Japan won't take tested beef?

[Grandad]

Do they test all beef being exported to Japan from Australia?

 

[rkaiser]

No Grandad Australian beef is not tested. They test vitually nothing and therefore carry the BSE free label that America carried until the Washington cow.

And that brings up a very good point which Sandman adressed and Agman wiggled away from.

You want protocol Agman. Japan has protocol. WTO rules concerning BSE.

Japan is open for business. They simply switched their business from America and Canada to New Zealand and Australia.

Why?

Because due to BSEconimic protocol NZ and Australia are accepted as BSE free. Is that an ASSUMPTION? You're darn right it is. Just a lot like the assumption that testing would create a BSE free product for Canada or the USA to export. So what. Sell them some darn beef.

Agman has an agenda that matches the mutinational packers (we no pay fo test), and argues very well, but guess what folks, he's no smarter than Sandman, Randy, or even good old SH. Just a guy with an opinion, and a bias one at that.

 

[Mike]

No Progress in Japan-US Talks on Lifting of US Beef Import Ban



On February 11, US Trade Representative Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, currently visiting Japan, met, in succession, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Yoshiyuki Kamei, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Shoichi Nakagawa, Minister of Foreign Affairs Yoriko Kawaguchi, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda, for talks on the import ban on American beef imposed by Japan following the outbreak of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in the United States. In response to the USTR's repeated requests that the ban be lifted, the ministers reiterated Japan's position that the US must first introduce measures for the testing of all slaughtered cattle and take steps to ensure the removal of all specified risk materials from carcasses, but the two sides failed to reach agreement.



During the talks, the United States communicated its intention of sending a team of government representatives to Japan to re-open talks with a view to obtaining the lifting of the import ban. However, the United States has merely said it is "considering" whether or not to strengthen its BSE countermeasures in response to the recommendations of the international committee of experts, published on February 4, and has not changed its negative stance on the testing of all slaughtered cattle, taking the position that the need for testing of all slaughtered cattle should be assessed on a scientific basis and that care should be taken to ensure that trade is not obstructed.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Randy talk test all you want but the best proposal put forward for testing only did 350 head a day. Not much of a dent in our supply. SSGA did pass a resoulution to allow a test run of testing for market access.
When Big C saw that their plan for a taxpayed backed packing house was not going to fly why didn't they proceed anyway since they said they had the support of 95% of people they talked to about building one. Their were lots of proposals out their that could have been pulled together to build a bigger plant?

 

[rkaiser]

I've been told numerous times on this site that I don't comprehend well. My perception is a bit off.

Could Agman or SH help me out with understanding this statement PLEASE.

In response to the USTR's repeated requests that the ban be lifted, the ministers reiterated Japan's position that the US must first introduce measures for the testing of all slaughtered cattle and take steps to ensure the removal of all specified risk materials from carcasses, but the two sides failed to reach agreement.

 

[rkaiser]

Big Muddy

Randy talk test all you want but the best proposal put forward for testing only did 350 head a day. Not much of a dent in our supply. SSGA did pass a resoulution to allow a test run of testing for market access.
When Big C saw that their plan for a taxpayed backed packing house was not going to fly why didn't they proceed anyway since they said they had the support of 95% of people they talked to about building one. Their were lots of proposals out their that could have been pulled together to build a bigger plant?

I agree that testing for market access will happen Big M, and may help us out some day. Too bad the threat of testing was not a reality sooner. Could have promted more investment had investors known they may have had a customer or two.

BIG C is still moving ahead BM. Levy turning into shares is not. Do you receive shares in Canada for the taxes you pay? That socialist talk drives me mental. The support we talked of was there. Main opposiotion was from those who didn't want opposition like you and Tam.
Trying to gather the numerous proposals under one umbrella was attempted. Have you ever tried to her cats????

 

[rkaiser]

Should have been HERD CATS.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Big Muddy

Randy talk test all you want but the best proposal put forward for testing only did 350 head a day. Not much of a dent in our supply. SSGA did pass a resoulution to allow a test run of testing for market access.
When Big C saw that their plan for a taxpayed backed packing house was not going to fly why didn't they proceed anyway since they said they had the support of 95% of people they talked to about building one. Their were lots of proposals out their that could have been pulled together to build a bigger plant?

I agree that testing for market access will happen Big M, and may help us out some day. Too bad the threat of testing was not a reality sooner. Could have promted more investment had investors known they may have had a customer or two.

BIG C is still moving ahead BM. Levy turning into shares is not. Do you receive shares in Canada for the taxes you pay? That socialist talk drives me mental. The support we talked of was there. Main opposiotion was from those who didn't want opposition like you and Tam.
Trying to gather the numerous proposals under one umbrella was attempted. Have you ever tried to her cats????[/quot



You would have had my support if you hadn't called for a levy on all cattle sold in Canada. I would have gladly payed a levy on my cows that I sold to that plant. Also finacing thru Government scources could have worked if it was the plant paying it off.


