• 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 Sandhusker

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
I was reading a comment that R-CALF made on their website and in it, it listed the countries that have discovers BSE in their Native herds since 2000. Since the USDA FAS charts, I can access, are from 2000 to 2005 I looked up the countries they listed. What I found even made your comment about the other countries you have shut out funnier. :wink:

Their listed

Austria ,Canada, Czech Rep., Denmark, Finland, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. Of those thirteen the US imported beef and veal from only Austria, Canada, Italy, Japan, and Spain.

Austria in 2001 the US imported $40,000
Canada in 2001 the US imported $1,098,721,000
Italy in 2001 the US imported $57,000
Japan in 2001 the US imported $248,000
Spain in 2002 the US imported $2,000.

I also checked the animals imported and the numbers were about the same There was only one country that you even hit the million dollar mark and that was Japan.

Kind of puts a little light on your comment about the trade with these other countries. :roll:
But the trade you did with these other countries had alot to do with the fact that the US should and most did realize that if the rules were not changed the US producers would not have a leg to stand on if BSE was found in the US. Most knew it was only a matter of time before BSE was found , because of all the trade you did with us and all these other trading partners before they found BSE.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I'm going to look those up myself, Tam. I already have a big red flag. First of all, other than Spain, why didn't you use any import numbers after 2001? Could it be that that the years you used were the last partial years before those countries discovered BSE? $2000 from Spain? I can eat that much in a year.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
I'm going to look those up myself, Tam. I already have a big red flag. First of all, other than Spain, why didn't you use any import numbers after 2001? Could it be that that the years you used were the last partial years before those countries discovered BSE? $2000 from Spain? I can eat that much in a year.
Sorry Sandhusker I guess I should have put the amounts that were imported from these countries after the discovery of BSE in Canada
Austria imported $29,000 worth of beef in 2004
Italy imported $29,000 in 2003 and $438,000 in 2004
Spain well like you said you could eat $2000 worth of beef yourself so why bother with the paper work to start up again. The funny thing about Spain, according to the chart the US never imported any beef from them in 2000,2001 only $2000 worth in 2002 and then none since. You really lost an inportant market there Sandhusker. :wink:
and Japan in making deals now.
I thought the US didn't import from countries known to have BSE, R-CALF says that Austria and Italy have both discovered BSE since 2000 but the chart shows imports from both of those countries. Other than one year of no imports from Italy you have imported from them and in the case of Austria there was a two year break but imports again in 2004 Were the rules changed so that Austria and Italy could import again after they found BSE?

Now that I have narrowed your research to the five countries you actually imported any beef from would you like to bring the number of BSE cases they had and the list of Safeguards they had in place prior to discovering BSE. And don't forget the dates so we can see if any of them had safeguards in place as long as Canada and the US.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, I can't tell from your post who is importing and who is exporting. It kind of makes a difference.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam, I can't tell from your post who is importing and who is exporting. It kind of makes a difference.

Sandhusker you are something else in the first reply your comment was
Could it be that that the years you used were the last partial years before those countries discovered BSE?
Since the US didn't shut down exports to these countries because of THEIR BSE problem I think you know exactly who was doing the importing and who was doing the exporting. If the comment the the US imported wasn't enough to tell you you should have picked up on the idea when I said this.
I thought the US didn't import from countries known to have BSE
where did I say export to countries that are known to have BSE. and Sandhusker what would it matter if that country had BSE if you were the EXPORTER TO THEM? :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Tam, I can't tell from your post who is importing and who is exporting. It kind of makes a difference.

Sandhusker you are something else in the first reply your comment was
Could it be that that the years you used were the last partial years before those countries discovered BSE?
Since the US didn't shut down exports to these countries because of THEIR BSE problem I think you know exactly who was doing the importing and who was doing the exporting. If the comment the the US imported wasn't enough to tell you you should have picked up on the idea when I said this.
I thought the US didn't import from countries known to have BSE
where did I say export to countries that are known to have BSE. and Sandhusker what would it matter if that country had BSE if you were the EXPORTER TO THEM? :roll:

Tam, you say, "Austria imported $29,000 worth of beef in 2004
Italy imported $29,000 in 2003 and $438,000 in 2004. Are you really trying to tell me they exported that amount to the US?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Tam, I can't tell from your post who is importing and who is exporting. It kind of makes a difference.

