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

For MRJ

Mike

Well-known member
I brought this to the top so you would see it.
MRJ wrote:

Mike, how could be, when COOl was only to designate whether meat was imported or domestic, with NO record of past owners for the US beef? My understanding is that the animal would be "identified" as US or imported ONLY at slaughter under COOL. Is that correct or not?


MRJ, No that is NOT correct. You might need to check your sources. In order to prove "Country of Origin" in beef, one would have to prove the source of producer through every chain of custody. A complete paper trail would have been provided to the retailer, who was ultimately responsible for compliance.

I quote from the USDA documents provided by them that may be used to prove "Country of Origin", as written in the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill:

Producers-"Provide enough information for an auditor to verify the origin and ownership of the animals identified and to verify the stated designation. Properly identify and record all animals according to the designation":

1-Birth records
2-Receiving records
3-Purchase records
4-Cow/calf tag ID system
5-Sales receipts
6-Feed bills
7-Feeding records
8-Animal inventory
9-Acreage inventory
10-Sitemaps
11-APHIS VS forms
12-Production estimates
13-Health records
14-Ownership records
15-Segregation plan
16-State Brand requirements
17-Replacement activities
18-Beef Quality progam
19-Breedingstock information

"The examples of documents and records listed in this table, although extensive, are not inclusive of all documents and records that may be useful to verify compliance with the Country of Origin Labeling provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill. Additionally, maintaining documents and records such as those listed as examples will not necessarily ensure compliance. The documents listed are examples only and are for the sole purpose of providing information for producers, processors, and retailers when establishing records for verification purposes. During a compliance audit conducted by the USDA, auditors will review any and all documents to the extent necessary to arrive at an accurate decision on the level of compliance."

There are separate listings for: Producers and.............
A-Stocker/Backgrounders
B-Preconditiong/Feedlots
C-Slaughter/Fabricators
D-Fabricators/Processors
E-Distributors

MRJ, I have said it before and I will say it again: If COOL had passed as written in the 2002 Farm Bill we would have a complete tracking system in place in the USA.


Link: http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/coolbeef.pdf

You have a great day!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike, "MRJ, I have said it before and I will say it again: If COOL had passed as written in the 2002 Farm Bill we would have a complete tracking system in place in the USA. "

You know, Mike, you've got a heck of a good point there - I've never thought of that.

This might not be the complete M-ID that would track a steak all the way to your pasture, but if I remember correctly, the proposed M-ID stops at the packer and doesn't go all the way to an individual package anyway.

This sure seems to me that it satisfies the primary reason M-ID is being pushed - disease tracking. Maybe two birds can be popped with one stone here, and to take from an immortal comment from that great American Hero and role model, Rodney King, we can all get along.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Mike said:
I brought this to the top so you would see it.
MRJ wrote:

Mike, how could be, when COOl was only to designate whether meat was imported or domestic, with NO record of past owners for the US beef? My understanding is that the animal would be "identified" as US or imported ONLY at slaughter under COOL. Is that correct or not?


MRJ, No that is NOT correct. You might need to check your sources. In order to prove "Country of Origin" in beef, one would have to prove the source of producer through every chain of custody. A complete paper trail would have been provided to the retailer, who was ultimately responsible for compliance.

I quote from the USDA documents provided by them that may be used to prove "Country of Origin", as written in the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill:

Producers-"Provide enough information for an auditor to verify the origin and ownership of the animals identified and to verify the stated designation. Properly identify and record all animals according to the designation":

1-Birth records
2-Receiving records
3-Purchase records
4-Cow/calf tag ID system
5-Sales receipts
6-Feed bills
7-Feeding records
8-Animal inventory
9-Acreage inventory
10-Sitemaps
11-APHIS VS forms
12-Production estimates
13-Health records
14-Ownership records
15-Segregation plan
16-State Brand requirements
17-Replacement activities
18-Beef Quality progam
19-Breedingstock information

"The examples of documents and records listed in this table, although extensive, are not inclusive of all documents and records that may be useful to verify compliance with the Country of Origin Labeling provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill. Additionally, maintaining documents and records such as those listed as examples will not necessarily ensure compliance. The documents listed are examples only and are for the sole purpose of providing information for producers, processors, and retailers when establishing records for verification purposes. During a compliance audit conducted by the USDA, auditors will review any and all documents to the extent necessary to arrive at an accurate decision on the level of compliance."

There are separate listings for: Producers and.............
A-Stocker/Backgrounders
B-Preconditiong/Feedlots
C-Slaughter/Fabricators
D-Fabricators/Processors
E-Distributors

MRJ, I have said it before and I will say it again: If COOL had passed as written in the 2002 Farm Bill we would have a complete tracking system in place in the USA.


