Mike
Well-known member
agman said:
I think I would have to call their bluff then. Test a load and see. Otherwise,
no one will ever know. Not even you.
I think I would have to call their bluff then. Test a load and see. Otherwise,
no one will ever know. Not even you.
agman
Well-known member
[ You packer-backers seem blind to the fact that WE'RE NOT SELLING JAPAN ANY $ ^$%$ BEEF AND HAVEN'T BEEN FOR QUITE A WHILE. Is there more money in selling beef or winning the international science fair?[/quote
You missed the point again Sandhusker...I can assure you that I am more certain of the cost of lost exports than you. However, this one time cost, by holding to sound science instead of politicts, will save the industry a multiple of the current cost of lost exports. Who wants to be held hostage everytime there is a similar occurrence in the future and for what political reason? That has been and remains the REAL issue. As I previously stated, we have NEVER received any "official" assurance that if we test all meat they would accept the product.[/quote]
I think I would have to call their bluff then. Test a load and see. Otherwise, no one will ever know. Not even you.[/quote]
Who would be calling whose bluff - testing when you would know the test would be incapable of detecting the BSE prion under 20 months of age. Maybe you do things that make no sense but most legitimate business people will not succumb to that type of irrational behavior.
You missed the point again Sandhusker...I can assure you that I am more certain of the cost of lost exports than you. However, this one time cost, by holding to sound science instead of politicts, will save the industry a multiple of the current cost of lost exports. Who wants to be held hostage everytime there is a similar occurrence in the future and for what political reason? That has been and remains the REAL issue. As I previously stated, we have NEVER received any "official" assurance that if we test all meat they would accept the product.[/quote]
I think I would have to call their bluff then. Test a load and see. Otherwise, no one will ever know. Not even you.[/quote]
Who would be calling whose bluff - testing when you would know the test would be incapable of detecting the BSE prion under 20 months of age. Maybe you do things that make no sense but most legitimate business people will not succumb to that type of irrational behavior.
A
Anonymous
Guest
agman said:
I think I would have to call their bluff then. Test a load and see. Otherwise, no one will ever know. Not even you.[/quote]
Who would be calling whose bluff - testing when you would know the test would be incapable of detecting the BSE prion under 20 months of age. Maybe you do things that make no sense but most legitimate business people will not succumb to that type of irrational behavior.[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------
If the cattle buyer told me he'd give me $15 head more for every calf with green ears, I wouldn't be able to get the paint can out fast enough!! :wink:
Oldtimer said:
Who would be calling whose bluff - testing when you would know the test would be incapable of detecting the BSE prion under 20 months of age. Maybe you do things that make no sense but most legitimate business people will not succumb to that type of irrational behavior.[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------
If the cattle buyer told me he'd give me $15 head more for every calf with green ears, I wouldn't be able to get the paint can out fast enough!! :wink:[/quote]
I hate to say it but the old guy's got it right this time. If the test is a marketing tool, we've all spent more money to market our beef. From where I stand a $30 test to raise the price of a cow from $200 to $700 or more seems like a good enough marketing tool. And if it didn't work, well, at this point another $30 ain't gonna change much.
I say if the customer wants it, the customer is right.
Kato
Well-known member
"Who wants to be held hostage everytime there is a similar occurrence in the future and for what political reason?"
But isn't that what's happening now??? :???:
I think anyone can be held hostage at any time if an importing country decides it wants to shut the doors. If it's not one reason, it's another.
I remember a few years ago when South Dakota decided it wouldn't allow Canadian livestock to be hauled through the state. I know people who had loads of 20 day old old piglets that were forced to drive hundreds of extra miles to go around the state in order to get to Iowa and Nebraska. These extra miles added some serious stress to the pigs. I don't even remember why they forced it, but it was something that didn't hold up to scrutiny. I think they may have used drugs that aren't used in the States or something like that as an excuse, but I'm not sure.
The thoughts in Canada are that after two years of stalling, how can allowing testing hurt us more that we've been hurt already? We really don't have much to lose now. Our Agriculture Minister has already given notice to Parliament that it is not out of the question any more to allow testing for export.
But isn't that what's happening now??? :???:
I think anyone can be held hostage at any time if an importing country decides it wants to shut the doors. If it's not one reason, it's another.
I remember a few years ago when South Dakota decided it wouldn't allow Canadian livestock to be hauled through the state. I know people who had loads of 20 day old old piglets that were forced to drive hundreds of extra miles to go around the state in order to get to Iowa and Nebraska. These extra miles added some serious stress to the pigs. I don't even remember why they forced it, but it was something that didn't hold up to scrutiny. I think they may have used drugs that aren't used in the States or something like that as an excuse, but I'm not sure.
The thoughts in Canada are that after two years of stalling, how can allowing testing hurt us more that we've been hurt already? We really don't have much to lose now. Our Agriculture Minister has already given notice to Parliament that it is not out of the question any more to allow testing for export.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Kato, "I think anyone can be held hostage at any time if an importing country decides it wants to shut the doors. If it's not one reason, it's another. "
Amen, Kato. The rules of international trade is like a pact between theives. Anybody will hose anybody if the price is right and there is no true enforcing the rules. The WTO is made of paper.
