Looks like somebody wants Mexican cattle.

[Big Muddy rancher]

Superior Stampede & Mexico's Largest Cattle Union Join Forces

(Visalia, Calif.) – Superior Stampede, a division of Superior Livestock Auction, recently entered into a joint venture with the Union Ganadera Regional De Chihuahua (UGRCH), the cattlemen's union for the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. Under terms of the agreement, UGRCH will act as the "exclusive representative" for all cattle sold by Superior Stampede that enter the U.S. through Chihuahua ports of entry. The agreement will provide U.S. buyers with a consistent supply and improved delivery of Chihuahua cattle while improving online market accessibility for Chihuahua producers.

The state of Chihuahua is the largest cattle exporter to the U.S. in Mexico, averaging 400,000 head annually. According to Fernando Perez Pria, president of the Union, the partnership provides an opportunity to reach more of the U.S. market, including both small and large buyers who may not have tried Chihuahua cattle in their operations. As Superior Stampede's sole Chihuahua cattle representative, the Union will provide assurance that cattle described are the cattle received, streamlining each transaction and overcoming market obstacles that existed previously.

"Our cattle have the genetic composition and climate adaptability to meet the high beef grading expectations of American feed yards. This agreement puts us one step closer to reaching more U.S. buyers," said Perez Pria. "The Union's well developed infrastructure combined with Superior Stampede's solid enterprise and livestock marketing expertise, will ensure quality cattle and a smooth delivery for all parties involved. Three years from now and depending on market performance, this agreement could result in the sale of 120,000 to 150,000 head."

Qualified representatives from UGRCH with extensive knowledge of the cattle business, industry standards and exportation procedures will be responsible for collecting data for each transaction. This includes coordination of photos, lot descriptions, paperwork, consignment fees and other information. This information is then delivered to UGRCH's office where it is screened to ensure accuracy and feasibility of each delivery. Once the lot is approved by UGRCH, it is then reviewed and approved by Superior Stampede's U.S. representative in El Paso, Texas, Canutillo Management, Inc. (CMI). The cattle are then listed on Stampede's online auction. Once cattle are sold, UGRCH and CMI will arrange for delivery at one of three U.S. ports of entry from Chihuahua. These include Columbus and Santa Teresa in New Mexico, and Presidio, Texas.

"We are committed to using all of our resources to support UGRCH in this venture. We consider it an honor to be the marketing agency for the cattlemen of Chihuahua," said Bill Freeman, general manager of Superior Stampede. "An accurately defined product combined with a consistent and dependable delivery system will bring premiums to both buyer and the seller. With the structure and people already in place, we will make it happen."

According to Freeman, the goal is provide an exclusive "Mexican Cattle Auction" through daily online bidding and scheduled live auctions. In order to accommodate this venture, Superior Stampede has built a new, state-of-the-art Internet auction specifically for this partnership. It utilizes the latest Flash technology to allow for reliable real-time bidding and improved performance. Chihuahua cattle will be available online beginning in October.

 

[Kato]

I just got a flash of Paris Hilton trying to fit a Chihuahua cow into her purse.

 

[PORKER]

In a letter to Schafer earlier this month, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) raised the same concern that processors might choose the "cheapest and easiest option" giving consumers "the impression that there is no domestically born, raised and slaughtered livestock."

In the end, it may be consumers who dictate how the new labels are used. Some packers might actually be eager to claim the 100 percent American label because they believe there will be a premium paid for it.

 

[mrj]

Let CONSUMERS decide how they want their beef labeled.......and vote with their dollars????

What will they think of next!

Do you suppose the consumers will be satisfied with just a USA label? Or will they want to know HOW you raised the animal and HOW you handled it? And what, specifically did you FEED it? Some do say that is what they want to know, along with whether or not you do the work yourself or hire someone else to do it. Be careful what you wish for......or politically instigate!!!!

mrj

 

[burnt]

Something that has been gaining significant momentum here in Ontario is the demand for beef marketed under the "Ontario Corn-fed Beef" label.

The cattle that go into this market are produced only by those who are certified by meeting the requirements of this independently audited program that meets HACCP standards.

The ironic part is that while the demand is growing fairly quickly, there is a real danger of not being able to meet it on the supply end because of the number of feeders that are not putting replacements in this fall.