Link: http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/coolbeef.pdf

You have a great day!

I was relying on what R-CALF people said: "no trace-back on producers"....and no, I don't necessarily mean "officially", but several claiming to speak for the group has said that on radio in SD.

I will check my "sources", and the proposed or official rules for implementation of the law.

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
MRJ:I was relying on what R-CALF people said

I am truly surprised that a worldly and knowledgeable person, such as yourself, would rely on such a source as this for information on a law that affects you and each of our livelihoods.

Are you really serious that you have not read the COOL portion of the 2002 Farm Bill, yet you spout information from sources you admonish constantly?

I wish you had not told me this MRJ. You have convinced me that your "Gin" drinking problem has escalated to the level of no return.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Mike said:
MRJ:I was relying on what R-CALF people said

I am truly surprised that a worldly and knowledgeable person, such as yourself, would rely on such a source as this for information on a law that affects you and each of our livelihoods.

Are you really serious that you have not read the COOL portion of the 2002 Farm Bill, yet you spout information from sources you admonish constantly?

I wish you had not told me this MRJ. You have convinced me that your "Gin" drinking problem has escalated to the level of no return.

Better gin than the "kool-ade" you seem to be swallowing! However, I'm not much of a drinker, and have never knowingly tasted gin. What does it taste like? Makers Mark and a very few other bourbons appeal slightly to me. Or a really good Margarita.

I have read that law, but quite some time ago. Without taking time to look it up, and knowing you all would criticize for any possible mis-quote, I will rely on hearsay on occasion.

Why is it OK of Econ and others to use "anecdotal" statements as fact, but no one who is not a USDA/packer basher can do so without criticism?

BTW, what is the current status of "burdensome trace-back on cattle producers" regarding the COOL law and rules?

That link you listed contained words like "possible, but not inclusive of all documents and records that MAY be useful to verify compliance with COOL", etc., yet said nothing to the effect that producers will be required to provide such verification of ownership for trace-back. I really want to see the words stating : "cattle producers WILL provide proof of ownership to comply with COOL " before I take your word for it being a fact. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that the "document" you linked to does not say that, where I can access it.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Mike said:
MRJ:I was relying on what R-CALF people said

I am truly surprised that a worldly and knowledgeable person, such as yourself, would rely on such a source as this for information on a law that affects you and each of our livelihoods.

Are you really serious that you have not read the COOL portion of the 2002 Farm Bill, yet you spout information from sources you admonish constantly?

I wish you had not told me this MRJ. You have convinced me that your "Gin" drinking problem has escalated to the level of no return.

Better gin than the "kool-ade" you seem to be swallowing! However, I'm not much of a drinker, and have never knowingly tasted gin. What does it taste like? Makers Mark and a very few other bourbons appeal slightly to me. Or a really good Margarita.

I have read that law, but quite some time ago. Without taking time to look it up, and knowing you all would criticize for any possible mis-quote, I will rely on hearsay on occasion.

Why is it OK of Econ and others to use "anecdotal" statements as fact, but no one who is not a USDA/packer basher can do so without criticism?

BTW, what is the current status of "burdensome trace-back on cattle producers" regarding the COOL law and rules?

That link you listed contained words like "possible, but not inclusive of all documents and records that MAY be useful to verify compliance with COOL", etc., yet said nothing to the effect that producers will be required to provide such verification of ownership for trace-back. I really want to see the words stating : "cattle producers WILL provide proof of ownership to comply with COOL " before I take your word for it being a fact. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that the "document" you linked to does not say that, where I can access it.

MRJ

Anecdotal stories are just that until discernable patterns develop. You can make a comment on an anecdotal story anytime you want, MRJ. You have made several statements about juries in the South where you don't even have anecdotal evidence to back your position.

I want to know why you say juries in Alabama give large judgements, not based on the facts, but based on some other reason.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Mike said:
I am truly surprised that a worldly and knowledgeable person, such as yourself, would rely on such a source as this for information on a law that affects you and each of our livelihoods.

Are you really serious that you have not read the COOL portion of the 2002 Farm Bill, yet you spout information from sources you admonish constantly?

I wish you had not told me this MRJ. You have convinced me that your "Gin" drinking problem has escalated to the level of no return.

Better gin than the "kool-ade" you seem to be swallowing! However, I'm not much of a drinker, and have never knowingly tasted gin. What does it taste like? Makers Mark and a very few other bourbons appeal slightly to me. Or a really good Margarita.

I have read that law, but quite some time ago. Without taking time to look it up, and knowing you all would criticize for any possible mis-quote, I will rely on hearsay on occasion.

Why is it OK of Econ and others to use "anecdotal" statements as fact, but no one who is not a USDA/packer basher can do so without criticism?

