Mike said:Not enough options in the poll.
The fact is...the Japs don't trust the USDA, which makes the producers look bad.
Do you trust Canadian beef?
Econ101 said:Mike said:Not enough options in the poll.
The fact is...the Japs don't trust the USDA, which makes the producers look bad.
Do you trust Canadian beef?
And if so, Roper, why are you testing and why have animal ID?
Econ101 said:Do you think American beef is safe and that Japan is just using BSE testing as an excuse to block you from their market?
_________________
I Love the Packers!
Which ones do you love?
Sandhusker said:Tam, "We test to see if the safeguards we have implimented are working."
You don't have to test to see that, just count the number of post-ban positives. Anything higher than 0 should tell you something.
RoperAB said:Econ101 said:Do you think American beef is safe and that Japan is just using BSE testing as an excuse to block you from their market?
_________________
I Love the Packers!
Which ones do you love?
Econ come on, you know damn well I dont literally love the packers!
Im simple making a statement about how stupid it is for rcalf to be harassing the packers. Nothing good is going to come out of doing that for producers.
We are not living in a perfect world!
Testing really has nothing to do with the safety of the meat according to the science all countries affected with BSE follow.
Oldtimer said:Sandhusker said:Tam, "We test to see if the safeguards we have implimented are working."
You don't have to test to see that, just count the number of post-ban positives. Anything higher than 0 should tell you something.
50% of the cases of Canadian origin are POST feedban- 3 out of 6-- tells me Canada has got a big problem.....And God only hopes the "short term economic science" pushed thru by the Multinational Corporate Packers is correct about SRM removal guaranteeing human safety- or a few years from now Tam will be selling paintings on a Regina street corner rather than from her Big Beaver Gallery......
I finally read a CCA press release that said they are actually thinking about their problem :???: and may do something :!: - that CFIA was going to close the Canadian feedban loopholes, but that the government couldn't say anything until they officially publish it......About time...
And bully for USDA saying they will not open OTM imports this year- they need to sit back and get their own house in order first ......
More good news- I spent the afternoon with many from thruout the state that had attended a bull sale--and the current weakening cattle market- and the POST feedban positives are proving to many more that what R-CALF said about the big negative effects of the Canadian imports is true- even had a few old tightwads that haven't ever belonged to anything agree to ante up there cash.....![]()
Econ101 said:RoperAB said:Econ101 said:Do you think American beef is safe and that Japan is just using BSE testing as an excuse to block you from their market?
_________________
I Love the Packers!
Which ones do you love?
Econ come on, you know damn well I dont literally love the packers!
Im simple making a statement about how stupid it is for rcalf to be harassing the packers. Nothing good is going to come out of doing that for producers.
We are not living in a perfect world!
Roper, if Pickett had won, Tyson may have had to pay a lot of money and may have been broken up. That would have been good for the industry even if it meant that packer margins went up. The facilities that were processing out there would not have just disappeared. Sometimes a fair system is worth the cost. Ask anyone who was treated unfairly, even yourself.
The packers playing concentration game try to bring margins down to run out competition like the small packers that might be an alternative for you to sell to. No one is saying get rid of all the packers but a lot of us are saying break up the big packers that are breaking the PSA to the detriment of the industry. The courts are not willing to do that. It isn't that the juries don't see the problem, it is that the politically appointed judges are messing with the cases and making up hurdles after the cases are over so the packers like Tyson that are funneling in campaign contributions can win in the concentration game by the rigged system. In the long run it is bad for the industry even if in the short run their margins are reduced.
Low margins are the loss leader of market concentration.
RoperAB said:Econ101 said:RoperAB said:Econ come on, you know damn well I dont literally love the packers!
Im simple making a statement about how stupid it is for rcalf to be harassing the packers. Nothing good is going to come out of doing that for producers.
We are not living in a perfect world!
Roper, if Pickett had won, Tyson may have had to pay a lot of money and may have been broken up. That would have been good for the industry even if it meant that packer margins went up. The facilities that were processing out there would not have just disappeared. Sometimes a fair system is worth the cost. Ask anyone who was treated unfairly, even yourself.
