lean types.

Pre BSE the was a run to Florida with hay going down and Longhorn steers coming back. The hay was premium race track horse hay and the steers were nearly worthless under American grading. There was a demand for them in Quebec as the French use so much cream and cheese and other fat sources in their cooking.
 

agman

Well-known member
feeder said:
I have a couple questions in regard to something I was told. First, what actually are the Canadian beef export rules to export to Japan? Second, has anyone heard or seen fat cattle from the USA shipped to Canada by way of back haul trucks to be slaughtered in Canada and the meat exported to Japan? I did try to find the export rules but I must be looking in the wrong places. Thanks for any info.

Cattle are being shipped from the mid-west to Cargill's "Better Beef" plant in eastern Canada. They started to buy U.S. origin cattle shortly after purchasing the plant. The front-end fed cattle supply has been much more "current" than the supply of fed cattle in the U.S. Also, it is cheaper to buy and ship cattle from the mid-west to their plant in eastern Canada than shipping cattle from western Canada. To run the plant at a higher capacity utilization rate they are importing fed cattle from the mid-west. None of the product that I know of is for export to Japan.
 

blackjack

Well-known member
...what do you think of that oldtimer...looks like some american producers are living off the backs of canadians... :wink:
 

feeder

Well-known member
If what I heard is true, blackjack, I think the packers are living off the backs of Canadian and US producers if they are passing our meat off as Canadian. Oh well, they might be able to segregate the meat better north.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Feeder, cattle that are killed in Canada are labeled as product of Canada.

I wasn't aware Better Beef was buying in the States, but transportation costs make the difference. (Thanks Agman)

There is roughly a 10 cent premium paid in Ontario for same quality fats over Western Canada. Mainly due to less cost to get the beef to the high population areas.

With the knowledge that freight costs are lower in that haul, the price would match the US price. But again, the cattle are not identified or age verified in the Canadian system. I don't know how they could send them to Japan.

However Better Beef is sending everything that they can to Japan, so the US cattle might provide a source of well fattened cattle for the high end trade in Ontario. The domestic cattle being sent to Japan would short that market.

The question becomes, would the sellers of those fats rather not have Better Beef bidding?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Feeder, cattle that are killed in Canada are labeled as product of Canada.

I wasn't aware Better Beef was buying in the States, but transportation costs make the difference. (Thanks Agman)

There is roughly a 10 cent premium paid in Ontario for same quality fats over Western Canada. Mainly due to less cost to get the beef to the high population areas.

With the knowledge that freight costs are lower in that haul, the price would match the US price. But again, the cattle are not identified or age verified in the Canadian system. I don't know how they could send them to Japan.

However Better Beef is sending everything that they can to Japan, so the US cattle might provide a source of well fattened cattle for the high end trade in Ontario. The domestic cattle being sent to Japan would short that market.

The question becomes, would the sellers of those fats rather not have Better Beef bidding?

Perhaps the sellers of those fats would rather have closer packing plants (like Creekstone) bidding. The USDA stopped them from selling to Japan based on a self imposed trade barrier.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Jason said:
Feeder, cattle that are killed in Canada are labeled as product of Canada.

I wasn't aware Better Beef was buying in the States, but transportation costs make the difference. (Thanks Agman)

There is roughly a 10 cent premium paid in Ontario for same quality fats over Western Canada. Mainly due to less cost to get the beef to the high population areas.

With the knowledge that freight costs are lower in that haul, the price would match the US price. But again, the cattle are not identified or age verified in the Canadian system. I don't know how they could send them to Japan.

However Better Beef is sending everything that they can to Japan, so the US cattle might provide a source of well fattened cattle for the high end trade in Ontario. The domestic cattle being sent to Japan would short that market.

The question becomes, would the sellers of those fats rather not have Better Beef bidding?

Perhaps the sellers of those fats would rather have closer packing plants (like Creekstone) bidding. The USDA stopped them from selling to Japan based on a self imposed trade barrier.

How do you know Creekstone is closer? Another phony assumption on your part-par for your daily routine.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Jason said:
Feeder, cattle that are killed in Canada are labeled as product of Canada.

