• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NCBA Deserves an ATTA-BOY

A

Anonymous

Guest
This is not the same NCBA I've grown to dislike so much :shock: This was in this weeks talking points...Sounds like something R-CALF or USCA would put out-- but not NCBA...Either reality is sinking in- or Truitt forgot to get this weeks Packer briefing... :wink: :lol: :p

Senators, Cattlemen Caution USDA On Argentine Meat


Sen. John Tester (D-MT) and seven other U.S. Senators have sent a letter to USDA Secretary Ed Schafer stating their strong concerns about USDA relaxing restrictions on beef and lamb imports from Argentina. USDA has proposed a rule, “Change in Disease Status of the Patagonia South Region of Argentina With Regard to Rinderpest and Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD),” that would allow for the importation of beef and lamb from Argentina.

The Senators said, “We have serious concerns about the implementation of such a plan. Questions remain about the effectiveness of animal disease controls and tracking in Argentina. Weaknesses in this system could have serious effects on the American livestock industry. FMD is among the most contagious of livestock diseases and is spread by air. As you know, FMD continues to be found in cattle in Argentina and the risk of transmission to United States herds poses an unacceptable risk to U.S. producers. The USDA will be unable to ensure that the disease will not enter FMD-free regions of Argentina and beyond.”

Senators joining Tester include Senators John Bassaro (R-WY), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Byron Dorgan (D-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

Meanwhile, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) in comments said, “The risk to U.S. ag and to our cattle producers of introducing FMD into our country is too great and the economic and animal health consequences are far too significant to prematurely allow a change in the disease status of Patagonia South as it relates to FMD and rinderpest at this time. USDA should keep in mind that their actions must protect the health of the U.S. cattle herd, as well as protect the economic livelihood of U.S. cattlemen and other affected livestock species as trade is resumed with all international partners.” NCBA is also concerned why the administration is trying to increase beef imports while U.S. beef exports are still banned in other countries.

Jay Truitt, NCBA vice president of government affairs, said, “Clearly USDA has its priorities mixed up. It’s unconscionable for USDA to work to expand access for any other beef into our country when they have yet to fulfill their responsibilities regarding the reopening of export markets for U.S. beef and breeding stock. Science is always the primary concern for making these types of decisions but you just cannot ignore the financial impacts of these types of decisions – especially when costs of production are skyrocketing largely based on government policies. We need relief and we need results that mean beef and cattle sales to previously strong markets.”
-- P. Scott Shearer, Washington, D.C. correspondent
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
QUESTION said:
So is the NCBA lying again? :p :oops: :p :oops: :p :oops: :lol2:

Is this are you smarter than a 4th grader? Wow, you are so stupid sounding that I don't think you are ready for kindergarten.

Old Q-Ball is about the only Canuck dumb enough to not realize that if product from FMD countries is allowed into the US it will be on fast track to go into Canada too....Q-Ball you forget about that NAFTA you like so well... :???:
 

mrj

Well-known member
OT, guess you missed the comments QUITE some time ago re. the comment letter from NCBA posted when this issue first surfaced.

Fact is, this is the typical NCBA stand on REAL issues which may be detrimental to the US cattle producer.

Apparently it is hard for you to see such facts when you are only searching for things to hate re. NCBA.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
Fact is, this is the typical NCBA stand on REAL issues which may be detrimental to the US cattle producer.

Apparently it is hard for you to see such facts when you are only searching for things to hate re. NCBA.

mrj

Wrong-- Its just so far and few between that NCBA takes a pro-cattleman stand that it is shocking when it occurs...

You should see the comments on the cattleadvantage site where I picked this off from-- those boys are almost in tachacardial shock from NCBA actually taking a stand that didn't support the big corporate multinational Packer interests over the cattle producers or questions USDA's policy undertaking.... :wink: :lol:

I'll have to wait awhile to see if NCBA is actually seeing reality and is changing their pattern or if this is a fluke...
Just because a rattlesnake sheds it skin once every year doesn't make it any nicer to be around- or any less dangerous......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
OT, guess you missed the comments QUITE some time ago re. the comment letter from NCBA posted when this issue first surfaced.

Fact is, this is the typical NCBA stand on REAL issues which may be detrimental to the US cattle producer.

Apparently it is hard for you to see such facts when you are only searching for things to hate re. NCBA.

mrj

The typical stand? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your NCBA supported blocking BSE testing when their very own Greg Dowd claimed it cost US cattle producers over $100/head! How in the world is losing $100/head NOT detrimental to US producers?

In order to make that comment, you have to ignore not only NCBA's stand on private BSE testing, but also COOL, packer ownership of cattle, mandatory reporting, open-ended contracts, the judicial re-writing of PSA, packer concentration, lying about the farm bill, etc...... :roll:
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
As for my question and dig at OT , obviously you guys missed out on a funny thing that happend on the board the NCBA atta-boy line was at the top of the colum posted by OT and right below it was the NCBA lies!!!!!! posted by OT . It really looked idiotic one post supporting the NCBA the next calling them liars. I guess you just had to see it, :lol2: i couldn't help myself giving OT a dig.
OT in reality they have FMD and Rinderpest and the US doesn't they can be kept out for health concerns legitimately. I have no problem with that. Maybe check with me before telling others what i think :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You think OT was SUPPORTING NCBA? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The guy is spending all day in church. He's certain NCBA being on the producer side of an issue that is against globalist packers is a sure sign the second coming is upon us.