The packers playing concentration game try to bring margins down to run out competition like the small packers that might be an alternative for you to sell to. No one is saying get rid of all the packers but a lot of us are saying break up the big packers that are breaking the PSA to the detriment of the industry. The courts are not willing to do that. It isn't that the juries don't see the problem, it is that the politically appointed judges are messing with the cases and making up hurdles after the cases are over so the packers like Tyson that are funneling in campaign contributions can win in the concentration game by the rigged system. In the long run it is bad for the industry even if in the short run their margins are reduced.
Low margins are the loss leader of market concentration.
Thats just my point. They dont win in court and they are not going to win and if you honestly believe that the judges are against you then why keep going down that same road to failure with lawsuits that are just going to discourage anybody from getting into the packing business?
BTW It can be done. A friend of mine sold his outfit just before BSE struck. My Friend found 4 other investers. Together they are opening a small packing plant in Claresholm hopefully this summer.
They have been strugling for two years now trying to get through silly government red tape to do this.
Im hoping that they can make a go of it but there biggest obstacle is the damn government regulations.
Im telling you right now that if they thought cattlemen up here where going to sue them that they would have never tried to build this plant!
So yes I love packers. I want lots of new packing plants! This is what will help the producer. Lots of packing plants.
Instead of all this negative crap, producers on both sides of the border should be talking about ways in which we can help more small guys like my friend start and build new packing plants. This is what will insure producers get the best deal on their product. Not a bunch of lies and crap about only Canadian beef is safe or only American beef is safe.
I cant believe that there are still people out there who cant see the danger in this kind of a dumb ass pissing match.
Econ101 said:RoperAB said:Econ101 said:Roper, if Pickett had won, Tyson may have had to pay a lot of money and may have been broken up. That would have been good for the industry even if it meant that packer margins went up. The facilities that were processing out there would not have just disappeared. Sometimes a fair system is worth the cost. Ask anyone who was treated unfairly, even yourself.
The packers playing concentration game try to bring margins down to run out competition like the small packers that might be an alternative for you to sell to. No one is saying get rid of all the packers but a lot of us are saying break up the big packers that are breaking the PSA to the detriment of the industry. The courts are not willing to do that. It isn't that the juries don't see the problem, it is that the politically appointed judges are messing with the cases and making up hurdles after the cases are over so the packers like Tyson that are funneling in campaign contributions can win in the concentration game by the rigged system. In the long run it is bad for the industry even if in the short run their margins are reduced.
Low margins are the loss leader of market concentration.
Thats just my point. They dont win in court and they are not going to win and if you honestly believe that the judges are against you then why keep going down that same road to failure with lawsuits that are just going to discourage anybody from getting into the packing business?
BTW It can be done. A friend of mine sold his outfit just before BSE struck. My Friend found 4 other investers. Together they are opening a small packing plant in Claresholm hopefully this summer.
They have been strugling for two years now trying to get through silly government red tape to do this.
Im hoping that they can make a go of it but there biggest obstacle is the damn government regulations.
Im telling you right now that if they thought cattlemen up here where going to sue them that they would have never tried to build this plant!
So yes I love packers. I want lots of new packing plants! This is what will help the producer. Lots of packing plants.
Instead of all this negative crap, producers on both sides of the border should be talking about ways in which we can help more small guys like my friend start and build new packing plants. This is what will insure producers get the best deal on their product. Not a bunch of lies and crap about only Canadian beef is safe or only American beef is safe.
I cant believe that there are still people out there who cant see the danger in this kind of a dumb ass pissing match.
Roper, no one is going after little packers. We need more of them. They are not using market power to manipulate prices. It is hard for them to make it when the big outfits are operating on such low margins and playing the market concentration game, and using market power to lower prices. I hope your friends can cut through all the red tape and get the plant up and running.
