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

New Creekstone Proposal

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Creekstone in Japan


BY RICHARD SMITH


TOKYO -- Arkansas City's Creekstone Farms is very committed to exporting its beef to Japan, but others in the U.S. beef industry are setting their sights on another Asian country.

"Many of our competitors think they should export to South Korea," CEO John Stewart said at a meeting of Japan's main opposition party's BSE Strategy Headquarters this afternoon.

Stewart told assembled Diet (Japanese parliament) members of the Democratic Party of Japan, Japanese and foreign press that South Korea is expected to lifts its ban on U.S. meat within 45 days.

The U.S. will then be able to export beef up to 30 months old to that country, as long as it is deboned. Such meat is considered safe from BSE according to international standards. But Japan limited imports from the U.S. to beef of 20 months and younger.

Stewart emphasized the average age of cattle in the U.S. is 24 months.

"Finding beef 20 months old and younger is difficult and costly," he said.

After lifting a two-year ban on U.S. beef because of BSE on Dec. 12, Japan closed its doors again Jan. 20 when banned parts under export to Japan rules were found in a shipment of veal from a small company in Brooklyn, N. Y.

Stewart said U.S. beef exporters have to be careful with Japan because they can make a big investment in the country and could risk seeing everything stop in one day.

"We are bothered by the fact that if one tiny company makes a silly mistake, then every body loses," he said.

Part of the problem stems from a policy of blanket approval of beef from all plants in the U.S. at one time, said Stewart. Such a policy overlooks the varying degrees of capabilities within the industry, he added.

"If every U.S. beef plant were like Creekstone, I would not be with you today," Stewart said.

Instead of a blanket approval, Stewart proposed Japan adopt a "plant-by-plant" approval system.

Highlights of such a system would be:

* Japan would identify U.S. companies that want to export beef to Japan

* Those companies would be required to follow every Japanese exporting regulation

* Companies not adhering to the rules would be forbidden from exporting to Japan

* If there is any problem in a processing plant, that plant would be removed from the exportation list

"The system would raise the bar for the whole industry in the United States," Stewart said.

Within the last month, Creekstone farms received visits by two Diet fact-finding teams; one from the DPJ and the other from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

Stewart, accompanied by Creekstone international and Ethnic Sales Vice President Rich Swearingen, planned his trip here two months ago upon resumption of trade.

Maintaining his position on the plan despite the renewed ban, he accepted the BSESH's invitation to talk.

The executives also visited their Japanese customers.

"Our customers are very supportive. They want the market to reopen," Stewart said.

So does the LDP, the DPJ and the ministry of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, Stewart concluded from talks he had.

"But there are procedures," he said.

Above: Creekstone Farms CEO John Stewart, second from left, speaks to the Diet, or Japanese parliament, members of the Democratic Party of Japan on that nation's beef industry and the U.S.'s attempts to reopen the market.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
Companies not adhering to the rules would be forbidden from exporting to Japan .

If there is any problem in a processing plant, that plant would be removed from the exportation list .

SOUNDS FAIR to me!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
This whole thing burns my rear like nothing else. Shall we compare what we were told by the trinity of the USDA/NCBA/AMI with common sense?

Snowjob - "Testing is not based on sound science"

Reality - Neither is organic, natural, Kosher, Halal, etc.... but they have all been allowed for years. The precident has already been set.

Snowjob - "If US consumers find out we're supplying tested beef to Japan, we'll have to supply it to them."

Reality - To say consumers would demand tested beef because we were supplying it to Japan but not demand beef from animals under 20 months for the same reasons makes absolutely no sense.

Snowjob - "Allowing testing makes implications we don't want on our national herd"

Reality - We certainly don't want to imply to the rest of the world that we would be making every effort to uncover and eradicate BSE, now would we?

Snowjob - "Testing is expensive"

Reality - Creekstone says it would cost around $20 and the Japanese were willing to pay the cost.

Followup Snowjob - "To pay the costs of testing, they would only lower the prices paid for cattle"

Reality - That is speculation. Even if it were so, using NCBA's figures of a loss of $175/head, producers would still come out $155 ahead. We've already lost how many billion? That would of sure paid for a lot of tests.

Snowjob - "Testing is unnecessary"

Reality - Unnecessary for what? We're trying to sell beef, not win a science fair.

Snowjob - "US consumers may demand tested beef, which would be very costly to the industry."

Reality - Consumers pay more for organic, CAB, etc.... If they wanted BSE tested beef, they would pay the added costs for it.

Snowjob - "If we allow one company to test, everybody will have to do it"

Reality - Nobody is asking that testing be mandatory. Nobody has to do anything.

Does anybody have any more to share?