Sandhusker you are something else in the first reply your comment was
Could it be that that the years you used were the last partial years before those countries discovered BSE?
Since the US didn't shut down exports to these countries because of THEIR BSE problem I think you know exactly who was doing the importing and who was doing the exporting. If the comment the the US imported wasn't enough to tell you you should have picked up on the idea when I said this.
I thought the US didn't import from countries known to have BSE
where did I say export to countries that are known to have BSE. and Sandhusker what would it matter if that country had BSE if you were the EXPORTER TO THEM? :roll:

Tam, you say, "Austria imported $29,000 worth of beef in 2004
Italy imported $29,000 in 2003 and $438,000 in 2004. Are you really trying to tell me they exported that amount to the US?

Sorry Sandhusker I guess I should have put the amounts that were imported FROM these countries after the discovery of BSE in Canada
Austria imported $29,000 worth of beef in 2004
Italy imported $29,000 in 2003 and $438,000 in 2004
Spain well like you said you could eat $2000 worth of beef yourself so why bother with the paper work to start up again. The funny thing about Spain, according to the chart the US never imported any beef FROM them in 2000,2001 only $2000 worth in 2002 and then none since. You really lost an inportant market there Sandhusker.
and Japan in making deals now.
I thought the US didn't import FROM countries known to have BSE, R-CALF says that Austria and Italy have both discovered BSE since 2000 but the chart shows imports FROM both of those countries. Other than one year of no imports FROM Italy you have imported FROM them and in the case of Austria there was a two year break but imports again in 2004 Were the rules changed so that Austria and Italy could import again after they found BSE?

Now that I have narrowed your research to the five countries you actually imported any beef FROM would you like to bring the number of BSE cases they had and the list of Safeguards they had in place prior to discovering BSE. And don't forget the dates so we can see if any of them had safeguards in place as long as Canada and the US.

Now yes I maybe did say imported but I think if you had read the whole reply you could have picked up on the fact I meant imported as in TO the US not FROM the US. :roll: Geez do you and Oldtimer practice at diverting the attention away from the topic, does it come natural to both of you or is it something that Leo taught you when you paid your membership? :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, when the USDA decided lowering standards was easier than complying, they went the the OIE to get that Minimal Risk horse crap rule installed. My guess is that the US resumed importing from those countries if they qualified - same as Canada.

If you want to find out for sure, look when they first contracted BSE, how many cases they have had per million animals, and when imports resumed. I think you'll find your answer there.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam, when the USDA decided lowering standards was easier than complying, they went the the OIE to get that Minimal Risk horse crap rule installed. My guess is that the US resumed importing from those countries if they qualified - same as Canada.

If you want to find out for sure, look when they first contracted BSE, how many cases they have had per million animals, and when imports resumed. I think you'll find your answer there.

Geez Sandhusker what happen to
I'm going to look those up myself, Tam
.as usual I have done all the research for you. Why don't you bring the numbers so you can say you added something to this conversation besides stupid topic diverting comments about how I confused you with who was doing the importing . And Sandhusker we know when the imports from these countries resumed or did you miss the part about
Other than one year of no imports from Italy you have imported from them and in the case of Austria there was a two year break but imports again in 2004
and
Austria imported $29,000 worth of beef in 2004
Italy imported $29,000 in 2003 and $438,000 in 2004
Gee is it to hard for you to figure that imports FROM Italy closed sometime in 2001 as there were no imports in 2002 and then resumed in 2003, and imports FROM Austria closed in 2001 as there was no imports in 2002 and 2003 and resumed in 2004 :roll: Now lets see your numbers on the cases found, the size of their herds and don't forget the safeguards they had in place when BSE was found and how long those safeguards had been in place so we can really compare to see if these other countries should qualify for minimal risk like CANADA DOES. Come on Sandhusker you can do it. :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, you're the one who thinks you've really got something. You're the one who started the post. You asked the question, I answered it. If you think I'm full of crap, prove me wrong. Wouldn't it be logical that any country that qualified for "mimimal risk" would resume exporting to the US at the same time Canada did? Is that a real stretch?
 

mwj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
562
Reaction score
0
Location
central Illinois
Should we just devise a code word that we could use to let everyone be aware that the info presented does not fit our ''agenda'' so it will be ignored 8) Sure would save a lot of reading time when people are beating around the bush :lol: Tam maybe you could run a poll for the best ''code word'' and we could all save some time and Macon could save some bandwidth or computer bunkspace :???: Sure would cut a lot of posts down to 1(code)word :cowboy:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
mwj said:
Should we just devise a code word that we could use to let everyone be aware that the info presented does not fit our ''agenda'' so it will be ignored 8) Sure would save a lot of reading time when people are beating around the bush :lol: Tam maybe you could run a poll for the best ''code word'' and we could all save some time and Macon could save some bandwidth or computer bunkspace :???: Sure would cut a lot of posts down to 1(code)word :cowboy:

