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

OK Agman, tell us this economist is wrong, too.

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
A nationally recognized agriculture economics expert has released a report titled “An Economic Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and the United States’ Cattle and Beef Industries,’ which projects the expected economic impact on the U.S. cattle industry caused by the reopening of the Canadian border to live cattle imports.



“U.S. cattle slaughter declined 2.8 million head in 2004 when compared to 2003,” said John VanSickle, the report’s author, a professor of food and resource economics, and the director of the International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. “This decrease included the loss of 1.68 million head of imports from Canada and has caused the U.S. beef industry to operate at less than full capacity, which has created increased competition for cattle from U.S. feedlots.”



VanSickle’s report, issued prior to the reopening of the Canadian border to live cattle, explained that the closed border had two opposing impacts on the U.S. economy.



“First, the reduction in the number of cattle handled by U.S. processors will lead to a loss in economic output by this sector and result in losses of jobs for the U.S. packers that process Canadian cattle,” the report stated. “On the other hand, U.S. producers will have more income and likely will increase herd size. An increase in the U.S. cattle herd will lead to more domestic cattle being processed by U.S. processors and added jobs for those processors.”



Using data contained in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) economic analysis of the agency’s Minimal Risk Region rule (Final Rule), VanSickle modeled the impacts of the Final Rule using a U.S. Input-Output model constructed with Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) multipliers. The model projected the impacts of the Final Rule for the period 2005 through 2007, and results were stated in 2005 dollars.



“Overall results of our analysis of resuming imports of Canadian cattle into the U.S. indicate a net decline of $7.56 billion in U.S. economic output, a decline of 68,442 jobs, and a decline of $3.57 billion in value added products,” VanSickle pointed out. “The model also estimates a decline of $2.26 billion in labor income and $294 million decline in indirect business taxes.”



The analysis compared the economic impact caused by increased cattle imports from Canada with the economic impact of decreased production by U.S. cattle producers resulting from resumed imports of Canadian cattle.



“The impact of reduced output from U.S. cattle producers due to resumed Canadian imports was estimated as a loss of $12.83 billion in economic output, while the impact of increased slaughter output due to increased supply of Canadian cattle was an increase $5.26 billion in economic output,” VanSickle noted.



VanSickle’s analysis concludes that the loss to the U.S. economy that would occur if the border remained closed “is more than offset by the gains that are expected from increased production of domestic cattle, and from those U.S. cattle being processed into beef, to a total net gain of $7.56 billion in output over the 2005 to 2007 period.”



VanSickle also noted that lost exports already have cost the U.S. cattle and beef industries $3.18 to $4.66 billion, and resumption of Canadian cattle imports likely will magnify the impacts of lost beef export markets on the U.S. economy by another $7.56 billion over the period 2005 to 2007.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
VanSickle also noted that lost exports already have cost the U.S. cattle and beef industries $3.18 to $4.66 billion, and resumption of Canadian cattle imports likely will magnify the impacts of lost beef export markets on the U.S. economy by another $7.56 billion over the period 2005 to 2007.

Just look at what a $14 dollar BSE test would be worth to the cattle and beef export industry at $4.0 billion loss.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
A nationally recognized agriculture economics expert has released a report titled “An Economic Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and the United States’ Cattle and Beef Industries,’ which projects the expected economic impact on the U.S. cattle industry caused by the reopening of the Canadian border to live cattle imports.


“U.S. cattle slaughter declined 2.8 million head in 2004 when compared to 2003,” said John VanSickle, the report’s author, a professor of food and resource economics, and the director of the International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. “This decrease included the loss of 1.68 million head of imports from Canada and has caused the U.S. beef industry to operate at less than full capacity, which has created increased competition for cattle from U.S. feedlots.”



VanSickle’s report, issued prior to the reopening of the Canadian border to live cattle, explained that the closed border had two opposing impacts on the U.S. economy.



“First, the reduction in the number of cattle handled by U.S. processors will lead to a loss in economic output by this sector and result in losses of jobs for the U.S. packers that process Canadian cattle,” the report stated. “On the other hand, U.S. producers will have more income and likely will increase herd size. An increase in the U.S. cattle herd will lead to more domestic cattle being processed by U.S. processors and added jobs for those processors.”