The USDA has negotiated a system that we couldn't even run for a couple of weeks. Fielding says 20 month old cattle are hard to find and expensive. Testing would not of been cheaper, easier, and faster?
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
517
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
In Alberta, the Government stated that it would cost $300.00 per head to test. We said that our test would cost US$15.00 per head. They refused to accept that price!! They later said that it would cost around CAN$200.00 per head to test. We said that we could do it for CAN$15.00 or perhaps less. They refused to listen. The Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein said that it would take millions of meals full of a contaminated BSE brains in order for a human to contract BSE (vCJD) We said that was not only a dangerous but a stupid statement and that only a few grains of infected brain matter would be sufficient to bring about the onset of vCJD. They refused to listen.

We offered to provide the Government of Alberta and the Federal Labs in Winnipeg, the home of the CFIA, 1000 free tests to let them prove to themselves that the test works - they were not interested!

So, we said - screw you guys, we are going to do this ourselves and let the world decide how best to use the test when it is not only validated but is proven by the EFSA and the OIE and is shown to be worthy of use by all. When they come running to our door, we will then decide if we will answer the door or simply follow their pattern and say, "sorry, not interested, as we are going to allow our test to be used by private enterprise only." It will be an interesting development, but I think by that time, the government, upon seeing it validated and approved, will change their tune and come around!!! But then, who knows for sure? That is why one of our first stops will be Tokyo and then London and then the New York Times, USA Today, The Chicago Sun Times, hell, even Oprah, and just about every Beef and Cattle Paper in the entire North American Continent. once approved, we will shake some cages I think.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
bse-tester said:
In Alberta, the Government stated that it would cost $300.00 per head to test. We said that our test would cost US$15.00 per head. They refused to accept that price!! They later said that it would cost around CAN$200.00 per head to test. We said that we could do it for CAN$15.00 or perhaps less. They refused to listen. The Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein said that it would take millions of meals full of a contaminated BSE brains in order for a human to contract BSE (vCJD) We said that was not only a dangerous but a stupid statement and that only a few grains of infected brain matter would be sufficient to bring about the onset of vCJD. They refused to listen.

We offered to provide the Government of Alberta and the Federal Labs in Winnipeg, the home of the CFIA, 1000 free tests to let them prove to themselves that the test works - they were not interested!

So, we said - screw you guys, we are going to do this ourselves and let the world decide how best to use the test when it is not only validated but is proven by the EFSA and the OIE and is shown to be worthy of use by all. When they come running to our door, we will then decide if we will answer the door or simply follow their pattern and say, "sorry, not interested, as we are going to allow our test to be used by private enterprise only." It will be an interesting development, but I think by that time, the government, upon seeing it validated and approved, will change their tune and come around!!! But then, who knows for sure? That is why one of our first stops will be Tokyo and then London and then the New York Times, USA Today, The Chicago Sun Times, hell, even Oprah, and just about every Beef and Cattle Paper in the entire North American Continent. once approved, we will shake some cages I think.

So now we have more information that points to the Alberta govt. being about as incompetent or corrupt as the USDA/GIPSA et al crowd.

Thanks for continuing to persue this bse tester. Good luck.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
bse-tester said:
In Alberta, the Government stated that it would cost $300.00 per head to test. We said that our test would cost US$15.00 per head. They refused to accept that price!! They later said that it would cost around CAN$200.00 per head to test. We said that we could do it for CAN$15.00 or perhaps less. They refused to listen. The Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein said that it would take millions of meals full of a contaminated BSE brains in order for a human to contract BSE (vCJD) We said that was not only a dangerous but a stupid statement and that only a few grains of infected brain matter would be sufficient to bring about the onset of vCJD. They refused to listen.

We offered to provide the Government of Alberta and the Federal Labs in Winnipeg, the home of the CFIA, 1000 free tests to let them prove to themselves that the test works - they were not interested!

So, we said - screw you guys, we are going to do this ourselves and let the world decide how best to use the test when it is not only validated but is proven by the EFSA and the OIE and is shown to be worthy of use by all. When they come running to our door, we will then decide if we will answer the door or simply follow their pattern and say, "sorry, not interested, as we are going to allow our test to be used by private enterprise only." It will be an interesting development, but I think by that time, the government, upon seeing it validated and approved, will change their tune and come around!!! But then, who knows for sure? That is why one of our first stops will be Tokyo and then London and then the New York Times, USA Today, The Chicago Sun Times, hell, even Oprah, and just about every Beef and Cattle Paper in the entire North American Continent. once approved, we will shake some cages I think.

