Mike
Well-known member
Did the NCBA pass a resolution in the last meeting to not accept OTM's from Canada in the future?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is it true? NCBA
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Tommy
Well-known member
Mike this is all I could find on this from NCBA Policy Summary Report: 2006
NCBA urges USDA to develop a permanent identification system for the importation of live cattle from Canada that is maintainable through harvest and develop an orderly market transition plan before
additional beef and live cattle classes are eligible for import from Canada.
NCBA urges USDA to develop a permanent identification system for the importation of live cattle from Canada that is maintainable through harvest and develop an orderly market transition plan before
additional beef and live cattle classes are eligible for import from Canada.
Mike
Well-known member
Found this on another forum:
This Resolution was proposed by MSGA and passed at NCBA's convention last week:
Beef & Cattle Imports Over 30 Mos.
WHEREAS, the economic analysis of livestock and meat has not been completed, and
WHEREAS, there is consensus among the scientific community that cattle over 30 month of age are the primary risk animals for BSE.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Montana Stockgrowers Association does not support the USDA's proposed opening of the border to live cattle over 30 months of age or beef derived from these cattle until negative economic and/or health impacts are deemed to be minimal.
This Resolution was proposed by MSGA and passed at NCBA's convention last week:
Beef & Cattle Imports Over 30 Mos.
WHEREAS, the economic analysis of livestock and meat has not been completed, and
WHEREAS, there is consensus among the scientific community that cattle over 30 month of age are the primary risk animals for BSE.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Montana Stockgrowers Association does not support the USDA's proposed opening of the border to live cattle over 30 months of age or beef derived from these cattle until negative economic and/or health impacts are deemed to be minimal.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
PROTECTIONISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Having received my mail-in ballot for the issues surviving voting at the convention, the wording as Tommy stated is essentially correct on that particular resolution, titled "Identification of Imported Cattle--Renewed".
However, it will not become final untill the mail-in ballots are counted.
A resolution I find even more valuable is "Foot and Mouth Eradication = New"
WHEREAS: !. FMD condinues to be a problem in various regions of the world;
and 2. some countries with recent FMD outbreaks have petitioned USDA to import fresh beef to this country;
and 3. Brazil is such a country with two states having confirmed outbreaks of FMD since Oct. 2005;
and 4. USDA had performed risk analysis that included Brazilian document review and site visits in 2003 and developed a proposed rule that would alllow fresh beef to be imported, and under certain conditions and from a specified region within Brazil, to the USA;
and 5. NCBA is very concerned with an apparent lack of ability to eradicate FMD in Brazil and other countries as well as USDA's ability to accurately evaluate the risk of the disease in such a country;
and 6. the threat of FMD is the single largest animal health threat to the lifelihood of U.S. beef producers;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, NCBA urges USDA to begin applying pressure on Brazil and other countries with FMD that wish to export fresh beef to the USA to commit to enhanced efforts to eradicate the disease.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,NCBA urges USDA to provide the U.S. beef industry the opportunity to offer comment on new procedures for developing risk analysis for any country with a history of FMD that submits a request to import beef into the USA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, NCBA urges USDA to cease any efforts to publish a proposed rule allowing imports of Brazilian fresh beef and not utilize the regionalization concept in consideration of any future request by a country with FMD to import fresh beef to the U.S.
MRJ
However, it will not become final untill the mail-in ballots are counted.
A resolution I find even more valuable is "Foot and Mouth Eradication = New"
WHEREAS: !. FMD condinues to be a problem in various regions of the world;
and 2. some countries with recent FMD outbreaks have petitioned USDA to import fresh beef to this country;
and 3. Brazil is such a country with two states having confirmed outbreaks of FMD since Oct. 2005;
and 4. USDA had performed risk analysis that included Brazilian document review and site visits in 2003 and developed a proposed rule that would alllow fresh beef to be imported, and under certain conditions and from a specified region within Brazil, to the USA;
and 5. NCBA is very concerned with an apparent lack of ability to eradicate FMD in Brazil and other countries as well as USDA's ability to accurately evaluate the risk of the disease in such a country;
and 6. the threat of FMD is the single largest animal health threat to the lifelihood of U.S. beef producers;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, NCBA urges USDA to begin applying pressure on Brazil and other countries with FMD that wish to export fresh beef to the USA to commit to enhanced efforts to eradicate the disease.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,NCBA urges USDA to provide the U.S. beef industry the opportunity to offer comment on new procedures for developing risk analysis for any country with a history of FMD that submits a request to import beef into the USA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, NCBA urges USDA to cease any efforts to publish a proposed rule allowing imports of Brazilian fresh beef and not utilize the regionalization concept in consideration of any future request by a country with FMD to import fresh beef to the U.S.