Using data contained in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) economic analysis of the agency’s Minimal Risk Region rule (Final Rule), VanSickle modeled the impacts of the Final Rule using a U.S. Input-Output model constructed with Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) multipliers. The model projected the impacts of the Final Rule for the period 2005 through 2007, and results were stated in 2005 dollars.



“Overall results of our analysis of resuming imports of Canadian cattle into the U.S. indicate a net decline of $7.56 billion in U.S. economic output, a decline of 68,442 jobs, and a decline of $3.57 billion in value added products,” VanSickle pointed out. “The model also estimates a decline of $2.26 billion in labor income and $294 million decline in indirect business taxes.”



The analysis compared the economic impact caused by increased cattle imports from Canada with the economic impact of decreased production by U.S. cattle producers resulting from resumed imports of Canadian cattle.



“The impact of reduced output from U.S. cattle producers due to resumed Canadian imports was estimated as a loss of $12.83 billion in economic output, while the impact of increased slaughter output due to increased supply of Canadian cattle was an increase $5.26 billion in economic output,” VanSickle noted.



VanSickle’s analysis concludes that the loss to the U.S. economy that would occur if the border remained closed “is more than offset by the gains that are expected from increased production of domestic cattle, and from those U.S. cattle being processed into beef, to a total net gain of $7.56 billion in output over the 2005 to 2007 period.”


VanSickle also noted that lost exports already have cost the U.S. cattle and beef industries $3.18 to $4.66 billion, and resumption of Canadian cattle imports likely will magnify the impacts of lost beef export markets on the U.S. economy by another $7.56 billion over the period 2005 to 2007.

Is this the same economist who computed the risk factor for BSE at 5.5 per million head in Canada? That was soundly rejected by the Appellate court. This is the economist that R-CAlf located to support a previous failed opinion of theirs. Correct me if I am wrong on the latter point.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I really don't know about who was consulted and any relationship with this author. Regardless, as this piece undoubtedly conflicts with your opinion, I was expecting your usual condemnation because of incorrect information, outdated theories, etc....
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
I really don't know about who was consulted and any relationship with this author. Regardless, as this piece undoubtedly conflicts with your opinion, I was expecting your usual condemnation because of incorrect information, outdated theories, etc....

The reality is I have not seen the full report. Unlike yourself who claims to understand the report and the methodology used I will have to wait to see the entire report.

The only thing I will say is I have been in this business 30 years and have served on many programs sponsored by various industy and university groups and he has never been present nor have I heard of his research.
In all fairness to him I will have to see the entire report before I can make any valid comment.

BTW, was R-Calf''s claimed position in the Montana case not put forth as a food safety issue. His research is regarding economic impact. The truth is coming out now, is it not. R-Calf's positions was to stop trade because of their protectionist trade views.

It will take some time to obtain and analyze his report so do not expect a quick answer.
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
“This decrease included the loss of 1.68 million head of imports from Canada and has caused the U.S. beef industry to operate at less than full capacity, which has created increased competition for cattle from U.S. feedlots.”

This is short term gain. Obviously over time, feedlot space would have been lost in the US as lower margins on less cattle would have forced some to close.

“On the other hand, U.S. producers will have more income and likely will increase herd size.


That's a big assumption. With the average age of the producer slowly getting higher, many may find this is a good time to sellout and retire while prices are high.

“Overall results of our analysis of resuming imports of Canadian cattle into the U.S. indicate a net decline of $7.56 billion in U.S. economic output, a decline of 68,442 jobs, and a decline of $3.57 billion in value added products,” VanSickle pointed out. “The model also estimates a decline of $2.26 billion in labor income and $294 million decline in indirect business taxes.”



The analysis compared the economic impact caused by increased cattle imports from Canada with the economic impact of decreased production by U.S. cattle producers resulting from resumed imports of Canadian cattle.



“The impact of reduced output from U.S. cattle producers due to resumed Canadian imports was estimated as a loss of $12.83 billion in economic output, while the impact of increased slaughter output due to increased supply of Canadian cattle was an increase $5.26 billion in economic output,” VanSickle noted.



VanSickle’s analysis concludes that the loss to the U.S. economy that would occur if the border remained closed “is more than offset by the gains that are expected from increased production of domestic cattle, and from those U.S. cattle being processed into beef, to a total net gain of $7.56 billion in output over the 2005 to 2007 period.”