Agman thinks it would be terrible to "be held hostage". I don't see how spending $10 to get $175 is such a hardship.
Amen, Kato. The rules of international trade is like a pact between theives. Anybody will hose anybody if the price is right and there is no true enforcing the rules. The WTO is made of paper.
Agman thinks it would be terrible to "be held hostage". I don't see how spending $10 to get $175 is such a hardship.
April 18, 2005
Rumors spread through the beef industry last week that R-CALF USA was considering a class action lawsuit against USDA for denying producers overseas sales by not allowing voluntary testing for BSE. USDA denied the first request for 100 percent BSE testing made by Creekstone Farms approximately one year ago, saying testing all ages of cattle is not scientifically warranted.
R-CALF communications director, Shae Dodson confirmed that there has been some discussion of a lawsuit. She said, however, it is just an option, and the R-CALF board of directors has not met or made any decisions on the topic. Dodson noted that the board meets once a month and the topic of this lawsuit is not currently on the agenda.
R-CALF's theory is this action by USDA is wrongly depriving ranchers and smaller processors of access to foreign markets, such as Japan, whom have said they would import U.S. beef if 100 percent of the carcasses were tested for BSE.
"We believe that voluntary testing would not only be beneficial to the U.S. ranchers, but also to the packing industry, whether the packers are big or small," said Dodson. "And, we do remain concerned that USDA is preventing U.S. packers from meeting Japan's product demand. So, we are looking at options that might allow voluntary testing."
Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of R-CALF USA, said U.S. producers would have been able to maintain their share of the Japanese market if USDA had allowed the testing. Instead, the closed border has been reported to cost the U.S. beef industry billions of dollars in lost revenue.
Dodson noted that some larger packers object to 100 percent BSE testing because of the cost, but, from R-CALF's position, cost is not a factor. Dodson explained, "We figure that if you calculate the cost of the BSE test at $20 per head, and then you're given the opportunity to export $150 worth of product, you're still going to profit $130. So, we still don't understand why voluntary testing was not allowed."
If R-CALF decides it is necessary to proceed with a lawsuit, they might ask smaller packers to join as plaintiffs. Creekstone Farms had said it would consider legal actions when USDA rejected its licensing request to test all carcasses. However, no action was taken and Creekstone Farms has since sold. — Sarah L. Swenson, WLJ Associate Editor
Rumors spread through the beef industry last week that R-CALF USA was considering a class action lawsuit against USDA for denying producers overseas sales by not allowing voluntary testing for BSE. USDA denied the first request for 100 percent BSE testing made by Creekstone Farms approximately one year ago, saying testing all ages of cattle is not scientifically warranted.
R-CALF communications director, Shae Dodson confirmed that there has been some discussion of a lawsuit. She said, however, it is just an option, and the R-CALF board of directors has not met or made any decisions on the topic. Dodson noted that the board meets once a month and the topic of this lawsuit is not currently on the agenda.
R-CALF's theory is this action by USDA is wrongly depriving ranchers and smaller processors of access to foreign markets, such as Japan, whom have said they would import U.S. beef if 100 percent of the carcasses were tested for BSE.
"We believe that voluntary testing would not only be beneficial to the U.S. ranchers, but also to the packing industry, whether the packers are big or small," said Dodson. "And, we do remain concerned that USDA is preventing U.S. packers from meeting Japan's product demand. So, we are looking at options that might allow voluntary testing."
Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of R-CALF USA, said U.S. producers would have been able to maintain their share of the Japanese market if USDA had allowed the testing. Instead, the closed border has been reported to cost the U.S. beef industry billions of dollars in lost revenue.
Dodson noted that some larger packers object to 100 percent BSE testing because of the cost, but, from R-CALF's position, cost is not a factor. Dodson explained, "We figure that if you calculate the cost of the BSE test at $20 per head, and then you're given the opportunity to export $150 worth of product, you're still going to profit $130. So, we still don't understand why voluntary testing was not allowed."
If R-CALF decides it is necessary to proceed with a lawsuit, they might ask smaller packers to join as plaintiffs. Creekstone Farms had said it would consider legal actions when USDA rejected its licensing request to test all carcasses. However, no action was taken and Creekstone Farms has since sold. — Sarah L. Swenson, WLJ Associate Editor
cowsense
Well-known member
And here all along I thought that R-calf only represented the cow-calf producer and had nothing to do with the "beef" industry. :???:
I wonder why packers, making all the profits they are, do not support testing?
If shipping beef to Japan was so profitable, wouldn't they want to spend $30?
Who sells the meat overseas anyways. If a company tested and then made a profit, would R-calf then bench about the profit made by multinationals?
Trade, but not equal trade, something does not make sense to me? Is making money on trade good or bad, I'd like an answer from R-calf or their members!
"
Since when did R-CALF worry about what would be good for the packers? They don't seem to care if they pack up and move out of the US as long as the border stays closed to Canadian live cattle. The prolonged Canadian border closure thanks to R-CALF has caused the lost of 5000 packing plant jobs now how many more are going to go down because they don't have access to a steady supply of cattle.