The obvious question arises, "Why"? Who's interests are they representing with their stance?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Allow me to introduce you to Sandhusker the phony:


Snowjob - "Testing is not based on sound science"

Reality - Neither is organic, natural, Kosher, Halal, etc.... but they have all been allowed for years. The precident has already been set.

Typical apples and oranges comparison comparing BSE to "organic" and "natural". Desperate blamers grasping for straws.

Non organic and Non natural beef is not unsafe. Nor does it create the impression that it is something that it's not like BSE tested beef does USING TESTS WHICH WOULD NOT REVEAL PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE.

Kosher is a religious practice that doesn't have a damn thing to do with food safety. A worse apples to oranges comparison.


Snowjob - "If US consumers find out we're supplying tested beef to Japan, we'll have to supply it to them."

Reality - To say consumers would demand tested beef because we were supplying it to Japan but not demand beef from animals under 20 months for the same reasons makes absolutely no sense.

What makes absolutely no sense is insisting on sending BSE tested beef to Japan FROM TESTS THAT WOULD NOT REVEAL BSE PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE when Japan has already accepted untested beef.

Talk about a stupid argument. Hey, LET'S CONVINCE JAPAN THAT WE NEED TO ADD THE COSTS OF BSE TESTING WHEN R-CULT HAS STATED THAT OUR BEEF IS SAFE DUE TO THE FIREWALLS WE HAVE IN PLACE.


Snowjob - "Allowing testing makes implications we don't want on our national herd"

Reality - We certainly don't want to imply to the rest of the world that we would be making every effort to uncover and eradicate BSE, now would we?

With tests that wouldn't reveal BSE prions EVEN IF THEY WERE THERE???

Hahaha! Some irradication program. Japan doesn't even accept your stupid logic because they have already agreed to take untested beef.


Snowjob - "Testing is expensive"

Reality - Creekstone says it would cost around $20 and the Japanese were willing to pay the cost.

Meanwhile, idiots like you would recommend spending $20 per head on BSE testing so Japan could pay $20 per head less for our beef WHEN THEY HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO ACCEPT UNTESTED BEEF BASED ON CERTAIN GUIDELINES.

What a backwards argument!


Followup Snowjob - "To pay the costs of testing, they would only lower the prices paid for cattle"

Reality - That is speculation. Even if it were so, using NCBA's figures of a loss of $175/head, producers would still come out $155 ahead. We've already lost how many billion? That would of sure paid for a lot of tests.

Hahaha! What a phony!

You were critical of NCBA's $175 figure AND NOW YOU USE IT???

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a damn hypocrite!


Snowjob - "Testing is unnecessary"

Reality - Unnecessary for what? We're trying to sell beef, not win a science fair.

We're already selling beef to Japan without the cost of testing. Why are you trying to turn back the hands of time and absorb the costs of testing. How stupid are you? Country after country is opening their borders to U.S. beef WITHOUT TESTING and you are advocating testing??????

You belong to R-CALF right? LOL!


Snowjob - "US consumers may demand tested beef, which would be very costly to the industry."

Reality - Consumers pay more for organic, CAB, etc.... If they wanted BSE tested beef, they would pay the added costs for it.

CAB is a quality issue, not a food safety issue. Comparing CAB value to BSE tested value is another of your stupid apples to oranges comparisons.

Whenever you add costs, you either deter consumer purchases or you lower producer prices ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, which they are not.


The USDA has negotiated a system that we couldn't even run for a couple of weeks. Fielding says 20 month old cattle are hard to find and expensive. Testing would not of been cheaper, easier, and faster?

What's so hard about finding 20 month old cattle? There is a lot of calves under 20 months of age that are grading high choice and prime.

Clap, clap, clap! Great job showing your ignorance again. Campaigning for adding expense to our industry that foreign markets are not even requesting anymore.

I'm so glad this industry is not being run by packer blamers.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, the only reason I'm answering your post is for the benefit of others. Like I've mentioned before, you don't make your decisions based on facts, you make "facts" based on decisions. You've decided you're against testing because that is the stand of the USDA, AMI, and NCBA. You won't go against any of them let alone all three - that would be the day I hit the lottery. Then to have you go against them and side with R-CALF - that is the day we all look into the skies and see Christ himself. You even change your opinion for them, remember what you posted when the news of Creekstone's plans first surfaced? You posted "Go Creekstone, SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY". And you call other people blind followers and lemmings? :roll:

Quote:
Snowjob - "Testing is not based on sound science"

Reality - Neither is organic, natural, Kosher, Halal, etc.... but they have all been allowed for years. The precident has already been set.