MRJ
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, NCBA urges USDA to begin applying pressure on Brazil and other countries with FMD that wish to export fresh beef to the USA to commit to enhanced efforts to eradicate the disease.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,NCBA urges USDA to provide the U.S. beef industry the opportunity to offer comment on new procedures for developing risk analysis for any country with a history of FMD that submits a request to import beef into the USA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, NCBA urges USDA to cease any efforts to publish a proposed rule allowing imports of Brazilian fresh beef and not utilize the regionalization concept in consideration of any future request by a country with FMD to import fresh beef to the U.S.
Question, MRJ: Does this mean that NCBA is asking USDA to not allow imported beef from countries with FMD or does it mean that just won't be happy when it does come into our marketplace?
the chief said:THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, NCBA urges USDA to begin applying pressure on Brazil and other countries with FMD that wish to export fresh beef to the USA to commit to enhanced efforts to eradicate the disease.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,NCBA urges USDA to provide the U.S. beef industry the opportunity to offer comment on new procedures for developing risk analysis for any country with a history of FMD that submits a request to import beef into the USA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, NCBA urges USDA to cease any efforts to publish a proposed rule allowing imports of Brazilian fresh beef and not utilize the regionalization concept in consideration of any future request by a country with FMD to import fresh beef to the U.S.
Question, MRJ: Does this mean that NCBA is asking USDA to not allow imported beef from countries with FMD or does it mean that just won't be happy when it does come into our marketplace?
chief, this would be the polite way to state that we want the stated action to take place BEFORE allowing beef from those countries to come into the USA.
We expect such gentlemanly discourse to get our desired action more quickly than rudely confrontation would.
MRJ
Tommy
Well-known member
mj...We expect such gentlemanly discourse to get our desired action more quickly than rudely confrontation would.
MJ is it the desire of the NCBA that we (the USA) import beef from Brazil after they become free of FMD?
MJ is it the desire of the NCBA that we (the USA) import beef from Brazil after they become free of FMD?
MRJ said:the chief said:THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, NCBA urges USDA to begin applying pressure on Brazil and other countries with FMD that wish to export fresh beef to the USA to commit to enhanced efforts to eradicate the disease.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,NCBA urges USDA to provide the U.S. beef industry the opportunity to offer comment on new procedures for developing risk analysis for any country with a history of FMD that submits a request to import beef into the USA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, NCBA urges USDA to cease any efforts to publish a proposed rule allowing imports of Brazilian fresh beef and not utilize the regionalization concept in consideration of any future request by a country with FMD to import fresh beef to the U.S.
Question, MRJ: Does this mean that NCBA is asking USDA to not allow imported beef from countries with FMD or does it mean that just won't be happy when it does come into our marketplace?
chief, this would be the polite way to state that we want the stated action to take place BEFORE allowing beef from those countries to come into the USA.
We expect such gentlemanly discourse to get our desired action more quickly than rudely confrontation would.
MRJ
MRJ, is that the same tactic you have employed with the checkoff money and advertising beef over chicken? Have you been fooled into believing that an effective campaign reversing that trend is bad for the beef industry or just bad for Tyson?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I also have been given the understanding that NCBA was going to continue opposing any further opening of the Canadian border until Canada agreed to fair trade rules- re: dropping the Anaplas/Blue Tongue trade barrier they have had up for 10 years.....
My hats off to the NCBA membership for taking these stands- altho I'm not optomistic they will keep them....Historically what the NCBA membership wants often soon gets throwed by the way side by the NCBA leadership a few months after the convention and vote......FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP....