In any case, this seems to be a "labeling" approach that is driven by the customer and not a silly knee-jerk reaction by a bunch of protectionists.

This is not a poorly disguised attempt to hide a questionable, domestically produced product behind a flag. It is a program that benefits the local producers who are also footing the bill to pay for it.

Do I make myself clear?

 

[RobertMac]

Something that has been gaining significant momentum here in Ontario is the demand for beef marketed under the "Ontario Corn-fed Beef" label.

Consumers want to know where their food comes from...they want to buy local...they want to buy from producers.
People come to my farm to pickup their meat...they pay me a premium for the meat...then they thank me for what I'm doing.

Do I make myself clear?

:wink:

The ones that want to buy meat at prices we can't make a living, are the ones that look for the lowest price and don't care where it comes from...Tyson, Cargill, JBS.

 

[ranch hand]

Let CONSUMERS decide how they want their beef labeled.......and vote with their dollars????

What will they think of next!

Do you suppose the consumers will be satisfied with just a USA label? Or will they want to know HOW you raised the animal and HOW you handled it? And what, specifically did you FEED it? Some do say that is what they want to know, along with whether or not you do the work yourself or hire someone else to do it. Be careful what you wish for......or politically instigate!!!!

mrj

Makes you wonder if some of our cancer started with all this world trade.
Oh well, just turn the cheek and let them slap us again.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_TAINTED_MILK_QUALITY_CONTROL?SITE=MTBIL&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

[burnt]

Let CONSUMERS decide how they want their beef labeled.......and vote with their dollars????

What will they think of next!

Do you suppose the consumers will be satisfied with just a USA label? Or will they want to know HOW you raised the animal and HOW you handled it? And what, specifically did you FEED it? Some do say that is what they want to know, along with whether or not you do the work yourself or hire someone else to do it. Be careful what you wish for......or politically instigate!!!!

mrj

Makes you wonder if some of our cancer started with all this world trade.
Oh well, just turn the cheek and let them slap us again.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_TAINTED_MILK_QUALITY_CONTROL?SITE=MTBIL&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It could be, along with other health issues.. Some countries are routinely allowed to use chemicals and drugs that others with tougher standards have banned because of health concerns.

For example, Canada has long ago discontinued the use of Carbadox as a hog feed additive, while the U.S. blithely continues to use it in their hog feeds. And then export the tainted pork products around the world, including Canada!!! Carabox residue is stored in muscle tissue and is directly linked to adrenal damage and hormonal imbalance. But sure, go ahead and keep feeding it to your hogs and consequently your kids . . . .

But the USA label should make it safe to eat, right?

 

[Sandhusker]

The USA label doesn't make it any safer per say, but if you're concerned about certain additives the US or any other country allows, it provides a quick and easy way to avoid eating product with those additives.

 

[PORKER]

David Robinson, agricultural commissioner for Merced County,CA believes the new labels will be a valuable piece of information for consumers.

But not everyone wanted the labels on produce. Robinson said some producers are worried that if the food comes from out of the country, no one will buy it. Some fruit and vegetables are brought into the country from overseas, then packed and distributed here in the United States.

"There's been a lot of discussion of this," Robinson said. "Some producers just flat didn't want it."

[Point Is]They don't want the risk of being the company that sold poisoned food. Carbadox----http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/summer01blow.html

 

[mrj]

China, having the type of govt it does, is having some trade and reliability issues which should make imports of all food and other products from that country subject to testing.

They do seem to be taking action to improve that situation........pretty harshly compared to our standards, in fact.

Porker, is pork tested, and are residues of Carbadox found in the tissue of animals that have been fed that additive? How prevalent is the use of it? What is the reason for feeding it? Is it like implants in beef....in that there is an increase of lean muscle compared with fat in the animal, as well as increased weight to sell?

ranch hand, guess you missed my point, that there are markets for beef raised under various conditions........and that the consumer will set the standards if given a chance.

It flat out costs more to raise and process the beef outside the traditional commodity beef methods in the USA. If that is what consumers want, at commodity prices, we cannot provide them with it without going broke.