SH, "Typical apples and oranges comparison comparing BSE to "organic" and "natural". Desperate blamers grasping for straws. Non organic and Non natural beef is not unsafe. Nor does it create the impression that it is something that it's not like BSE tested beef does USING TESTS WHICH WOULD NOT REVEAL PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE.
Kosher is a religious practice that doesn't have a damn thing to do with food safety. A worse apples to oranges comparison."

You divert - the topic is "products not based on sound science". Care to stay on topic?


Quote:
Snowjob - "If US consumers find out we're supplying tested beef to Japan, we'll have to supply it to them."

Reality - To say consumers would demand tested beef because we were supplying it to Japan but not demand beef from animals under 20 months for the same reasons makes absolutely no sense.


SH, "What makes absolutely no sense is insisting on sending BSE tested beef to Japan FROM TESTS THAT WOULD NOT REVEAL BSE PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE when Japan has already accepted untested beef. Talk about a stupid argument. Hey, LET'S CONVINCE JAPAN THAT WE NEED TO ADD THE COSTS OF BSE TESTING WHEN R-CULT HAS STATED THAT OUR BEEF IS SAFE DUE TO THE FIREWALLS WE HAVE IN PLACE. "

You diverted again. If US consumers want what Japan is getting, why aren't we hearing them demand 20 month and younger cattle. Stay on topic.


Quote:
Snowjob - "Allowing testing makes implications we don't want on our national herd"

Reality - We certainly don't want to imply to the rest of the world that we would be making every effort to uncover and eradicate BSE, now would we?


SH, "With tests that wouldn't reveal BSE prions EVEN IF THEY WERE THERE??? Hahaha! Some irradication program. Japan doesn't even accept your stupid logic because they have already agreed to take untested beef. "

Cattle under 30 months HAVE been tested positive. Your "facts" are only your wishes.


Quote:
Snowjob - "Testing is expensive"

Reality - Creekstone says it would cost around $20 and the Japanese were willing to pay the cost.


SH, "Meanwhile, idiots like you would recommend spending $20 per head on BSE testing so Japan could pay $20 per head less for our beef WHEN THEY HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO ACCEPT UNTESTED BEEF BASED ON CERTAIN GUIDELINES. What a backwards argument!"

How much is the USDA's alternative costing per head, SH? Please tell us.


Quote:
Followup Snowjob - "To pay the costs of testing, they would only lower the prices paid for cattle"

Reality - That is speculation. Even if it were so, using NCBA's figures of a loss of $175/head, producers would still come out $155 ahead. We've already lost how many billion? That would of sure paid for a lot of tests.


SH, "Hahaha! What a phony! You were critical of NCBA's $175 figure AND NOW YOU USE IT??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a damn hypocrite! '

You diverted yet again, SH. Nasty little habit you have. You also mislead by stating that I was critical of the figure. Divertion and deception in one sentence - you're good.


Quote:
Snowjob - "Testing is unnecessary"

Reality - Unnecessary for what? We're trying to sell beef, not win a science fair.


SH, "We're already selling beef to Japan without the cost of testing. Why are you trying to turn back the hands of time and absorb the costs of testing. How stupid are you? Country after country is opening their borders to U.S. beef WITHOUT TESTING and you are advocating testing?????? You belong to R-CALF right? LOL! "

How much beef have we sold them since December, 2003? How much did we sell them last week? How much do you think we're going to sell them next month? "The costs of testing"? Not testing has cost us how many BILLIONS?


Quote:
Snowjob - "US consumers may demand tested beef, which would be very costly to the industry."

Reality - Consumers pay more for organic, CAB, etc.... If they wanted BSE tested beef, they would pay the added costs for it.


SH, "CAB is a quality issue, not a food safety issue. Comparing CAB value to BSE tested value is another of your stupid apples to oranges comparisons. Whenever you add costs, you either deter consumer purchases or you lower producer prices ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, which they are not. "

WRONG. Another "fact" that is bunk. Does organic product deter consumer purchases and/or lower producer prices?


Quote:
The USDA has negotiated a system that we couldn't even run for a couple of weeks. Fielding says 20 month old cattle are hard to find and expensive. Testing would not of been cheaper, easier, and faster?


SH, "What's so hard about finding 20 month old cattle? There is a lot of calves under 20 months of age that are grading high choice and prime."

Creekstone disagrees with you. You need to read the article again. Ask someone to help you.

SH, "Clap, clap, clap! Great job showing your ignorance again. Campaigning for adding expense to our industry that foreign markets are not even requesting anymore. I'm so glad this industry is not being run by packer blamers"

Not requesting it "anymore"? I can bring a quote from you saying there was no evidence Japan ever requested it. Make up your mind, er "facts". Either way, you're wrong. You can't (refuse to) understand testing would not be mandatory. Any costs would be passed to the consumer, same as with organic. If it is a money losing deal for packers, they won't do it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag the ankle biter,

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Your ad nauseum posts almost put me to sleep.