I'd really like to see a better breakdown of where he's getting these numbers from and how much of it is based on the influx of Canadian beef versus other seasonal factors as well as the normal cattle cycle and the Atkins diet. They don't add up from what I see.

VanSickle also noted that lost exports already have cost the U.S. cattle and beef industries $3.18 to $4.66 billion, and resumption of Canadian cattle imports likely will magnify the impacts of lost beef export markets on the U.S. economy by another $7.56 billion over the period 2005 to 2007

I don't understand what he means by magnifying the problem being that we have assurances from our export markets that all Canadian beef will be accepted under the same terms as American beef at the time the borders are open. At this point with the latest fiasco by the USDA, it is likely it is inconsistencies in the American testing system that are holding up the opening of our export markets for North American beef.
 

pointrider

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
218
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
re Dr. John J. VanSickle, Director, International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center

" ---------- He has also conducted extensive research on international competition in the fresh produce industry and served as lead economist for petitioners to the U.S. International Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Commerce seeking relief from increased imports."

http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/

then, Centers and Institutes

then, International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center

then, Center Faculty

:shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SASH said:
VanSickle also noted that lost exports already have cost the U.S. cattle and beef industries $3.18 to $4.66 billion, and resumption of Canadian cattle imports likely will magnify the impacts of lost beef export markets on the U.S. economy by another $7.56 billion over the period 2005 to 2007

I don't understand what he means by magnifying the problem being that we have assurances from our export markets that all Canadian beef will be accepted under the same terms as American beef at the time the borders are open. At this point with the latest fiasco by the USDA, it is likely it is inconsistencies in the American testing system that are holding up the opening of our export markets for North American beef.


SASH- Is that why the USDA set up a completely new program to guarantee to our export markets that they were not getting Canadian beef :???: :? A program that certify's slaughter plants that do not slaughter Canadian cattle or handle Canadian beef :???: :? A completely new program to segregate OUT Canadian beef to please our customers :? :???: A new program (BEV) which certify's to the buying country that they are getting US beef from UTM when purchased from these plants :? :???:
What about these countries that reopened exports on the condition that USDA do this :???: :? This all came about long before USDA's testing fiasco hit the news.......
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Oldtimer said:
SASH said:
I don't understand what he means by magnifying the problem being that we have assurances from our export markets that all Canadian beef will be accepted under the same terms as American beef at the time the borders are open. At this point with the latest fiasco by the USDA, it is likely it is inconsistencies in the American testing system that are holding up the opening of our export markets for North American beef.


SASH- Is that why the USDA set up a completely new program to guarantee to our export markets that they were not getting Canadian beef :???: :? A program that certify's slaughter plants that do not slaughter Canadian cattle or handle Canadian beef :???: :? A completely new program to segregate OUT Canadian beef to please our customers :? :???: A new program (BEV) which certify's to the buying country that they are getting US beef from UTM when purchased from these plants :? :???:
What about these countries that reopened exports on the condition that USDA do this :???: :? This all came about long before USDA's testing fiasco hit the news.......
Y'all are forgetting one tiny little thing.

The US has BSE in it's native homegrown born and bred in the USA herd.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
SASH said:
SASH- Is that why the USDA set up a completely new program to guarantee to our export markets that they were not getting Canadian beef :???: :? A program that certify's slaughter plants that do not slaughter Canadian cattle or handle Canadian beef :???: :? A completely new program to segregate OUT Canadian beef to please our customers :? :???: A new program (BEV) which certify's to the buying country that they are getting US beef from UTM when purchased from these plants :? :???:
What about these countries that reopened exports on the condition that USDA do this :???: :? This all came about long before USDA's testing fiasco hit the news.......
Y'all are forgetting one tiny little thing.

The US has BSE in it's native homegrown born and bred in the USA herd.

So Bill I wonder what that means? They won't take exports from either one of us and we'll be the only one taking in Canadian beef? That don't sound very good for producers on either side of the border :?
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
Oldtimer said:
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
Y'all are forgetting one tiny little thing.

The US has BSE in it's native homegrown born and bred in the USA herd.