I'm trying to find out what the temperature in hell is today....
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker, as per usual, you let your own biases overtake common sense.........if you have any!

FACT: there are multitudes of cattle producer members WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS, therefore, do not believe your version of COOL is beneficial, DO BELIEVE that denying ANYONE, including packers, ownership of cattle is dangerous to our freedom, as well as potentially damaging to our CHOICES IN MARKETING OUR CATTLE...........and on and on.

Did Gregg Doud really say that not allowing Creekstone to test for BSE is THE ONLY reason for "losing $100.00 per head" as you so often imply? And has that "loss" changed any with the increased exports of US cattle? You may well be behind the times, but that is nothing new, either.

mrj
 

Cinch

Well-known member
Sandhusker, can a bank own cattle? Only for a brief time during foreclosure, right?

How does the prohibition of a bank buying cattle inhibit marketing choices for producers?

Also, consider the scenario where banks could own cattle, wouldn't it be awfully tempting to "purchase" them through foreclosure instead of through regular market activity. What a bargain! What damage to the market! Prohibiting banks from owning cattle makes sense doesn't it? Does that prohibition threaten our freedom? How long has it been against the law for banks to own cattle?

I read somewhere recently that integrity trumps freedom. Isn't this about integrity?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Cinch, "Sandhusker, can a bank own cattle? Only for a brief time during foreclosure, right? "

No. Even in foreclosure, the bank never owns the cattle. However, I don't know of any law that says they can't or of any scenario in which a bank would want to.
 

Cinch

Well-known member
No. Even in foreclosure, the bank never owns the cattle. However, I don't know of any law that says they can't or of any scenario in which a bank would want to.

It has been a practice since the Medici's in Italy in the 1500's that banks cannot own businesses. Conflict of interest. Wow! our freedom has been limited longer than this country has been around. Slippery slope to socialism? I don't think so.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Cinch said:
No. Even in foreclosure, the bank never owns the cattle. However, I don't know of any law that says they can't or of any scenario in which a bank would want to.

It has been a practice since the Medici's in Italy in the 1500's that banks cannot own businesses. Conflict of interest. Wow! our freedom has been limited longer than this country has been around. Slippery slope to socialism? I don't think so.

What's the difference between owning a herd of cows and a building or a bond?
 

Cinch

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Cinch said:
No. Even in foreclosure, the bank never owns the cattle. However, I don't know of any law that says they can't or of any scenario in which a bank would want to.

It has been a practice since the Medici's in Italy in the 1500's that banks cannot own businesses. Conflict of interest. Wow! our freedom has been limited longer than this country has been around. Slippery slope to socialism? I don't think so.

What's the difference between owning a herd of cows and a building or a bond?

Pure investment vs operating a business. I think the banking regulators have the details well worked out. At any rate, due to conflict of interest there are many limitations on what banks cannot and cannot own. They are not free to do as they please.
So limiting packers would NOT set any kind of dangerous precedent.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
If you take a look at the financial markets, there are a lot of rules on who can own what and how much, disclosures before making a trade, disclosures on holdings, etc.... and these rules were made in the interest of maintaining fair markets - and they work.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
If we were free to do as we please, God would not have given us the Ten Commandments.

I don't think the financial markets are a good example to go by. I think (and I realize my opinion is ignorant) that the financial and commodity markets are out of control.

How much of the run up in oil prices is based on actual conditions(fundamentals) as opposed to purely speculator driven?

The same for grains...how much of these prices are based on today's supplies vs. the speculation of problems in the coming growing season?

Is a company's stock based on the company's worth or what speculators believe?

Speculators make money on volatility of the market and being on the right side of that volatility at the right time...does their actions reflect the real world?

As I said, I'm more ignorant than knowledgeable on the markets...so someone please explain it to me!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
If we were free to do as we please, God would not have given us the Ten Commandments.

I don't think the financial markets are a good example to go by. I think (and I realize my opinion is ignorant) that the financial and commodity markets are out of control.

How much of the run up in oil prices is based on actual conditions(fundamentals) as opposed to purely speculator driven?

The same for grains...how much of these prices are based on today's supplies vs. the speculation of problems in the coming growing season?

Is a company's stock based on the company's worth or what speculators believe?

Speculators make money on volatility of the market and being on the right side of that volatility at the right time...does their actions reflect the real world?

As I said, I'm more ignorant than knowledgeable on the markets...so someone please explain it to me!

Anything's value is only what you can get for it. My point is to look at the New York Stock Exchange; The NYSE is very concerned about transparancy and fairness. They realize how market power can be gained by size and how that power can be used against others. They don't want that in their markets, they want a fair shake for everybody. Thus, they have a number of rules that are based on who you are, how big you are, etc..., and those rules work! The NYSE is a model of fairness. Anybody can buy 1 share of stock and be assured that all is being done that can to make sure the guy that has a million shares can't hose that little guy over just with that size.

This is what some people are trying to do in the cattle markets. The money should be made and lost on business savy, not just because you used your weight to lean on people, like it is now. The markets should move on supply and demand, not because one entity has inside information and the market power to use that inside information.
 
Top