Sandbag: "You even change your opinion for them, remember what you posted when the news of Creekstone's plans first surfaced? You posted "Go Creekstone, SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY". And you call other people blind followers and lemmings?"

Another deception.

I did not say "GO CREEKSTONE, DECEIVE THE JAPANESE CONSUMERS PROVIDING THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT WILL EVEN ALLOW TESTED BEEF", I may have said "Go Creekstone, seize the opportunity" in regards to exporting beef to Japan. If Creekstone had a legitimate test AND JAPAN WAS TRULY INSISTING ON TESTED BEEF (which they're not which makes this whole argument incredibly stupid) I would say "Seize the opportunity".

Another misrepresentation of what I stated. Typical of your pathetic deceptive ways.


Sandbag: "You divert - the topic is "products not based on sound science". Care to stay on topic?"

You divert, the topic is comparing food safety deception to something that is not even comparable. Another empty tree!


Sandbag: "If US consumers want what Japan is getting, why aren't we hearing them demand 20 month and younger cattle."

Japan isn't getting fraudulent BSE tested beef creating an ILLUSION of safety so we don't have to worry about U.S. consumers wanting the same. Japans 20 month criteria doesn't make sense but it's still their demands.

Where is your proof that Japanese consumers were demanding BSE tested beef? An R-CULT publication quoting someone who quoted someone else?


Sandbag: "Cattle under 30 months HAVE been tested positive. Your "facts" are only your wishes."

Hahaha! How John Kerry of you! Respond to something that wasn't even stated. You're such an idiot.


Sandbag: "How much is the USDA's alternative costing per head, SH? Please tell us."

According to Bill Bullard, not much. Bill says we'd be in a very favorable position without any exports. Do you agree?


Sandbag: "You diverted yet again, SH. Nasty little habit you have. You also mislead by stating that I was critical of the figure. Divertion and deception in one sentence - you're good."

Is NCBA's PREVIOUS estimate of $175 dollars in lost value due to not having our export markets an accurate estimate?

YES OR NO?

Let's stop dancing and have some committment shall we?


Sandbag: "How much beef have we sold them since December, 2003? How much did we sell them last week? How much do you think we're going to sell them next month? "The costs of testing"? Not testing has cost us how many BILLIONS?"

What did BSE testing have to do with spinal column being sent with veal. DID JAPAN REQUEST BSE TESTING OF VEAL CALVES???

Creating an "ILLUSION" again. The Great Sandbeenie, master of deception.

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF THAT THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE EVEN ALLOWED BSE TESTED BEEF????

Nobody has proved that the Japanese government would have ever allowed BSE tested beef. Obviously they allowed imports without testing SO HOW MUCH DAMN EMPHASIS COULD THEY HAVE PLACED ON TESTING????

Another Sandbeenie "ILLUSION"!


Sandbag: "WRONG. Another "fact" that is bunk. Does organic product deter consumer purchases and/or lower producer prices?"

ORGANIC IS NOT COSTING THE RETAILERS ANY MORE MONEY THAN COMMODITY BEEF YOU MORON. Another of your stupid apples to elephants comparisons.

How can they pass on any costs to producers or consumers WHEN THERE IS NO MORE COSTS TO THE RETAILER WITH ORGANIC PRODUCT?

DUH!


Sandbag: "Creekstone disagrees with you. You need to read the article again. Ask someone to help you."

Once again you prove what a lemming you are. Creekstone says 20 month old cattle are hard to find SO YOU ASSUME THAT 20 MONTH OLD CATTLE ARE HARD TO FIND.

Baaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!
Baaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!

Think for yourself lemming!


Sandbag: "Not requesting it "anymore"? I can bring a quote from you saying there was no evidence Japan ever requested it."

Point taken! Scratch "anymore" because I should have never believed you in the first place. Good catch!


Sandbag: "Any costs would be passed to the consumer, same as with organic."

WRONG AGAIN! If consumers were not willing to pay the higher costs of testing, they would buy competing meats instead. There is no added costs of the retailer for organic. That is another of your many ignorant arguments.

Tell us oh great Sandbeenie, what are the retail costs associated with organic that would be passed on to the consumer????


Sandbag: "If it is a money losing deal for packers, they won't do it."

Talk about conflicting arguments. In one breath you say that Creekstone wants to be able to test and in the next breath you say "If it is a money losing deal for "packers", they won't do it."

WHICH WAY IS IT SANDBAG?????



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I like the way this chicken dances. I'll throw you some more corn.