I wasn't aware Better Beef was buying in the States, but transportation costs make the difference. (Thanks Agman)

There is roughly a 10 cent premium paid in Ontario for same quality fats over Western Canada. Mainly due to less cost to get the beef to the high population areas.

With the knowledge that freight costs are lower in that haul, the price would match the US price. But again, the cattle are not identified or age verified in the Canadian system. I don't know how they could send them to Japan.

However Better Beef is sending everything that they can to Japan, so the US cattle might provide a source of well fattened cattle for the high end trade in Ontario. The domestic cattle being sent to Japan would short that market.

The question becomes, would the sellers of those fats rather not have Better Beef bidding?

Perhaps the sellers of those fats would rather have closer packing plants (like Creekstone) bidding. The USDA stopped them from selling to Japan based on a self imposed trade barrier.

How do you know Creekstone is closer? Another phony assumption on your part-par for your daily routine.

Agman, it isn't about Creekstone or their exact geographical location. It is about ANY company X that was in Creekstone's circumstances. It is about the fact that the USDA is not allowing anyone to address the bse problem in a progressive way because they have other motives. It is about dumbing down food safety to the lowest common denominator and making everyone play that game the same. It is about govt. making decisions that take those freedoms from all of us when in fact the government has been a complete failure at it.

We can only speculate why, but the results we see.

I would like you to be able to understand things on a higher level but as long as you think on this level, you will never achieve that goal.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Perhaps the sellers of those fats would rather have closer packing plants (like Creekstone) bidding. The USDA stopped them from selling to Japan based on a self imposed trade barrier.

How do you know Creekstone is closer? Another phony assumption on your part-par for your daily routine.

Agman, it isn't about Creekstone or their exact geographical location. It is about ANY company X that was in Creekstone's circumstances. It is about the fact that the USDA is not allowing anyone to address the bse problem in a progressive way because they have other motives. It is about dumbing down food safety to the lowest common denominator and making everyone play that game the same. It is about govt. making decisions that take those freedoms from all of us when in fact the government has been a complete failure at it.

We can only speculate why, but the results we see.

I would like you to be able to understand things on a higher level but as long as you think on this level, you will never achieve that goal.


Yes, you have demonstrated what a high level if intelligence you have!!! You are a legend in your own mind!!! You get your butt kicked on every issue. Lies and deception are your game. You are just to foolish to realize your own lack of any real knowledge. Who said no one else bid on those cattle? Where did you dream that one up genius. That is just another ASSUMPTION on your part which has no factual support. Do you even know where Creekstone is located? Do you know the built-in transportation disadvantage with their location.

Once again you say one thing then dance around the issue and display your ignorance. You are a mental midget and a total fraud. The only real failure is "you". You have fooled no one with your stream of accusations and outright lies except yourself.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
How do you know Creekstone is closer? Another phony assumption on your part-par for your daily routine.

Agman, it isn't about Creekstone or their exact geographical location. It is about ANY company X that was in Creekstone's circumstances. It is about the fact that the USDA is not allowing anyone to address the bse problem in a progressive way because they have other motives. It is about dumbing down food safety to the lowest common denominator and making everyone play that game the same. It is about govt. making decisions that take those freedoms from all of us when in fact the government has been a complete failure at it.

We can only speculate why, but the results we see.

I would like you to be able to understand things on a higher level but as long as you think on this level, you will never achieve that goal.


Yes, you have demonstrated what a high level if intelligence you have!!! You are a legend in your own mind!!! You get your butt kicked on every issue. Lies and deception are your game. You are just to foolish to realize your own lack of any real knowledge. Who said no one else bid on those cattle? Where did you dream that one up genius. That is just another ASSUMPTION on your part which has no factual support. Do you even know where Creekstone is located? Do you know the built-in transportation disadvantage with their location.

Once again you say one thing then dance around the issue and display your ignorance. You are a mental midget and a total fraud. The only real failure is "you". You have fooled no one with your stream of accusations and outright lies except yourself.

Agman:
Who said no one else bid on those cattle?

Econ: That isn't even one of the points in the discussion. If you wouldll like to argue with yourself over that question, be my guest. Just leave my name out of it.