My hats off to the NCBA membership for taking these stands- altho I'm not optomistic they will keep them....Historically what the NCBA membership wants often soon gets throwed by the way side by the NCBA leadership a few months after the convention and vote......FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP....
Is Montana going to drop their anaplas/bluetongue rules to other states any time soon?Oldtimer said:I also have been given the understanding that NCBA was going to continue opposing any further opening of the Canadian border until Canada agreed to fair trade rules- re: dropping the Anaplas/Blue Tongue trade barrier they have had up for 10 years.....
My hats off to the NCBA membership for taking these stands- altho I'm not optomistic they will keep them....Historically what the NCBA membership wants often soon gets throwed by the way side by the NCBA leadership a few months after the convention and vote......FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP....
A
Anonymous
Guest
Bill said:Is Montana going to drop their anaplas/bluetongue rules to other states any time soon?Oldtimer said:I also have been given the understanding that NCBA was going to continue opposing any further opening of the Canadian border until Canada agreed to fair trade rules- re: dropping the Anaplas/Blue Tongue trade barrier they have had up for 10 years.....
My hats off to the NCBA membership for taking these stands- altho I'm not optomistic they will keep them....Historically what the NCBA membership wants often soon gets throwed by the way side by the NCBA leadership a few months after the convention and vote......FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP....
Bill- actually Montana has no Anaplas/bluetongue rules on their import list- Only require a CVI unless they are from a Tuberculosis or Bangs restricted state- which have additional rules (set up state by state- unlike Canada that said ALL US CATTLE ARE DISEASED)....
Tommy said:mj...We expect such gentlemanly discourse to get our desired action more quickly than rudely confrontation would.
MJ is it the desire of the NCBA that we (the USA) import beef from Brazil after they become free of FMD?
The NCBA members have previously stated we understand the majority of the world population is outside the borders of the USA and we would like a piece of that action.
We understand that in order to GAIN some access to lucrative world markets, we will have to GIVE some access to our markets, especially for the very lean beef that we need to make our fatty trim more valuable.
So, yes, if fair trade deals can be achieved, I believe NCBA members would accept trade with Brazil IF the FMD problem was not a factor.
MRJ
MRJ said:Tommy said:mj...We expect such gentlemanly discourse to get our desired action more quickly than rudely confrontation would.
MJ is it the desire of the NCBA that we (the USA) import beef from Brazil after they become free of FMD?
The NCBA members have previously stated we understand the majority of the world population is outside the borders of the USA and we would like a piece of that action.
We understand that in order to GAIN some access to lucrative world markets, we will have to GIVE some access to our markets, especially for the very lean beef that we need to make our fatty trim more valuable.
So, yes, if fair trade deals can be achieved, I believe NCBA members would accept trade with Brazil IF the FMD problem was not a factor.
MRJ
MRJ, selling beef into the CAFTA countries is not lucrative. You are just blowing a lot of smoke and regurtitating a bunch of packer nonsense. You haven't answered the "Thinking Deep" question. Maybe you can't.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
MRJ, "So, yes, if fair trade deals can be achieved, I believe NCBA members would accept trade with Brazil IF the FMD problem was not a factor."
How about a fair trade deal like CAFTA? :roll: NCBA supported that, which opened our markets up more for what?
How about a fair trade deal like CAFTA? :roll: NCBA supported that, which opened our markets up more for what?
Sandhusker
Well-known member
MRJ said:Tommy said:mj...We expect such gentlemanly discourse to get our desired action more quickly than rudely confrontation would.
MJ is it the desire of the NCBA that we (the USA) import beef from Brazil after they become free of FMD?
The NCBA members have previously stated we understand the majority of the world population is outside the borders of the USA and we would like a piece of that action.
We understand that in order to GAIN some access to lucrative world markets, we will have to GIVE some access to our markets, especially for the very lean beef that we need to make our fatty trim more valuable.
So, yes, if fair trade deals can be achieved, I believe NCBA members would accept trade with Brazil IF the FMD problem was not a factor.