SH, "Another deception. I did not say "GO CREEKSTONE, DECEIVE THE JAPANESE CONSUMERS PROVIDING THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT WILL EVEN ALLOW TESTED BEEF", I may have said "Go Creekstone, seize the opportunity" in regards to exporting beef to Japan. If Creekstone had a legitimate test AND JAPAN WAS TRULY INSISTING ON TESTED BEEF (which they're not which makes this whole argument incredibly stupid) I would say "Seize the opportunity". Another misrepresentation of what I stated. Typical of your pathetic deceptive ways."

Anybody can go back in the archives and find your post, SH. That's where I found it. You were all for Creekstone testing for Japan until you found out the trinity was against it.

SH, "You divert, the topic is comparing food safety deception to something that is not even comparable. Another empty tree! "

How can I divert, I wrote the thread! Now back to the topic; The USDA denied Creekstone because of sound science. Are the examples I cited based on sound science or not?


Quote:
Sandbag: "If US consumers want what Japan is getting, why aren't we hearing them demand 20 month and younger cattle."


SH, "Japan isn't getting fraudulent BSE tested beef creating an ILLUSION of safety so we don't have to worry about U.S. consumers wanting the same. Japans 20 month criteria doesn't make sense but it's still their demands."

So US consumers would want tested beef because the Japanese got it, but they won't want 20 month beef because the Japanese get it...... oK.... :shock: So what is the criteria in deciding exactly what US consumers will demand? :roll: You STILL haven't addressed this. Strike Two.

SH, "Where is your proof that Japanese consumers were demanding BSE tested beef? An R-CULT publication quoting someone who quoted someone else?"

Have you been reading anything other than the Pocket Gopher Journal? The Ashai Sinbum (my spelling might not be correct) is one place....

SH, "Hahaha! How John Kerry of you! Respond to something that wasn't even stated. You're such an idiot."

Didn't you say that nothing could be found in cattle younger than 30 months?

SH,"According to Bill Bullard, not much. Bill says we'd be in a very favorable position without any exports. Do you agree?"

You diverted AGAIN. Answer the question - how much?

SH, "Is NCBA's PREVIOUS estimate of $175 dollars in lost value due to not having our export markets an accurate estimate? YES OR NO? Let's stop dancing and have some committment shall we?"

It's the only estimate I've heard. If you have something else, bring it.

SH, "What did BSE testing have to do with spinal column being sent with veal. DID JAPAN REQUEST BSE TESTING OF VEAL CALVES??? Creating an "ILLUSION" again. The Great Sandbeenie, master of deception."

You don't get it. The problems we have now is the result of the USDA rejecting testing in favor for the current plan - which took two years to hammer out amid threats that hurt our image with the Japanese, cost us billions in lost sales, gave the Aussies a firmer foothold, etc.. and took a few weeks to fall apart. :roll: Hell of a plan, boys!

Sh, "WHERE'S YOUR PROOF THAT THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE EVEN ALLOWED BSE TESTED BEEF???? Nobody has proved that the Japanese government would have ever allowed BSE tested beef. Obviously they allowed imports without testing SO HOW MUCH DAMN EMPHASIS COULD THEY HAVE PLACED ON TESTING????"

Where is your proof that they wouldn't? Considering their laws and the negotiations with Creekstone, I'd say it was a pretty sure bet.

SH, "ORGANIC IS NOT COSTING THE RETAILERS ANY MORE MONEY THAN COMMODITY BEEF YOU MORON. Another of your stupid apples to elephants comparisons. How can they pass on any costs to producers or consumers WHEN THERE IS NO MORE COSTS TO THE RETAILER WITH ORGANIC PRODUCT? DUH! "

Why do retailers charge more for organic? Are they just screwing the customers?

SH, "Once again you prove what a lemming you are. Creekstone says 20 month old cattle are hard to find SO YOU ASSUME THAT 20 MONTH OLD CATTLE ARE HARD TO FIND. Baaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! Think for yourself lemming!"

Let's see...I believe Creekstone or I believe SH.....

SH, "WRONG AGAIN! If consumers were not willing to pay the higher costs of testing, they would buy competing meats instead. There is no added costs of the retailer for organic. That is another of your many ignorant arguments."

Then what are you worried about?

SH, "Tell us oh great Sandbeenie, what are the retail costs associated with organic that would be passed on to the consumer????"

Maybe the beef costs them more? :roll:

SH, "Talk about conflicting arguments. In one breath you say that Creekstone wants to be able to test and in the next breath you say "If it is a money losing deal for "packers", they won't do it." WHICH WAY IS IT SANDBAG?????"

Obviously Creekstone doesn't think it is a money loser. Why can't you figure that one out?