COOL is an attempt to give them higher quality beef at commodity prices, harming people like RobertMac, PPRM, and the thousands of producers who sell a high quality prodct through various alliances and private label beef.

mrj

 

[PORKER]

Mrj, Every country that has tested for Carbadox has found the cancer product in pork because of the time ingested rate is slow and producers keep on using it after the 45 day limit of withdrawal. Canada ,Europe, and other countries have quit it. Its for parasite control. Are you eating Chinese powered milk products, or additivies? We Need a Strong COOL label law .Be Careful of What You Eat or DRINK !

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "They do seem to be taking action to improve that situation........pretty harshly compared to our standards, in fact. "

That's what you said before this latest big melanine in milk deal. Was there a time frame for the improvements to take place?

 

[burnt]

Why would COOL harm producers like those you mentioned? They are lightyears ahead of the commodity beef producers and have built their own market by marketing a superior product for a discerning consumer.

 

[mrj]

burnt, I believe that COOL will hurt all producers, first because it will add costs than can't won't be recouped through added real value to the beef.

COOL is a marketing ploy, rather than providing any real increase in food safety and when consumers understand that, I believe they will not be happy. Unhappy consumers won't be inclined to buy the products from people they believe have misled them.

COOL, at the least, has the potential to cause lost sales for producers who sell branded beef, because it uses the law and government regulation to make all the beef labeled as USA produced to appear to be on a par, in consumers eyes, with the privately sold or branded beef products.

That is due to the fact R-CALF, spokesmen using their name, and others promoting passage and adoption of COOL have, for years been telling consumers that US produced beef is tops in safety, class, and quality and that imported beef is "crap".

mrj

 

[RobertMac]

I believe that...

You are wrong...consumers don't trust large corporate packers to provide them a safe and healthy product to feed their families...and every recall reinforces that belief. COOL is a step in the right direction...multi-country labeling of meat cuts will not help corporate packers in the eyes of consumers who can afford to pay premium beef prices at a level we can earn a living.

Had a interesting conversation yesterday with two inspectors doing the required annual inspection of my operation.

First, they said USDA and the large packers were using E.coli testing regulations to force small processors out of the business of processing labeled beef...beef that is able to be resold at retail. In other words, eliminating my ability to compete with them in a retail store.

Second, they said over 90% of E.coli detections can be traced back to food handlers...as in the people handling the beef on the kill floor. (One of the inspectors had recently worked at a large volume processing plant on their kill floor.) These are the people that we have turned over the safety and reputation of our product. In light of the recent ICE raids, many, if not most, of these people are illegal aliens...hired because they can be paid minimum wages and abused in the work place because these large packers know they can't complain to anyone. This is another large advantage for the large packers over the small packers in reduced labor cost per pound of product.

You see, small plants aren't going out of business because they can't complete...they are being forced out because the same regulations(and the cost of those regulations) that apply to a plant killing 6000 head/day is applied to a plant killing 6 head/day. Both inspectors said that meat coming out of the small plants is far safer than the meat coming out of the large plants and there needs to be two sets of regulations.

If producers ever expect to maintain a livable income, these small plants must be saved and more producers have to use these plants to sell directly to consumers or sell through branded programs that link producers to consumers. Consumers want to buy from producers. NCBA, R-CALF and USCA are all letting the producers down by not taking up this fight. Like Ben says, in a short time, we will have only a beef cartel to sell live cattle and they will pay you what they damn well please.

 

[mrj]

RobertMac, do you honestly believe individual ranchers and small packing plants can 'slow process' enough beef to serve the needs of the US population, let alone the number of consumers worldwide that we now serve???

BTW, you sound as though you had never before heard the premise that food handlers might be the source of e coli spread to beef!!!!!

I've certainly stated many times on this site that the possibility should be investigated....and I've stated that when NCBA or CBB people tried to get it done.....the unions went ballistic.....and it wasn't done.

How much more do you think the majority of consumers are willing to pay for the 'slowly processed' beef? Will it be enough to pay the unskilled, uneducated, lowest paid workers a "living wage" (whatever that truly is!) AND pay the producers a "living wage" for their time, above their costs? And pay all the 'regulators' for 'equal' regulation of all packing plants, no matter how small?

Please share your plan with us. You may also need to figure out how to make it 'equal' for those of us in arid/frigid regions to raise cattle when some of you live in wonderfully green/moderate climates.