Agman:
Do you even know where Creekstone is located? Do you know the built-in transportation disadvantage with their location.

Econ: Yes I know where Creekstone is located. I know that their built in disadvantage is that they are in the U.S. under a packer lead USDA and not in Canada or better yet, Australia where the people are smart enough not to ruin a business model their producers benefit from.

Agman, why don't you just get your head out of the sand and stop being a fraud to producer interests?

Here is another "old article" in case you have forgotten the history of BSE and Creekstone:

U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., said his staff is trying to broker an
agreement with USDA to allow Arkansas City, Kan.-based Creekstone Farms to
test all its animals for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

"[Tiahrt] is attempting to facilitate a resolution that would allow
Creekstone to screen for BSE in accordance with protocols of certain Asian
countries, while meeting the concerns of the USDA," Chuck Knapp, spokesman
for the congressman, told the Meatingplace.com in an email. "Creekstone's
proposal would help allay food safety concerns of their Asian customers,
while not costing the American taxpayer a penny."

"We have not yet heard back from USDA regarding our latest communication,"
Knapp said.

Creekstone COO Bill Fielding told the Meatingplace.com that his company has
won support for its proposed expansion of testing from several other
congressmen and senators besides Tiahrt. Fielding declined to identify the
other lawmakers.

100 percent testing criticized

Creekstone's proposal has been met with unusually blunt and public
opposition from USDA. Lisa Ferguson, a senior staff veterinarian at USDA's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, told the Meatingplace.com on
Wednesday that attempts by Creekstone to market any product as being 100
percent BSE-tested would be illegal because USDA has not yet licensed any of
the rapid diagnostic tests used by the European Union, Japan or South Korea.

On Thursday, the agency was apparently backpedaling on its position,
declining mainstream media requests to interview Ferguson and other
officials, and issuing a statement saying it received Creekstone's proposal
and was "evaluating the several implications of the proposal, including the
legal, regulatory, trade and other considerations" before responding.

The proposal has not won support from either the National Meat Association
nor from the American Meat Institute. AMI President J. Patrick Boyle issued
a written statement Thursday noting that BSE testing has always been
conducted exclusively by the government.

"While we understand that some companies may wish to engage in BSE testing
as part of a marketing program, such an arrangement would be unprecedented,"
Boyle said.

Creekstone management says the beef ban is costing the company about $80,000
each day. The company will likely have to pare its workforce of about 750
employees by up to 15 percent in the coming weeks unless it can again ship
its product to Asian customers.

USDA officials said they have "strong concerns" about the possibility of
false positives that could result from rapid testing and the potential
adverse impact possible false positive readings could have on consumer
confidence in beef, livestock markets and overseas trade.

Creekstone CEO John Stewart told the Meatingplace.com on Thursday that he
was "appalled and disgusted" by what he said were USDA's "delaying tactics"
in helping to resolve the difference between Creekstone's plans to expand
BSE testing and USDA's vow to not allow it.

"I understand the political concerns USDA is facing, but that's not our
problem," Stewart said. "We are not going to fold up our tent and go home on
this issue. It's time for USDA to fess-up, admit they are wrong, and make
some good decisions."

Stewart said he doesn't understand the agency's opposition to the company's
plans and said public comments by USDA officials that they feared false
positives are red herrings. Stewart said USDA might be seeking to divert
attention from demands by foreign governments to test all cattle, something
the agency opposes because it claims the best available science shows there
is no need for blanket BSE testing.

USDA suggests strengthening BSE testing regimen

On Tuesday, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman voiced readiness to strengthen
testing for BSE by mainly targeting animals aged 30 months or older.
Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Veneman did not specify how many more animals might be tested
as part of what she called "a very aggressive surveillance plan." The tests
will include some apparently healthy animals, she said, in addition to those
thought to be at high risk.

Both Fielding and Stewart said USDA may lack the authority to prevent the
company from expanding its testing, and criticized the agency for not
expediting pending applications from companies seeking to market the BSE
rapid tests.

Fielding said the company has won assurances from Asian trade officials and
customers that they will accept Creekstone product if the company can
certify that all of it is derived from only BSE-tested animals.

"We will likely use the exact same tests being used by Japan and South
Korea," Fielding said.