Yes I can imagine that gathering proposals together would have been tough as everyone wanted the plant in their backyard. If you remember Big C was invited to the SSGA meeting so these propasals could get out to producers.

 

[rkaiser]

BM said

You would have had my support if you hadn't called for a levy on all cattle sold in Canada. I would have gladly payed a levy on my cows that I sold to that plant. Also finacing thru Government scources could have worked if it was the plant paying it off.

Might still get your chance BM. Remeber BIG C is a grassroots group that takes what the producers say seriously. We have moved away from a levy on all animals sold to the levy on animals put through the plant.

I think you are also saying that it would be fine for the levy/share to pay off the Bridge Financing, and the final story being ownership by those who supplied the levy/share.

That's the plan Stan. I still liked the economics of scale that a mandatory levy/share would have accomplished but HEY, that's democracy for you.

 

[Mike]

I've been told numerous times on this site that I don't comprehend well. My perception is a bit off.

Could Agman or SH help me out with understanding this statement PLEASE.

In response to the USTR's repeated requests that the ban be lifted, the ministers reiterated Japan's position that the US must first introduce measures for the testing of all slaughtered cattle and take steps to ensure the removal of all specified risk materials from carcasses, but the two sides failed to reach agreement.

Won't matter Randy. We have shown them numerous articles,papers, etc. showing that Japan will take tested beef. I know it, you know it, and most everyone else knows it. Including your buddy's at Tyson and Cargill.

They will argue "protocol" or some other BS, completely deny the obvious, and then start screaming, "FALSE ADVERTISING". Like that really matters.

No, I don't think the perception problem is yours. :roll: :???:

 

[Anonymous]

Reader: "First USDA said no to BSE testing under 30 months of age. Then, later, after Japanese insistence and likely a better understanding of infectivity and incubation of BSE on the part of the USDA the USDA said yes to 24 months.

How short the memory is."

You are correct Reader, your memory is short.

The USDA negotiated to JAPAN'S 24 month request WITHOUT TESTING!

The results: NO TESTING UNDER 30 MONTHS OF AGE! Same science as always.


Randy,

Sorry, I cannot help you understand that statement without knowing exactly what Japan meant by "the US must first introduce measures for the testing of all slaughtered cattle".

Too vague!

Sandman: "I can assure you that Japan takes more than 3% of the carcass."

Since you are so confident Sandman, tell me what beef products from the carcass we sent to Japan prior to the border being closed.

Would you please enlighten me on your vast knowledge of our Japanese exports?

Sandman: "Here's a new flash for you, Agman, JAPAN DOESN'T NEED OUR BEEF."

Then why would you think 100% testing would change that?

randy: "Agman has an agenda that matches the mutinational packers (we no pay fo test), and argues very well, but guess what folks, he's no smarter than Sandman, Randy, or even good old SH. Just a guy with an opinion, and a bias one at that."

You are right randy, Agman does have an agenda. That agenda is providing factual information and that is precisely why nobody here can contradict his information with facts to the contrary. Agman's business depends on providing factual information to his many producer clients. If his information is non factual, he's out of business. If your information is non factual, who's hurt? Nobody! Who has more at stake? The answer is obvious.

After being given some very solid marketing advice from Agman in the past that saved me thousands, I have told every non blaming progressive producer I respect to hitch their wagon to him. The manager of one of the most successful and progressive feedlots in the nation told me personally, "I have never seen anyone so accurate with their market forecasts".

When he spoke to a local producers group of forward thinking young cattlemen, all of them thoroughly enjoyed his presentation. One told me personally, "what I respected most about him is that if he didn't know the answer to something, he said so".

I could go on but to save him from futher embarassment, let me just say that he gives us solid marketing information here for absolutely nothing when that's his business. What does that tell you?

If you can surmise that providing factual information to feeders and producers on market factors is "an agenda that matches the multinational packers", you are one wierd packer blamer. Not your run of the mill packer blamer but a wierd one. Your statement makes absolutely no sense in light of the facts.

Funny how anyone who isn't crying in the beer about "packer concentration" and "captive supplies" and "HUGE PACKER PROFITS" becomes a mouthpiece for the packers as opposed to the reality of just being a mouthpiece for factual information.

Mike: "We have shown them numerous articles,papers, etc. showing that Japan will take tested beef."

Consistant with your "theories" and "opinions" on BSE contamination, you have provided numerous articles, papers, etc. that "CLAIMED" that Japan MIGHT CONSIDER tested beef.

What do we know for sure?

The testing option is not even on the table anymore.

That fact really gives credence to your argument doesn't it?



~SH~