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

Hey Kaiser- Is Tyson/AMI lying in this Article?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Looks like Tyson and the Packer Boys want access back to their Canadian cattle to me Kaiser-- Or are they lying in their press releases just to fool all of us? :wink: :lol: :lol: They're about the only ones supporting USDA :roll:

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


Tyson Sides With USDA On Canada Beef Imports



By Kim Souza

The Morning News

February 9, 2007



Wednesday's discovery of Canada's ninth case of mad cow disease has several interested U.S. cattle groups now voicing opposition to the American government's plan to fully resume imports of older Canadian cattle.



But Springdale-based Tyson Foods Inc., which operates beef processing plants on both sides of the border, said they would favor the looser restrictions.



Tyson recently reported its beef export sales were still only 32 percent of the pre-BSE highs recorded in 2003, despite some key markets opening several months ago. The company is the largest beef producer in the world.



Company officials said in an emailed statement Friday they support the view of the American Meat Institute on the full restoration of cattle and beef trade with Canada.


"As AMI (the meat institute) has noted, it's scientifically justified and appropriate under international animal health guidelines. The import of older Canadian beef animals would not have a direct impact on our operations, since our U.S. beef plants typically process cattle under the age of 30 months."




In 2006, Canada reported five new cases of BSE, including one in a cow born five years after the feed safeguards were adopted. Mad cow is also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE.



The United States Department of Agriculture has proposed free movement of live cattle age 30 months and up to resume crossing the border and the proposed rules are up for public review until March 12.



Travis Justice spokesman for the Arkansas Beef Council said this new BSE case raises concern because it is the older cattle -- more than 30 months of age -- that are at an increased risk for developing BSE.



"A little more caution might be in order since this new discovery. I think extending the March 12 deadline for public review on the proposed rule might be wise. We've waited three years, what's a few more months," Justice said.



BSE has cost the U.S. beef industry billions of dollars in trade since the first case was discovered on U.S. soil in December 2003.



"The beef industry has only recovered roughly 50 percent of the trading volume lost when beef exports were banned in 2003," Justice said.



Canada has reported nine cases of BSE with one-tenth the herd size of the United States, who has had three cases -- one of which originated in Canada he added.



The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund who represents 18,000 cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues has been vocal about the USDA's new plan.



"This demonstrates just how ridiculous and premature it is for our government to be considering even further relaxation of our import standards that would allow imports of Canadian cattle older than 30 months of age. As well as the government's intention to allow beef products from Canadian cattle of any age to enter this country," said Dr. Max Thornsberry, a veterinarian who also chairs the fund's Animal Health Committee.



The National Cattlemen's Association said this latest case of BSE does not necessarily raise new concerns because the animal appears to be in the same age category of previous cases within Canada, but it does illustrate some of the concerns they have already expressed about the proposed rule.



"We want to make sure that if older Canadian cattle are allowed to be imported they are permanently marked all the way through harvest so we always have a clear trail from where the cattle originated, said Joe Schuele, spokesman for the cattlemen's association.



This is important Schuele said, because of the difficulty the U.S. has had in fully restoring trade with its other trading partners. Despite the low U.S. occurrence in BSE some of its trading partners are still reluctant.



The USDA said in a recent press release they are sending an expert to investigate this latest case of BSE but did not anticipate that it would impact domestic trade with Canada.



Tyson has reported losses in its beef segment for several consecutive quarters including $23 million in the first quarter of 2007, linked to operating losses at the company's Lakeside operation in Alberta, Canada.



The losses in Tyson's Canadian beef facility stem mostly from labor issues, not BSE and CEO Dick Bond said recently that the situation is improving.



The export markets are important to Lakeside as well as the rest of the Canadian beef industry, said spokesman Gary Mickelson. A significant percentage of the beef produced in Canada is typically exported to other countries, such as the United States, he added.



nwaonline.net
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Maybe - maybe not.

My thoughts are that they are scared of me and Cam openin up some whoopass on their phoney BSE testing policy and are looking for a way out.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
On another note OT. The article you posted forgot to mention that only cows 8 years and under will be allowed across live under Rule#2.