Dance Chicken, Dance!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:




_________________
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
SH ,keep on ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Your ad nauseum posts almost put me to sleep. Baaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!SH,Your "WRONG AGAIN! Go Figure it out.

At $20 bucks a URINE BSE test ,SH, How much is that for a slaughtered avg. steer hanging on a hook the cost $$$ per POUND of saleable BEEF from one tested animal??????????????????????
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,067
Reaction score
285
Location
Big Muddy valley
PORKER said:
SH ,keep on ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Your ad nauseum posts almost put me to sleep. Baaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!SH,Your "WRONG AGAIN! Go Figure it out.

At $20 bucks a URINE BSE test ,SH, How much is that for a slaughtered avg. steer hanging on a hook the cost $$$ per POUND of saleable BEEF from one tested animal??????????????????????


Say porker where do you buy your$20 unrine test?

Don't you think it would be smarter to use the "Urine test" When and if it get approval for a eradication progam?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Porker,

Get with the program. Japan has already agreed to take imported beef WITHOUT TESTING, why the hell would you want to turn back the hands of time and absorb the UNNECESSARY costs of testing.

BSE tester says he has a urine test. Whoopdi do! Talk is cheap. I'll put my money on the agency that is responsible for food safety over a fast buck artist's word any day.

Why didn't Creekstone know about this "URINE TEST"????

I guess they don't read Ranchers.net huh?

Go do another ScoringSystems promo add.


Sandbag: "You were all for Creekstone testing for Japan until you found out the trinity was against it."

More illusions!


Sandbag: "The USDA denied Creekstone because of sound science. Are the examples I cited based on sound science or not?"

Apples to oranges. Stupid comparisons. Unworthy of a response! Science doesn't have to apply to a religious practice you idiot.


Sandbag: "So US consumers would want tested beef because the Japanese got it, but they won't want 20 month beef because the Japanese get it...... oK.... So what is the criteria in deciding exactly what US consumers will demand? You STILL haven't addressed this. Strike Two."

You forgot the ball at the dugout T-ball player.

The Japanese didn't get BSE tested beef NOR DID ANYONE PROVE THEIR GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED IT. MOOT POINT as are most of your stupid arguments.


Sandbag: "Didn't you say that nothing could be found in cattle younger than 30 months?"

Giving some of the BSE propoganda the benefit of the doubt, I said 24 months.


Sandbag: "You diverted AGAIN. Answer the question - how much?"

How much what?

Sense do you have? Not much!


Sandbag: "It's the only estimate I've heard. If you have something else, bring it."

I didn't ask you if it was the only estimate you've heard, I ASKED YOU IF YOU BELIEVED IT SPINDOCTOR.

Answer the damn question!

Do you believe the $175 estimate, yes or no?

Why doesn't R-CULT have an estimate on the value of our export market. WAIT A MINUTE, I KNOW, BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THE VALUE OF OUR EXPORT MARKETS.


Sandbag: "The problems we have now is the result of the USDA rejecting testing in favor for the current plan - which took two years to hammer out amid threats that hurt our image with the Japanese, cost us billions in lost sales, gave the Aussies a firmer foothold, etc.. and took a few weeks to fall apart. Hell of a plan, boys!"

Blah, blah, blah! BWAME USDA!

You have no proof that the Japanese government would have ever allowed BSE tested beef. NONE! To the contrary, they agreed to take NON TESTED BEEF showing how valid your stupid testing argument is. Meanwhile, more countries are accepting non-tested beef.

Why don't you tell Bill Bullard that it cost us billions in lost sales, he claims that we would be in a very favorable position without an export market.


Sandbag: "Where is your proof that they wouldn't? Considering their laws and the negotiations with Creekstone, I'd say it was a pretty sure bet."

SPIN!

Where is your proof they would? "Pretty sure bets" by master illusionist packer blamers do not count.


Sandbag: "Why do retailers charge more for organic? Are they just screwing the customers?"

Because it costs them more money to buy organic from the producers. NO, THAT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH MY PREVIOUS ARGUMENT. When I said, "Organic is not costing the retailers any more money than commodity beef", I am talking about expenses AT THE RETAIL LEVEL. Not the costs of organic beef to them from the producers.

In comparison, BSE TESTS would be added expense at the retail level.


Sandbag: "Then what are you worried about?"

I'm not worried about anything other than packers not complying with Japan's requests regarding SRMs.

Japan has already proven that they will accept untested beef and you have never proven that they would accepted tested beef. This is one of the many, many empty trees you bark up. God only knows why?


Sandbag: "Maybe the beef costs them more?"