Stewart said he feared the issue might have to be resolved in the courts.

Creekstone Farms opened in 2003 after it bought the state-of-the-art Future
Beef slaughter plant after Future Beef filed for bankruptcy. The plant
slaughters about 1,000 cattle per day and markets its product through the
Creekstone Farms Premium Black Angus Beef program. Fielding estimates about
15 percent of the company's business come from trade with Asian countries.

Fielding said the tests will cost the company about $20 per animals, and
that the company's customers have agreed to absorb the additional cost.
--------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/8049807.htm
Posted on Thu, Feb. 26, 2004
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Econ: Yes I know where Creekstone is located. I know that their built in disadvantage is that they are in the U.S. under a packer lead USDA and not in Canada or better yet, Australia where the people are smart enough not to ruin a business model their producers benefit from

Econ, do you really want what Australia has?


I take the Futures settlement price for the nearest month. I convert the US per pound figure to kilos, I then factor in the exchange rate and come up with the figure that the US cow calf man is getting in Australian Dollars. At the time of writing it is $3.19 per kilo!
I then divide the Australian NLRS Feeder Steer price (today $1.87) to give us 58.63% of their price.








Here's a good link to find out what the blamers think in Australia.

Notice that they are friends with RCALF. If your quote is what you believe about Australia, after considerable research, great.

But I think you're just talking out of your hat.

Why would RCALF host this org. form Australia and tell them they would rather have Aussie beef in the US, over Canadian?

http://www.austbeef.com.au/default.asp?RegID=15403
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Murgen said:
Why would RCALF host this org. form Australia and tell them they would rather have Aussie beef in the US, over Canadian?

http://www.austbeef.com.au/default.asp?RegID=15403

That ones simple- Australia hasn't found 7 BSE cattle- 3 of which were POST feedban- and isn't proposing to dump a bunch of high risk cattle into the US system- which is not prepared for them....Australia also doesn't create the captive supply Packer owned to manipulate prices with problem that Canada does ....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
Econ: Yes I know where Creekstone is located. I know that their built in disadvantage is that they are in the U.S. under a packer lead USDA and not in Canada or better yet, Australia where the people are smart enough not to ruin a business model their producers benefit from

Econ, do you really want what Australia has?


I take the Futures settlement price for the nearest month. I convert the US per pound figure to kilos, I then factor in the exchange rate and come up with the figure that the US cow calf man is getting in Australian Dollars. At the time of writing it is $3.19 per kilo!
I then divide the Australian NLRS Feeder Steer price (today $1.87) to give us 58.63% of their price.








Here's a good link to find out what the blamers think in Australia.

Notice that they are friends with RCALF. If your quote is what you believe about Australia, after considerable research, great.

But I think you're just talking out of your hat.

Why would RCALF host this org. form Australia and tell them they would rather have Aussie beef in the US, over Canadian?

http://www.austbeef.com.au/default.asp?RegID=15403

Murgen:
Econ, do you really want what Australia has?

As far as profitable beef sales to Japan, yes, Murgen, I do.

Are you trying to make up some issue here Murgen? Perhaps you packer backers (since you are calling me a blamer) would like to explain why Australia is willing to test for bse if Japan asks it while the U.S. does not allow those tests?

Quite frankly, I wish you would leave the name calling out and focus on the issues, Murgen. Of course if you have no real points, you may have to go back to name juvinile name calling.

If you have a point here, Murgen, I wish you would make it a little more clear.

While paying for my own way through college, I worked a research project on international exchange rates and their effects on U.S. agricultural sales. While this may be a topic some would shy away from, it isn't me.

If the price that the Japanese are willing to offer U.S./Canadian cattlemen is higher than Tyson or other packers competing against a creekstone is willing to give here in the U.S., let the Japanese buy it, even if pulls tyson's shorts down. Producers should be worried about their pocketbook, not tyson's. Tyson did not worry about producer's pocketbooks when meat is imported to the U.S.

The U.S. should not be constructing trade barriers against domestic producers or packers who buy from producers just to benefit the "chosen" packers. Kinda ruins the whole free market theory. It is what has kept Mexico in the shape it is in.
 
Top