Not that I'm interested in trading places with anyone living in more populous places!!! Just think we need to be careful when wishing for "equality" in all things.

mrj

 

[Ben Roberts]

RobertMac, do you honestly believe individual ranchers and small packing plants can 'slow process' enough beef to serve the needs of the US population, let alone the number of consumers worldwide that we now serve???
mrj

I'm not RobertMac, but would like to respond to your question Maxine.

The answer to your question is NO individual ranchers can't "slow process" enough cattle to serve the needs of the US population!

I do believe though, that a producer organization, could!

 

[Ben H]

Let CONSUMERS decide how they want their beef labeled.......and vote with their dollars????

What will they think of next!

Do you suppose the consumers will be satisfied with just a USA label? Or will they want to know HOW you raised the animal and HOW you handled it? And what, specifically did you FEED it? Some do say that is what they want to know, along with whether or not you do the work yourself or hire someone else to do it. Be careful what you wish for......or politically instigate!!!!

mrj

In the debate between author Michael Polland and John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, Makcey mentioned how Whole Foods would like to come up with a 5 star rating system for their meat, looking at things like Grass Fed, Organic, Certified Humane, Naturaly Raised etc. He admitted that what they sell now would probably be about 3 stars. The local model that seems to be working for some is to have the animals killed at a USDA plant, then cut up the carcass themselves at the farm store, no different then all the mom and pop meat shops. Some of these mobile abbatoirs have been doing well, Joel Huesby in Wala Wala, WA got his built and is USDA inspected. He can kill 30 beeves in a day, on the farm, under USDA inspection. The inspectors have said they like what they see much better then the big plants. For one, each carcass gets more attention.

 

[RobertMac]

RobertMac, do you honestly believe individual ranchers and small packing plants can 'slow process' enough beef to serve the needs of the US population, let alone the number of consumers worldwide that we now serve???

Where did I say or imply that?????
The fact is that a capitalistic system works best with maximum diversity in the market. I wasn't dragging this information out of these inspectors...they were telling me that these large processors were using 'one size fits all' regulations to eliminate their competition. They are on the front line...they see it everyday. The government should be the watch dog to prevent this assault on small business, but the USDA is complaisant in their (non)action.

BTW, you sound as though you had never before heard the premise that food handlers might be the source of e coli spread to beef!!!!!

Your implication has always been that it was the mother in the kitchen or hamburger flipper in McDonald's that was the source of H157 contamination. These inspector said it was the "food handler" on the kill floor letting meat get contaminated with feces. Anyone with half a brain can see the potential for contamination is greatest on the kill floor.

I've certainly stated many times on this site that the possibility should be investigated....and I've stated that when NCBA or CBB people tried to get it done.....the unions went ballistic.....and it wasn't done.

I agree that workers should be tested, but that still ignores the most likely point of contamination...feces getting on the meat on the kill floor!!!!

How much more do you think the majority of consumers are willing to pay for the 'slowly processed' beef? Will it be enough to pay the unskilled, uneducated, lowest paid workers a "living wage" (whatever that truly is!) AND pay the producers a "living wage" for their time, above their costs? And pay all the 'regulators' for 'equal' regulation of all packing plants, no matter how small?

That's a tough choice...pay less and take a chance on getting sick or pay more for a safe product????? But, that is where diversity in the market comes into play...without anyone there to offer the consumer a choice, safety becomes a moot point. Tell me...how many consumers getting sick...how many recalls is acceptable as a cost of providing a cheap product???

Please share your plan with us. You may also need to figure out how to make it 'equal' for those of us in arid/frigid regions to raise cattle when some of you live in wonderfully green/moderate climates.

My plan is simple...make beef a safe product for the consumer! These inspectors said H157 is a large processing plant problem...that's where the H157 problem has to be solved.

Not that I'm interested in trading places with anyone living in more populous places!!! Just think we need to be careful when wishing for "equality" in all things.

Could you please show me a quote where I have advocated doing away with the large processors???? You can't because I never have...but you are more than willing to let them eliminate my ability to enter into the market place and compete with them. Competition is why it is important to have small and medium processors. Competition is what makes our capitalistic system work! Without them, producers have no alternative market for their cattle and will have to take what ever price the packers are willing to pay. You talk about equality...these global packers want to put ALL cattle producers "equal" in the cattle market. Can you live and run your business on $.40/cwt?????

mrj