BTW, what is the current status of "burdensome trace-back on cattle producers" regarding the COOL law and rules?

That link you listed contained words like "possible, but not inclusive of all documents and records that MAY be useful to verify compliance with COOL", etc., yet said nothing to the effect that producers will be required to provide such verification of ownership for trace-back. I really want to see the words stating : "cattle producers WILL provide proof of ownership to comply with COOL " before I take your word for it being a fact. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that the "document" you linked to does not say that, where I can access it.

MRJ

Anecdotal stories are just that until discernable patterns develop. You can make a comment on an anecdotal story anytime you want, MRJ. You have made several statements about juries in the South where you don't even have anecdotal evidence to back your position.

I want to know why you say juries in Alabama give large judgements, not based on the facts, but based on some other reason.


I have varied sources of information from several areas of the country. I will reveal all when the time is right. However you may fail to comprehend unless you can change your attitude that "big" business is engaged in conspiracies to take over the world and make us all serfs on our own land.

BTW, congratulations on picking up on the proper spelling of "anecdotal".

MRJ
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Mike said:
I am truly surprised that a worldly and knowledgeable person, such as yourself, would rely on such a source as this for information on a law that affects you and each of our livelihoods.

Are you really serious that you have not read the COOL portion of the 2002 Farm Bill, yet you spout information from sources you admonish constantly?

I wish you had not told me this MRJ. You have convinced me that your "Gin" drinking problem has escalated to the level of no return.

Better gin than the "kool-ade" you seem to be swallowing! However, I'm not much of a drinker, and have never knowingly tasted gin. What does it taste like? Makers Mark and a very few other bourbons appeal slightly to me. Or a really good Margarita.

I have read that law, but quite some time ago. Without taking time to look it up, and knowing you all would criticize for any possible mis-quote, I will rely on hearsay on occasion.

Why is it OK of Econ and others to use "anecdotal" statements as fact, but no one who is not a USDA/packer basher can do so without criticism?

BTW, what is the current status of "burdensome trace-back on cattle producers" regarding the COOL law and rules?

That link you listed contained words like "possible, but not inclusive of all documents and records that MAY be useful to verify compliance with COOL", etc., yet said nothing to the effect that producers will be required to provide such verification of ownership for trace-back. I really want to see the words stating : "cattle producers WILL provide proof of ownership to comply with COOL " before I take your word for it being a fact. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that the "document" you linked to does not say that, where I can access it.

MRJ

Anecdotal stories are just that until discernable patterns develop. You can make a comment on an anecdotal story anytime you want, MRJ. You have made several statements about juries in the South where you don't even have anecdotal evidence to back your position.

I want to know why you say juries in Alabama give large judgements, not based on the facts, but based on some other reason.

Fact: Alabama ranked 48 out of 50 states for granting large jury awards.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Agman, the larger the difference between rich and poor in society, the more you can expect larger civil awards from a system where the jury comes from the people. It only makes sense, providing the facts are there.

You have alleged that Hausemen out did Taylor in the Pickett trial. The jury was to decide that point of fact.

Have you been able to secure the release of the Pickett testimony for peer review? Can a large corporation hire anyone from academia, have them do an analysis that can be hidden by the court, and then claim, as you have done, that we should all trust the reputation of only the defendant's witness with no corroborating evidence in the decisions except the substitution of the judge's decision for the jury's?

Come on, now, Agman. This bit about Alabama juries not being able to do their job so we let federal judges substitute their decisions without just cause smacks of judicial tyranny.

The error on Hauseman's calculations could be as small as a minus sign. The only problem is that no one will (of course you have seen it) that has the ability to know the diffeerence will ever be able to see it without the undoctored trial transcripts of the Pickett case.

Have you even asked that the trial transcripts be released yet?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Agman, the larger the difference between rich and poor in society, the more you can expect larger civil awards from a system where the jury comes from the people. It only makes sense, providing the facts are there.

You have alleged that Hausemen out did Taylor in the Pickett trial. The jury was to decide that point of fact.

Have you been able to secure the release of the Pickett testimony for peer review? Can a large corporation hire anyone from academia, have them do an analysis that can be hidden by the court, and then claim, as you have done, that we should all trust the reputation of only the defendant's witness with no corroborating evidence in the decisions except the substitution of the judge's decision for the jury's?

Come on, now, Agman. This bit about Alabama juries not being able to do their job so we let federal judges substitute their decisions without just cause smacks of judicial tyranny.

The error on Hauseman's calculations could be as small as a minus sign. The only problem is that no one will (of course you have seen it) that has the ability to know the diffeerence will ever be able to see it without the undoctored trial transcripts of the Pickett case.

Have you even asked that the trial transcripts be released yet?


Econ you seem to let on that your a "Economist" of note. Why don't you ask for the transcripts?
 