Packer backer; but it would take the fun out of SH's posts if told the truth.
 

mwj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
562
Reaction score
0
Location
central Illinois
Econ101 said:
mwj said:
Should we just devise a code word that we could use to let everyone be aware that the info presented does not fit our ''agenda'' so it will be ignored 8) Sure would save a lot of reading time when people are beating around the bush :lol: Tam maybe you could run a poll for the best ''code word'' and we could all save some time and Macon could save some bandwidth or computer bunkspace :???: Sure would cut a lot of posts down to 1(code)word :cowboy:

Packer backer; but it would take the fun out of SH's posts if told the truth.

I think there is a chance that there could be other (blamer) code words in the poll. Maybe ignore could be one. Maybe beat around the bush and evade could be voted down :p
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
mwj said:
Econ101 said:
mwj said:
Should we just devise a code word that we could use to let everyone be aware that the info presented does not fit our ''agenda'' so it will be ignored 8) Sure would save a lot of reading time when people are beating around the bush :lol: Tam maybe you could run a poll for the best ''code word'' and we could all save some time and Macon could save some bandwidth or computer bunkspace :???: Sure would cut a lot of posts down to 1(code)word :cowboy:

Packer backer; but it would take the fun out of SH's posts if told the truth.

I think there is a chance that there could be other (blamer) code words in the poll. Maybe ignore could be one. Maybe beat around the bush and evade could be voted down :p

We need one for "all logic will be ignored, I just want to fight"! :lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam, you're the one who thinks you've really got something. You're the one who started the post. You asked the question, I answered it. If you think I'm full of crap, prove me wrong. Wouldn't it be logical that any country that qualified for "mimimal risk" would resume exporting to the US at the same time Canada did? Is that a real stretch?

Remember this Sandhusker
Secondly, other than the effect on packer's pocketbooks, why was the USDA so gung-ho over opening the border for country #23 (Canada) yet was content to keep the border closed to the previous 22 countries? I've asked that question many times and nobody can seem to answer it. Can you, Tam?
and this from me
Gee could it be because they were smart enough to look at the facts and SEE you were at the SAME RISK as you had imported cattle and feed from the same placed but only in larger quanities. Gee maybe even a larger risk due to the fact you imported more and didn't comply to a stricter feed ban. (And still don't) And by standing on the old rules was going to force the US producers to live by the same OLD rules as in NO EXPORTS. ----- Sandhusker this is no different than any of the other questions you ask if the answer isn't what you want to hear you deny anyone ever answered it. Consider this an answer whether you agree or not.
and this from you
Well, it's an answer in the technical sense, but it doesn't directly address the question I asked. I wanted to know that the difference between country #22 and country #23 was. It wasn't like the US and Canada were exclusively trading with the same lone supplier. We were taking the same cattle and feed a lot of people were.
then this from Bill
Do you think cattle moving back and forth across the border for over a hundred years might have just a bit to do with it?
then this from you
No I don't. To believe that would require ignoring all the other BSE positive countries that we traded with as well - and then closed and kept closed the border on.
I brought the import numbers on these other countries to back up that you didn't have the kind of trade with them as you did with Canada, and the fact you had trade at all with these countries should have clued you in to the fact you were at risk and that if you wanted to export the USDA had to change some rules before BSE was found in the US herd. OH SORRY I never asked a question I stated facts that proved my answer to your question about why the rules changed for country 23, when they didn't for the other 22 countries. You asked the question I answered so If you think I'm full of crap, prove me wrong.
Wouldn't it be logical that any country that qualified for "mimimal risk" would resume exporting to the US at the same time Canada did? Is that a real stretch?
Sandhusker consider this my answer even if you don't believe it and think I'm full of crap. Wouldn't it be logical that any country that qualified for "mimimal risk" including the US would resume exporting to other countries say JAPAN AND KOREA at the same time Canada did? Is that a real stretch?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, "Sandhusker consider this my answer even if you don't believe it and think I'm full of crap. Wouldn't it be logical that any country that qualified for "mimimal risk" including the US would resume exporting to other countries say JAPAN AND KOREA at the same time Canada did? Is that a real stretch?"

