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

Gov Help in Alberta

Mike

Well-known member
Funding will help Alberta beef industry adapt to enhanced feed ban



By The Canadian Press - For Business Edge
Published: 03/23/2007 - Vol. 7, No. 6



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ottawa and the Alberta government are investing nearly $40 million in Alberta's beef industry to help accelerate the elimination of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) from Alberta's cattle herds.

The funding will help the province's cattle industry comply and adapt to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's enhanced feed ban, which takes effect on July 12.

The ban will see the removal of all specified risk material (SRM) - tissues that can harbour BSE - from all animal feeds, pet foods and fertilizers.

The $19.8-million federal contribution is part of $80 million to be spent on SRM removal programs nationwide.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Agriculture Department (USDA) has closed a public comment period on resuming imports of older Canadian cattle. But it could be several months before officials make their final ruling.

The U.S. shut the border to Canadian cattle after the first of nine mad-cow cases was detected in Alberta in May 2003. It reopened in July 2005 for cows less than 30 months old thought to be at less risk of contracting the disease.

Canadian producers say resuming trade in older cows will give them an extra $450 million a year.

Protectionist rancher groups in the U.S. have fought to keep the border closed to Canadian beef, but have so far been overruled by Washington and the U.S. courts.

Web Watch: www.agric.gov.ab.ca/srm
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
So Mike,you posted this but didn't give your opinion on it....how about doing that.Seems to me,you guys come on here bitching and complaining about our feed bans and just about anything else you can bring up about Canadas cattle industry but when our country trys helping to set things right,you guys set out bitching and complaining.

In our county alone there are four independent processing plants that will benefit by this,contrary to what you guys think we have ALOT of small processing plants in Alta. :roll: :roll:
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Where have you been Mike, this is old news. Over 80% of Canadian Slaughter capacity is owned by two multinational packers who will NOT custom harvest cattle.

Where would you like to go with this Mike?

Do you want to talk about Rcalf's role in helping these pirates not only accomplish this task, but bury packers south of the line as well with this BS border issue?

Or are you going to make this into a Producer issue, whereby Canadian producers are subsidized? :roll:

Which ever way this thread goes, the comments from each side will be predictable.
 

Mike

Well-known member
So Mike,you posted this but didn't give your opinion on it....how about doing that.

You are correct........I DID NOT give my opinion. :wink:

you guys come on here bitching and complaining

If I didn't give my opinion, how could I be "bitching and complaining"? :???:
you guys set out bitching and complaining.

There you go again. :???:

My opinion is this....... If the program helps Canada out of the BSE turmoil, I am all for it. If the "Big Boys" gobble up all the money......I am not in favor. We all know how politicians are.

As far as the the $450 million that is projected to be made by the producers.....................

That $450 Million gain will have to come out of SOMEONE's pocket. I prefer it come out of the Australian or Uruguayan, etc. producers' pocket.

If US imports of beef from countries other than Canada will fall at the same rate that imports from Canada rises there will be a negligible effect on the US producer.

If not, I am against the opening of the border to older animals.

Just like you. I am concerned with my bottom line.

Fair enough?
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Yes...fair enough. But please don't go acting like your all innocent in the B and C part :roll: ,it was a generalisation of bull posters from your great country Well as usual probably a large portion WILL go to the Big Boys{processers} because I assume it will be a %.This was written by a reporter,who knows where his numbers came from.

I also understand how you guys want to protect your cattle industry,but blows my mind you'all don't seem to think we deserve the same respect.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
These new SRM laws are very detrimental to producers because the extra costs always come back to the primary producer. If you haul a cow to the vet and she dies you will be charged $120 disposal fee. Dead animals arriving at sale barns dead on a truck have to be permeitted and hauled to an appoved land fill. Wit possibly only 3 appoved in a province the size of Saskatchewan it will be a long trip for many. Lots of other details that are still coming out. Small abbatoirs will have a big cost to comply. That will be added costs to any farm gate retailer.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Where have you been Mike, this is old news. Over 80% of Canadian Slaughter capacity is owned by two multinational packers who will NOT custom harvest cattle.

Where would you like to go with this Mike?

Do you want to talk about Rcalf's role in helping these pirates not only accomplish this task, but bury packers south of the line as well with this BS border issue?

Or are you going to make this into a Producer issue, whereby Canadian producers are subsidized? :roll:

Which ever way this thread goes, the comments from each side will be predictable.

The packers want the border open, Randy. There is no doubt about it. R-CALF is the only thing standing in the way.
 

Bward

Well-known member
Canadian producers say resuming trade in older cows will give them an extra $450 million a year.

Stuff like this is always worded to make it look like we are getting something for nothing, somethin extra, or something we don't really deserve. :mad:

it should say... Candian producers resuming trade in older cows will help to recapture lost sales of $450 million a year.
 

cowzilla

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
These new SRM laws are very detrimental to producers because the extra costs always come back to the primary producer. If you haul a cow to the vet and she dies you will be charged $120 disposal fee. Dead animals arriving at sale barns dead on a truck have to be permeitted and hauled to an appoved land fill. Wit possibly only 3 appoved in a province the size of Saskatchewan it will be a long trip for many. Lots of other details that are still coming out. Small abbatoirs will have a big cost to comply. That will be added costs to any farm gate retailer.
I've been shipping cattle for over 30 years off my farm hauling with my trucks or hired trucks and have never had an animal DIE ON A TRUCK :!: Trick is to not ship SICK ANIMALS to begin with. If something is in that bad of shape keep it a home, take care of it or put it to sleep :mad: The only people who will feel the extra exspence of dead livestock removal in this case are the ones who deal in the sick livestock for sale trade. For the rest of us this cost will be minimal.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Whatever you say Sleepy Head!!!!

I guess you agree with the other SH on this issue hay!!!!!

Randy, it's the truth! They're not just hinting it, they're saying it in plain English! Geeeze, Dude, you've even seen it here! Don't be like your brother, Scotty and refuse to change your story even when the facts are stacked against you.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
cowzilla said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
These new SRM laws are very detrimental to producers because the extra costs always come back to the primary producer. If you haul a cow to the vet and she dies you will be charged $120 disposal fee. Dead animals arriving at sale barns dead on a truck have to be permeitted and hauled to an appoved land fill. Wit possibly only 3 appoved in a province the size of Saskatchewan it will be a long trip for many. Lots of other details that are still coming out. Small abbatoirs will have a big cost to comply. That will be added costs to any farm gate retailer.
I've been shipping cattle for over 30 years off my farm hauling with my trucks or hired trucks and have never had an animal DIE ON A TRUCK :!: Trick is to not ship SICK ANIMALS to begin with. If something is in that bad of shape keep it a home, take care of it or put it to sleep :mad: The only people who will feel the extra exspence of dead livestock removal in this case are the ones who deal in the sick livestock for sale trade. For the rest of us this cost will be minimal.


Cowzilla have you eevr hauled a cow to the vet and had a C-Section? If the calf takes one breath and dies it is considered SRM. You should also know that you should never say never when dealing with livestock. Calves do get down and trampled on trucks . Bigger stock do to. It's maybe not as common as it once was but i know calves die on the trip east. have you read the new SRM regs that are coming out? the small abatoirs and vets are going to pay to comply.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
My brother? You and the other SH are the ones ganging up on poor old packer blamer me.
Cargill and Tyson will decide when that border opens SH and SH. And you can take your so called facts and stick em where the SHun don't SHine. :wink:
 
Top