Mike

Well-known member
MRJ: That link you listed contained words like "possible, but not inclusive of all documents and records that MAY be useful to verify compliance with COOL", etc., yet said nothing to the effect that producers will be required to provide such verification of ownership for trace-back. I really want to see the words stating : "cattle producers WILL provide proof of ownership to comply with COOL " before I take your word for it being a fact. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that the "document" you linked to does not say that, where I can access it.

MRJ

The COOL portion of the USDA's 2002 Farm Bill was written with the goal of identifying country of origin in beef, etc. In order to identify where it didn't originate, the retailer would have to prove (with records provided to him from his source of purchase) where it DID originate and verify the chain of custody throughout it's trek with a verifiable audit - paper trail.

The regulation basically stated;

We don't care how you prove where beef was produced, processed, and distributed. Just get it done!

It was an ingenious way to make the producers, packers, processors, and retailers come together and devise a way to track beef. Sure there were a few things left out and because of the food service industry's forceful lobbying power there were holes left for them. But, in essence, ALL cattle would have been tracked because no one would know which cattle would have gone to restaurants, etc. at the day of birth and at the sale barn or whatever.

Maybe if you would get you a nice bottle of Chablis, Zinfandel, or Burgundy, and leave the gin alone for a couple of days you might be able to see this.

P.S. I like "Makers Mark" too. :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ101 said:
Agman, the larger the difference between rich and poor in society, the more you can expect larger civil awards from a system where the jury comes from the people. It only makes sense, providing the facts are there.

You have alleged that Hausemen out did Taylor in the Pickett trial. The jury was to decide that point of fact.

Have you been able to secure the release of the Pickett testimony for peer review? Can a large corporation hire anyone from academia, have them do an analysis that can be hidden by the court, and then claim, as you have done, that we should all trust the reputation of only the defendant's witness with no corroborating evidence in the decisions except the substitution of the judge's decision for the jury's?

Come on, now, Agman. This bit about Alabama juries not being able to do their job so we let federal judges substitute their decisions without just cause smacks of judicial tyranny.

The error on Hauseman's calculations could be as small as a minus sign. The only problem is that no one will (of course you have seen it) that has the ability to know the diffeerence will ever be able to see it without the undoctored trial transcripts of the Pickett case.

Have you even asked that the trial transcripts be released yet?


Econ you seem to let on that your a "Economist" of note. Why don't you ask for the transcripts?

The ball is in the court of the Court
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike, "MRJ, I have said it before and I will say it again: If COOL had passed as written in the 2002 Farm Bill we would have a complete tracking system in place in the USA. "

You know, Mike, you've got a heck of a good point there - I've never thought of that.

This might not be the complete M-ID that would track a steak all the way to your pasture, but if I remember correctly, the proposed M-ID stops at the packer and doesn't go all the way to an individual package anyway.

This sure seems to me that it satisfies the primary reason M-ID is being pushed - disease tracking. Maybe two birds can be popped with one stone here, and to take from an immortal comment from that great American Hero and role model, Rodney King, we can all get along.


Sandbag are you still trying to create the "ILLUSION" that R-CALF supported a traceback system WHEN THEY ADAMANTLY OPPOSED IT AND PROHIBITED IT FROM "M"ID????

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU'RE KIDDING??????????

You tried to make this claim previously ("R-CALF didn't want a BURDENSOME" traceback system, remember?) until the vote came out on "M"ID and R-CALF opposed it by a landslide leaving you hanging.

R-CALF CAN TAKE FULL CREDIT FOR REMOVING "M"ID FROM "M"COOL. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE BURDENED WITH TRACEBACK.

Leo McDonnell in his "M"COOL testimony in Billings Montana stated that "M"COOL was a good law and that he helped write it. Now, in true blamer fashion, you want to blame someone else for the way this law is written.

YOUR CHOSEN ORGANIZATION PROHIBITED "M"ID FROM "M"COOL, NOBODY ELSE!!!! You R-CALFers need to face the consequences for your actions. You can't blame "M"COOL on anyone but yourselves. You said consumers had a right to know where their beef comes from then you prohibited the means to accomplish just that.

It doesn't take any common sense to realize that you can't trace beef to it's origin without tracing the cattle the beef came from. Consumers are already paying more for source verification through numerous branded beef programs. That's what your chosen organization prohibited.


~SH~
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Ah ha,Thats COOL and so is Michigan,Made it back home safe and sound from Florida,Getten too hot for me down there.Yes the www.scoringag.com system does COOL for everything and it does FDA for everything including hay and it does M'ID for all species of animals and poultry. Even the EPA CAFO records for those BIG UNITS are done in the database recordkeeping system, so thats whats new.
 
Top