RoperAB said:Econ101 said:RoperAB said:Thats just my point. They dont win in court and they are not going to win and if you honestly believe that the judges are against you then why keep going down that same road to failure with lawsuits that are just going to discourage anybody from getting into the packing business?
BTW It can be done. A friend of mine sold his outfit just before BSE struck. My Friend found 4 other investers. Together they are opening a small packing plant in Claresholm hopefully this summer.
They have been strugling for two years now trying to get through silly government red tape to do this.
Im hoping that they can make a go of it but there biggest obstacle is the damn government regulations.
Im telling you right now that if they thought cattlemen up here where going to sue them that they would have never tried to build this plant!
So yes I love packers. I want lots of new packing plants! This is what will help the producer. Lots of packing plants.
Instead of all this negative crap, producers on both sides of the border should be talking about ways in which we can help more small guys like my friend start and build new packing plants. This is what will insure producers get the best deal on their product. Not a bunch of lies and crap about only Canadian beef is safe or only American beef is safe.
I cant believe that there are still people out there who cant see the danger in this kind of a dumb ass pissing match.
Roper, no one is going after little packers. We need more of them. They are not using market power to manipulate prices. It is hard for them to make it when the big outfits are operating on such low margins and playing the market concentration game, and using market power to lower prices. I hope your friends can cut through all the red tape and get the plant up and running.
Okay the last I heard was that the guy who owns Walmart bought Douglas Lake Cattle Comp. which is the biggest cow/calf outfit in Canada.
Now as far as packing companies goes I dont know if this guy owns any but say if he or somebody like him was going to build a new packing plant in Texas to compete with the big packing plants that are already in Texas wouldnt this be a good thing?
Dont get me wrong im all for the idea of little guys starting packing plants like my friend I told you about. Its a step in the right direction. But it will take a heck of a lot of little outfits to make any kind of a difference.
So in the meantime shouldnt we be doing everything we can to draw new investment by new people into the packing industry even and or especially the big corporate types who can make the most difference?
Like look at it from an employers perspective. Say my wife applied to you for a job. You notice on her resume that she has filed sexual harassment charges against all her previous employers that she used to work for in the past. Now all these lawsuits she lost. Are you going to hire her?
Same thing if somebody is thinking about getting into the packing game in America. Say some outfit is thinking about building a large packing plant to take on Tysons. Once he finds out about how all the other big plants are getting lawsuits all the time its going to discourage him from the industry. Or I would think it would.
Sandhusker said:Tam, "We test to see if the safeguards we have implimented are working."
You don't have to test to see that, just count the number of post-ban positives. Anything higher than 0 should tell you something.
Mike said:Tam wrote:Testing really has nothing to do with the safety of the meat according to the science all countries affected with BSE follow.
This statement is not wholly true. Especially the "nothing to do with safety" and "all" countries part.
I have read on the UK Food Safety website that; (and I'm paraphrasing) 'testing allows another layer of safety to SRM removal'.
Dr. Linda Detwiler, former head of the TSE program for the USDA, said essentially the same thing in a radio interview on NPR.
How could it "NOT" add to the safety of beef????????
One way only, by using the old tests that the USDA was using before the Texas cow. :wink:
Did the fact the Washington cow was tested add any safety to the meat the USDA recalled from the US food chain? Did the USDA not try to tell the US consumers not to worry as the SRM's had been removed so their was little risk to those that may have eaten some of the infected cow. You mention the Texas cow, What would have happen if she had lived long enough to get off the truck at the slaughter plant? As I understand the US has a hold and release policy on targeted cattle. Meaning a carrass that is targeted for testing is to be held until a negitive test result is recieved back. Now if the Texas cow had made it into the plant she would have been release for processing because of her negitive test result. The only thing that might have saved the day is the fact the US also has a SRM REMOVAL RULE. The problem with relying on a test for food safety is the fact the test can be wrong and Phyllis proved that seven months after the harm would have been done if it wasn't for the SRM REMOVAL RULE.How could it "NOT" add to the safety of beef????????