Yes that is a stretch and not logical. The reason is because "minimal risk" is an OIE GUIDELINE, and nobody has to follow those guidelines if they choose not to. Haven't you noticed that Japan has ignored them and have instituted their own requirements?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
Tam, "Sandhusker consider this my answer even if you don't believe it and think I'm full of crap. Wouldn't it be logical that any country that qualified for "mimimal risk" including the US would resume exporting to other countries say JAPAN AND KOREA at the same time Canada did? Is that a real stretch?"

Yes that is a stretch and not logical. The reason is because "minimal risk" is an OIE GUIDELINE, and nobody has to follow those guidelines if they choose not to. Haven't you noticed that Japan has ignored them and have instituted their own requirements?

Gee Sandhusker now they are guidelines and countries have a right to use them as such, but when it came to R-CALF's battle with the USDA they were written in stone recommendations that had to be follow to the letter of which they were written. Remenber this one NO exports from a country affect by BSE until they have had an EFFECTIVE FEED BAN in place for at least 7 years no matter what other safeguards have been implemented.( at least that is how R-CALF read it) Even R-CALF argues that the US feedbans have loopholes that have left the US cattle open to risk, so is your feed ban EFFECTIVE? Or does the US fit into the same catagory as Canada because of other factors. The fact that we are both sitting in the minimal risk catagory puts us at one level of negotiation abilities but trust in the exporting countries systems is another issue and that is why countries set their own requirements. And if you don't fit you may not be let in. As in Japan we were both let in but the US screwed up and now the Japanese government doesn't trust you to follow the rules that were negotiated so more restrictions may be put on your system if you want to export to them. It wasn't your risk status that change things it was the trust issue.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Tam, "Sandhusker consider this my answer even if you don't believe it and think I'm full of crap. Wouldn't it be logical that any country that qualified for "mimimal risk" including the US would resume exporting to other countries say JAPAN AND KOREA at the same time Canada did? Is that a real stretch?"

Yes that is a stretch and not logical. The reason is because "minimal risk" is an OIE GUIDELINE, and nobody has to follow those guidelines if they choose not to. Haven't you noticed that Japan has ignored them and have instituted their own requirements?

Gee Sandhusker now they are guidelines and countries have a right to use them as such, but when it came to R-CALF's battle with the USDA they were written in stone recommendations that had to be follow to the letter of which they were written. Remenber this one NO exports from a country affect by BSE until they have had an EFFECTIVE FEED BAN in place for at least 7 years no matter what other safeguards have been implemented.( at least that is how R-CALF read it) Even R-CALF argues that the US feedbans have loopholes that have left the US cattle open to risk, so is your feed ban EFFECTIVE? Or does the US fit into the same catagory as Canada because of other factors. The fact that we are both sitting in the minimal risk catagory puts us at one level of negotiation abilities but trust in the exporting countries systems is another issue and that is why countries set their own requirements. And if you don't fit you may not be let in. As in Japan we were both let in but the US screwed up and now the Japanese government doesn't trust you to follow the rules that were negotiated so more restrictions may be put on your system if you want to export to them. It wasn't your risk status that change things it was the trust issue.

Tam, if all you want to do is fight, we have code word for that now.

R-CALF asked the USDA to follow the recommendations of the OIE because that is what the USDA was preaching. The wanted them to practice what they preached. Were they out of line for that?

Why are you trying to hammer R-CALF on the feed ban? Ours needs work. You, R-CALF and I AGREE on that. However, the question arises, is Canada's effective? You just found a cow not even 6 years old that was positive. That wasn't supposed to happen with a working feed ban, was it?

I'm sure the Japanese don't trust us much. I wouldn't either. The USDA can't decide if positives are positives or show much of an interest in actually finding out. They would rather lower standards than increase effort and have shown that trade is the most important factor in setting policy. They think might makes right and have no respect for any other country's wants or preferences.

I think the reason most countries don't follow the "minimal risk" status the USDA pushed is because it is a poorly disguised efford to simply BS people and reduce concern. Consider this; you qualify for "minimal risk" if you have less than 2 cases per million head in a year. The US has a herd of 90 some million animals. That means we could have 179 positives in one year and still be minimal risk. That is more than one every other day even if you count the weekends. Now, realisticly, who is going ho-hum that? Mimimal risk is a farce and most countries see it for what it is. The USDA should be ashamed for pushing it. It's a tell to the hand they're playing.
 

mwj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
562
Reaction score
0
Location
central Illinois
What do you all think the no. per million should be? There was talk of 0 but that went by the wayside after the texas cow. Do you think our trade partners think we only have 1 or do you think they believe we SHOULD find more if we are dilagent about the search?
 

Latest posts

Top