HMMM ever tried to identify a cow between 4 and 8. And Identify it as able to cross the line.

This rule is designed (just like the first one) to aid the Tyson and Cargill plants in southern Alberta. Any age beef, but virtually no cull cows to the competition in the northern states.

Actually sounds to me like Rcalf should be fighting for this rule. They don't want those plants in the states to gain any competitive edge over their buddies at Tyson and Cargill.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Hiding out again Oldtimer. You and the Rcalf boys have really been on the run these days. Are you waiting for another Canadian survailance BSE case to ride your high horse once again?

Running from the border issue, running from the financial fiasco at headquarters, running from the truth over the VanDyke cattle, you and Sandhustler are going to need a new pair of running shoes pretty darn soon.
 

flounder

Well-known member
thought some might be interesting in these two items ;


REVIEW OF THE USDA’S RULE

PROVIDING FOR CANADIAN BEEF AND

CATTLE IMPORTS

CONGRESS

MARCH 1, 2005

99 PAGES ...TSS

http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/109/1091.pdf



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 1, 2005

Committee Examines USDA Canadian Beef Rule
Hears Testimony from Agriculture Secretary Johanns

http://agriculture.house.gov/republicans/press/109/pr050301.html


TSS
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Randy; It's a lot tougher for Sadhusker and oldzimer to get their updates these days. Seems the old 1-800-r-calf line has been unhooked and replaced with a 1-900 number (1-900-WHI-NERS) and bullard's not available for comment!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rkaiser said:
On another note OT. The article you posted forgot to mention that only cows 8 years and under will be allowed across live under Rule#2.

HMMM ever tried to identify a cow between 4 and 8. And Identify it as able to cross the line.

This rule is designed (just like the first one) to aid the Tyson and Cargill plants in southern Alberta. Any age beef, but virtually no cull cows to the competition in the northern states.

Actually sounds to me like Rcalf should be fighting for this rule. They don't want those plants in the states to gain any competitive edge over their buddies at Tyson and Cargill.

Just enough cows so the can shoot the hell out of both markets-- but those boys don't care...Their "salmon run" as you call it in Canada is ending, but they're onto bigger and better things in Australia already-- and by the time Canada gets past their BSE problem they will have their Argentine and Brazilian sources up to par....
As long as they can get cheap imported- and pass it off for a profit as US product- they don't care where what they are selling comes from....
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
rkaiser said:
On another note OT. The article you posted forgot to mention that only cows 8 years and under will be allowed across live under Rule#2.

HMMM ever tried to identify a cow between 4 and 8. And Identify it as able to cross the line.

This rule is designed (just like the first one) to aid the Tyson and Cargill plants in southern Alberta. Any age beef, but virtually no cull cows to the competition in the northern states.

Actually sounds to me like Rcalf should be fighting for this rule. They don't want those plants in the states to gain any competitive edge over their buddies at Tyson and Cargill.

Just enough cows so the can shoot the hell out of both markets-- but those boys don't care...Their "salmon run" as you call it in Canada is ending, but they're onto bigger and better things in Australia already-- and by the time Canada gets past their BSE problem they will have their Argentine and Brazilian sources up to par....
As long as they can get cheap imported- and pass it off for a profit as US product- they don't care where what they are selling comes from....

Look on the bright side, at least they are AMERICAN COMPANIES. Wouldn't it be terrible to have it done to you by foreign nationals .....well like us Canadians have.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Nafta was supposed to help pull Mexico out of the third world. It was just used as a leap frog to Asia. Now are building the "Superhighway" to facilitate the lousy trade deals we have made with the rest of the world that are undermining the U.S. strategically.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill, "Look on the bright side, at least they are AMERICAN COMPANIES. Wouldn't it be terrible to have it done to you by foreign nationals .....well like us Canadians have."

Who let those foreign nationals in? Who let them buy up Canadian assets? Who let them thumb their noses at Parliament? Who gave them millions of dollars of handouts?
 
Top