MRJ
Has NCBA ponderd the notion of why the rest of the world wants in our markets?
Creekstone was opening a trail to get back to Japan, but NCBA backed standing in their way. How was that getting a piece of the action?
Does NCBA realize that US producers (the folks they claim to represent) don't make a dime off imported lean that replaces US chucks?
Of these markets that we give access to, exactly how "lucrative" are they? Australia sends as much as anybody to us, how "lucrative" has that market been for us?
Tommy
Well-known member
mj...We understand that in order to GAIN some access to lucrative world markets, we will have to GIVE some access to our markets, especially for the very lean beef that we need to make our fatty trim more valuable.
So, yes, if fair trade deals can be achieved, I believe NCBA members would accept trade with Brazil IF the FMD problem was not a factor.
We have a free trade deal with Australia and New Zealand where we import lean trim for our fatty trim. Brazil's cow herd is over 150 million head, how much more lean beef do we need?
So, yes, if fair trade deals can be achieved, I believe NCBA members would accept trade with Brazil IF the FMD problem was not a factor.
We have a free trade deal with Australia and New Zealand where we import lean trim for our fatty trim. Brazil's cow herd is over 150 million head, how much more lean beef do we need?
Econ101 said:MRJ said:Tommy said:mj...We expect such gentlemanly discourse to get our desired action more quickly than rudely confrontation would.
MJ is it the desire of the NCBA that we (the USA) import beef from Brazil after they become free of FMD?
The NCBA members have previously stated we understand the majority of the world population is outside the borders of the USA and we would like a piece of that action.
We understand that in order to GAIN some access to lucrative world markets, we will have to GIVE some access to our markets, especially for the very lean beef that we need to make our fatty trim more valuable.
So, yes, if fair trade deals can be achieved, I believe NCBA members would accept trade with Brazil IF the FMD problem was not a factor.
MRJ
MRJ, selling beef into the CAFTA countries is not lucrative. You are just blowing a lot of smoke and regurtitating a bunch of packer nonsense. You haven't answered the "Thinking Deep" question. Maybe you can't.
Econman you must be inhaling some smoke and it is clouding your vision of this page. There is little doubt you will not understand this, but the extent of my contact or involvement with packers is the fact that the cattle I sell to feeders is slaughtered by packers. I DID NOT say that we would be selling beef into the CAFTA countries. I said WORLD markets. We have in the past, and most likely will in the future import more lean beef than prime, and we will export more prime (or other high quality grain fed) beef than very lean beef. Can you grasp the concept of importing low cost lean beef to add to our fatty excess trim off the high quality grain fed beef we export to the higher quality demanding WORLD markets. SURPRISE! There really are wealthy people in most nations of this world, maybe quite a number far exceeding that of the majority of our citizens, and they do want to buy our high quality beef.
MRJ
PORKER
Well-known member
MRJ ,Have you ever heard of Hilton BEEF?????????Were is it Raised ??????What do they FINNISH them ON?????Be careful of your answers!
PORKER
Well-known member
Just incase you can't or won't answer ,here is the ANSWER;
In southern Brazil in the state municipality of Itaipulandia, Domingas Trevisan uses feedlot "finishing" instead of the more common practice of finishing cattle on grass. His farm is common in that they actually finish cattle in a feedlot setting. This finishing ration is a mixture of Milo, soybean meal and corn silage. Cattle also only spend one month feeding on grass directly after they are weaned before going into confinement for 12-13 months. Trevisan does not state the meat content or quality of his practice, but does say he receives a "significant premium" for the grain-fed cattle Hilton Beef.
In southern Brazil in the state municipality of Itaipulandia, Domingas Trevisan uses feedlot "finishing" instead of the more common practice of finishing cattle on grass. His farm is common in that they actually finish cattle in a feedlot setting. This finishing ration is a mixture of Milo, soybean meal and corn silage. Cattle also only spend one month feeding on grass directly after they are weaned before going into confinement for 12-13 months. Trevisan does not state the meat content or quality of his practice, but does say he receives a "significant premium" for the grain-fed cattle Hilton Beef.