BRAVO! You actually have something right. ORGANIC COSTS THEM MORE TO PURCHASE. It's not a maybe, it does cost them more because it costs producers more but it's a niche market that only a few greenies patronize. The science says that growth hormones are safe and there is more estrogen in a head of lettuce than beef treated by growth hormones. SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!



Sandbag: "Dance Chicken, Dance!!!"

Give me something to dance to besides your normal stupid empty arguments.

CREEKSTONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TEST, CREEKSTONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TEST...........meanwhile Japan has already accepted untested beef. LOL! What a fool!


~SH~
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
Why didn't Creekstone know about this "URINE TEST"???? Because You CAN"T STOP progress!!!!even if it's only yesterday's invention!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Like I said Porker, I'll take the word over the government agency tasked with food safety over a fast buck artist any day of the year. When USDA approves this "so called" urine test that nobody is asking for, let me know.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
quote]Sandbag: "You were all for Creekstone testing for Japan until you found out the trinity was against it."[/quote]

SH, "More illusions!"

I'll start a new post with your "illusion"


Sandbag: "The USDA denied Creekstone because of sound science. Are the examples I cited based on sound science or not?"

SH, "Apples to oranges. Stupid comparisons. Unworthy of a response! Science doesn't have to apply to a religious practice you idiot."

You make the rules now? :roll: Is the question too uncomfortable for you to answer? Are those examples based on sound science or not? This is a yes/no question. Is organic based on sound science? Is hormone free?


Sandbag: "So US consumers would want tested beef because the Japanese got it, but they won't want 20 month beef because the Japanese get it...... oK.... So what is the criteria in deciding exactly what US consumers will demand? You STILL haven't addressed this. Strike Two."

SH, "You forgot the ball at the dugout T-ball player. The Japanese didn't get BSE tested beef NOR DID ANYONE PROVE THEIR GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED IT. MOOT POINT as are most of your stupid arguments."

ANOTHER DIVERTION. The topic is US consumers demanding the same as what Japanese gets. Lets try again; Tell us why US consumers would want tested beef becasue the Japanese got it, but why they would not want 20 month beef becasue the Japanese got it.


Sandbag: "You diverted AGAIN. Answer the question - how much?"

SH, "How much what? Sense do you have? Not much! "

Great answer. Now how much is the cost?

Sandbag: "It's the only estimate I've heard. If you have something else, bring it."

SH, "I didn't ask you if it was the only estimate you've heard, I ASKED YOU IF YOU BELIEVED IT SPINDOCTOR. Answer the damn question! Do you believe the $175 estimate, yes or no?"

I conditionaly elieve it until I have a reason not to. So far, I have no reason do doubt it.

Sandbag: "The problems we have now is the result of the USDA rejecting testing in favor for the current plan - which took two years to hammer out amid threats that hurt our image with the Japanese, cost us billions in lost sales, gave the Aussies a firmer foothold, etc.. and took a few weeks to fall apart. Hell of a plan, boys!"

SH, "Blah, blah, blah! BWAME USDA! You have no proof that the Japanese government would have ever allowed BSE tested beef. NONE! To the contrary, they agreed to take NON TESTED BEEF showing how valid your stupid testing argument is. Meanwhile, more countries are accepting non-tested beef."

It took two years of threats to get them to take non-tested beef. Why do you find it so easy to ignore their laws and culture?

Sandbag: "Why do retailers charge more for organic? Are they just screwing the customers?"

SH, "Because it costs them more money to buy organic from the producers. NO, THAT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH MY PREVIOUS ARGUMENT. When I said, "Organic is not costing the retailers any more money than commodity beef", I am talking about expenses AT THE RETAIL LEVEL. Not the costs of organic beef to them from the producers.
In comparison, BSE TESTS would be added expense at the retail level. "

BSE tests would be an expense at the retail level but organic product is not an expense at the retail level? Talk about a comment not worthy of a response! :lol:

Sandbag: "Maybe the beef costs them more?"

SH, "BRAVO! You actually have something right. ORGANIC COSTS THEM MORE TO PURCHASE. It's not a maybe, it does cost them more because it costs producers more but it's a niche market that only a few greenies patronize. The science says that growth hormones are safe and there is more estrogen in a head of lettuce than beef treated by growth hormones. SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!"

Tested beef would cost them more to purchase as well. I see by your comments that you beleive organic product is not based on sound science. That gets back to the top of the page. If it is not based on sound science, how can it be allowed?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Like I said Porker, I'll take the word over the government agency tasked with food safety over a fast buck artist any day of the year. When USDA approves this "so called" urine test that nobody is asking for, let me know.


~SH~

SH, did you fail your last urine test? I am asking for the results. There has to be an explanation for your act.
 

Latest posts

Top