So Bill I wonder what that means? They won't take exports from either one of us and we'll be the only one taking in Canadian beef? That don't sound very good for producers on either side of the border :?

Don't you worry. As soon as the US gets its testing up to the Canadian standard, we'll both be exporting beef to beat the band. :wink:
 

Chuckie

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
367
Reaction score
0
Location
northeast nebraska
i, personally think that before a person takes ANY person's word on ANY subject, a person should find out (research) if the person making the claim has ANY legitimacy in their field.

ie, has this person published in a peer-review journal? if so, how was their research received/reviewed? who FUNDED the research (let's think about various pharmaceuticals ((sp?)) funded by the companies who manufacture the drug--dare i say "viox' :? )

i guess my point is, money can buy any opinion it wants. a rational, reasonable person will look into the background of that opinion. it's merits. with a little effort, and an open mind, a rational, logical decision can be made as to the merit of the opinion and the research.

the problem here is, it seems everyone has an agenda. it's a SMALL WORLD. why can't we all just get along??? it takes 2 to tango, as my Mom used to say...and a little common sense :wink:
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
A nationally recognized agriculture economics expert has released a report titled “An Economic Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and the United States’ Cattle and Beef Industries,’ which projects the expected economic impact on the U.S. cattle industry caused by the reopening of the Canadian border to live cattle imports.



“U.S. cattle slaughter declined 2.8 million head in 2004 when compared to 2003,” said John VanSickle, the report’s author, a professor of food and resource economics, and the director of the International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. “This decrease included the loss of 1.68 million head of imports from Canada and has caused the U.S. beef industry to operate at less than full capacity, which has created increased competition for cattle from U.S. feedlots.”



VanSickle’s report, issued prior to the reopening of the Canadian border to live cattle, explained that the closed border had two opposing impacts on the U.S. economy.



“First, the reduction in the number of cattle handled by U.S. processors will lead to a loss in economic output by this sector and result in losses of jobs for the U.S. packers that process Canadian cattle,” the report stated. “On the other hand, U.S. producers will have more income and likely will increase herd size. An increase in the U.S. cattle herd will lead to more domestic cattle being processed by U.S. processors and added jobs for those processors.”



Using data contained in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) economic analysis of the agency’s Minimal Risk Region rule (Final Rule), VanSickle modeled the impacts of the Final Rule using a U.S. Input-Output model constructed with Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) multipliers. The model projected the impacts of the Final Rule for the period 2005 through 2007, and results were stated in 2005 dollars.



“Overall results of our analysis of resuming imports of Canadian cattle into the U.S. indicate a net decline of $7.56 billion in U.S. economic output, a decline of 68,442 jobs, and a decline of $3.57 billion in value added products,” VanSickle pointed out. “The model also estimates a decline of $2.26 billion in labor income and $294 million decline in indirect business taxes.”



The analysis compared the economic impact caused by increased cattle imports from Canada with the economic impact of decreased production by U.S. cattle producers resulting from resumed imports of Canadian cattle.



“The impact of reduced output from U.S. cattle producers due to resumed Canadian imports was estimated as a loss of $12.83 billion in economic output, while the impact of increased slaughter output due to increased supply of Canadian cattle was an increase $5.26 billion in economic output,” VanSickle noted.



VanSickle’s analysis concludes that the loss to the U.S. economy that would occur if the border remained closed “is more than offset by the gains that are expected from increased production of domestic cattle, and from those U.S. cattle being processed into beef, to a total net gain of $7.56 billion in output over the 2005 to 2007 period.”



VanSickle also noted that lost exports already have cost the U.S. cattle and beef industries $3.18 to $4.66 billion, and resumption of Canadian cattle imports likely will magnify the impacts of lost beef export markets on the U.S. economy by another $7.56 billion over the period 2005 to 2007.

Just so you know Sandhusker, this is the same person who wrote an opinion paper pro-MCOOL on behalf of R-Calf. This is who I correctly referenced in my initial response to your question. Anytime I see big numbers thrown around I become very suspicious. I will examine his research tomorrow and hope to have a response by tomorrow evening. One of the primary assumptions he makes to derive at his conclusion I believe is seriously flawed. But I will reserve final judgment until I have completed examining his work.
 

Latest posts

Top