If there was so much money to be made then the Packers would likely do it but while the TEST KIT cost is $20 what would the delay time cost them. In Canada where the slaughter capacity isn't as high they say it would cause a 25% reduction in capacity waiting for the test to clear. What would that cost some of these big packing plants. And what is the $150 worth of product. Some seem to think if the animal is tested you wouldn't have to dispose of the SRM's but that is not true according to the OIE. According to them the SRM removal is the single most important thing you can do to protect the consumer health, as the test could be wrong.
What is R-CALF going to do if the packers can't recoop the test cost from the consumers and starts paying less for the cattle. Consumers aren't going to pay much more for beef when they can get their protein needs elsewhere.
Since when did R-CALF worry about what would be good for the packers? They don't seem to care if they pack up and move out of the US as long as the border stays closed to Canadian live cattle. The prolonged Canadian border closure thanks to R-CALF has caused the lost of 5000 packing plant jobs now how many more are going to go down because they don't have access to a steady supply of cattle.
If there was so much money to be made then the Packers would likely do it but while the TEST KIT cost is $20 what would the delay time cost them. In Canada where the slaughter capacity isn't as high they say it would cause a 25% reduction in capacity waiting for the test to clear. What would that cost some of these big packing plants. And what is the $150 worth of product. Some seem to think if the animal is tested you wouldn't have to dispose of the SRM's but that is not true according to the OIE. According to them the SRM removal is the single most important thing you can do to protect the consumer health, as the test could be wrong.
What is R-CALF going to do if the packers can't recoop the test cost from the consumers and starts paying less for the cattle. Consumers aren't going to pay much more for beef when they can get their protein needs elsewhere.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Tam, "If there was so much money to be made then the Packers would likely do it but while the TEST KIT cost is $20 what would the delay time cost them."
Creekstone pushed the pencil and figured they could make a buck catering to the Japanese...... In case you haven't figured it out, the big packers are fighting anything that disrupts their vision of keeping beef simple, generic, and a minimum of frills. They want consumers world-wide to take what is given them without making any demands. If Cargill and Tyson don't want to mess with testing, fine, they don't have to. For them to throw their weight against Creekstone and the others is pure BS. What really gets my goat is that the USDA is doing their bidding. That is simply unacceptable.
Tam, "What is R-CALF going to do if the packers can't recoop the test cost from the consumers and starts paying less for the cattle. Consumers aren't going to pay much more for beef when they can get their protein needs elsewhere."
First of all, the Japanese told Creekstone they would pay for the tests. Secondly, R-CALF (and anybody that gives more than lip service to free enterprise) are only asking that packers be allowed to test - not mandating it. If a consumer doesn't want to pay the extra for tested beef, they don't have to. If a packer can't make any money testing, they don't have to.
Creekstone pushed the pencil and figured they could make a buck catering to the Japanese...... In case you haven't figured it out, the big packers are fighting anything that disrupts their vision of keeping beef simple, generic, and a minimum of frills. They want consumers world-wide to take what is given them without making any demands. If Cargill and Tyson don't want to mess with testing, fine, they don't have to. For them to throw their weight against Creekstone and the others is pure BS. What really gets my goat is that the USDA is doing their bidding. That is simply unacceptable.
Tam, "What is R-CALF going to do if the packers can't recoop the test cost from the consumers and starts paying less for the cattle. Consumers aren't going to pay much more for beef when they can get their protein needs elsewhere."
First of all, the Japanese told Creekstone they would pay for the tests. Secondly, R-CALF (and anybody that gives more than lip service to free enterprise) are only asking that packers be allowed to test - not mandating it. If a consumer doesn't want to pay the extra for tested beef, they don't have to. If a packer can't make any money testing, they don't have to.
Sandhusker said:
I remember that Japan agree to pay for the test and it would only result in a slight decrease in what they would pay for the meat from Creekstone, I think were the words that were used. Which means Cheekstone would have paid which means the producer that sold his cattle to Creekstone would have paid.
I can not believe you of all people typed this Sandhusker You want to force MCOOL on the Packers but they say it is not worth it to them to put the labels on.
Do you mean like R-CALF is fighting M "ID" don't burden the US rancher to prove where their beef comes from.
R-CALF wants the packers to label but they don't want any demands put on the US ranchers to prove where their beef comes from to back up those labels.
SASH
Well-known member
Even though the tests may only cost $20, I'm pretty sure the limiting factor is the time that meat needs to be kept in storage in order for those tests to come back. I think that and the costs associated with it is the big issue.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SASH said:
Is that any reason to outlaw testing? If a company thinks it would be too cost prohibitive, they don't have to do it.
SASH
Well-known member
I'll tell you that the cost has to be borne by somebody ad it definitely won't be the packer and it probably won't be the consumer either.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Tam said:
Tam said:
That is funny Sandhusker because it was posted right here on Ranchers.net. back when the USDA first said no to Creekstone.[/quote
What you read was some one's opinion of a poster here that said Japan would lower their price to cover the cost. I have never read it either besides here from a poster's view point.