Packer May Sue Inspectors

[Econ101]

Tam, not giving large corporations money for a problem they are largley responsible for is not discrimination.

Now you said you couldn't prove that it was packers that invented feeding ruminant proteins to ruminant, didn't you? So how can you say the PACKERS were largely responible for the BSE issue in Canada? BSE was what caused the border to be closed which resulted in the crash of fat cattle prices not the packer. If you look at the lawsuit that a few lawyers thought they would get going on the Canadian cattlemens behalf, you will see that they didn't name a packer in the lawsuit. They named the government and a feed mill that was thought to have made the feed that was responible for the BSE infection in Canada.

Tam, Are you saying that packers were not feeding animal proteins to ruminiants? Traceback and accountablility in this industry is lacking. The packers did start animal proteins in ruminant feed. They are continuing it today in their poultry feed operations.

Can BSE be traced back to this practice? Of course it can. Now where is the accountability?

 

[rkaiser]

So Tam, you basically argue that adding direct cost (via an RFID tag) to the producer MAY ad value to his calf. I did not say I disagree, just wanted your opinion.

On the other hand adding cost at the packer level, which will be paid by the producer anyway, for a twenty five dollar test will screw up the whole industry. Whatever Tam. I know arguing with you is a lost cause.

It sure was interesting to see you stand up and bark about an added cost that could ad value to a product however. :roll:

 

[HAY MAKER]

So Tam, you basically argue that adding direct cost (via an RFID tag) to the producer MAY ad value to his calf. I did not say I disagree, just wanted your opinion.

On the other hand adding cost at the packer level, which will be paid by the producer anyway, for a twenty five dollar test will screw up the whole industry. Whatever Tam. I know arguing with you is a lost cause.

It sure was interesting to see you stand up and bark about an added cost that could ad value to a product however. :roll:

Say rkaiser,you aint gonna get anywhere argueing with Miss Tam,she probably forgot to mention she works in the front office at Lakeside..............good luck

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Say randy did you ever think that the cash cost of a BSE test is the smallest part of the cost. What about segragation of carcasses and offal. The time lag in waiting for the test. and the reduced kills because of delays. All added cost to the packer that will be passed down to the producer.

 

[Econ101]

Say randy did you ever think that the cash cost of a BSE test is the smallest part of the cost. What about segragation of carcasses and offal. The time lag in waiting for the test. and the reduced kills because of delays. All added cost to the packer that will be passed down to the producer.

BMR, the biggest cost of not having the test was the closed border. The lowest cost isn't always the best answer.

 

[rkaiser]

I don't see testing happening that way BMR. I have never been an advocate of mandatory testing myself. Only testing for new potential markets. I'm including Asia as new of course because we currently have no market there other than a dribble here and there. We should never force Tyson or Cargill to test for BSE, but they should not be able to dictate what newcomers like Ranchers Beef in Calgary want to do either. At this stage, this is the case. It is the power of the mutinational packers that is holding back BSE testing for export marketing purposes, along with folks in the industry who are blinded by their BS.

Ranchers Beef would be the ones trying to compete for cattle with Tyson if they choose to test. Would that affect you BMR? Would Ranchers simply go broke because they chose this route, or could it somehow become the opposite, and give them an advantage over those who choose to stand their ground. You don't know that, and I don't know that, but regulations to protect the packers in this situation is wrong in my mind.

Those of you who talk about freedom and market demand seem to change coats on the testing issue much to easily. Why is that BMR?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Say randy did you ever think that the cash cost of a BSE test is the smallest part of the cost. What about segragation of carcasses and offal. The time lag in waiting for the test. and the reduced kills because of delays. All added cost to the packer that will be passed down to the producer.

BMR, the biggest cost of not having the test was the closed border. The lowest cost isn't always the best answer.

Would the US have taken our beef any sooner if it had been tested?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I don't see testing happening that way BMR. I have never been an advocate of mandatory testing myself. Only testing for new potential markets. I'm including Asia as new of course because we currently have no market there other than a dribble here and there. We should never force Tyson or Cargill to test for BSE, but they should not be able to dictate what newcomers like Ranchers Beef in Calgary want to do either. At this stage, this is the case. It is the power of the mutinational packers that is holding back BSE testing for export marketing purposes, along with folks in the industry who are blinded by their BS.

Ranchers Beef would be the ones trying to compete for cattle with Tyson if they choose to test. Would that affect you BMR? Would Ranchers simply go broke because they chose this route, or could it somehow become the opposite, and give them an advantage over those who choose to stand their ground. You don't know that, and I don't know that, but regulations to protect the packers in this situation is wrong in my mind.

Those of you who talk about freedom and market demand seem to change coats on the testing issue much to easily. Why is that BMR?

Has Ranchers ever asked for the ability to test?

 

[rkaiser]

Yes, and they are building a lab as part of the plant as we speak.

 

[Tam]

Tam, not giving large corporations money for a problem they are largley responsible for is not discrimination.

Now you said you couldn't prove that it was packers that invented feeding ruminant proteins to ruminant, didn't you? So how can you say the PACKERS were largely responible for the BSE issue in Canada? BSE was what caused the border to be closed which resulted in the crash of fat cattle prices not the packer. If you look at the lawsuit that a few lawyers thought they would get going on the Canadian cattlemens behalf, you will see that they didn't name a packer in the lawsuit. They named the government and a feed mill that was thought to have made the feed that was responible for the BSE infection in Canada.

Tam, Are you saying that packers were not feeding animal proteins to ruminiants? Traceback and accountablility in this industry is lacking. The packers did start animal proteins in ruminant feed. They are continuing it today in their poultry feed operations.

Can BSE be traced back to this practice? Of course it can. Now where is the accountability?

Just how many feed manufacturers are there in Canada and the US that are not owned by a packer? Was the feed that was thought to have caused the problem traced back to a packer and if it was then why wasn't that packer named in the lawsuit that was filed on behalf of the Canadian cattle industry? Now unless you can prove that the feed that caused the mess we are facing right now in North America came from a Packer owned feed plant how can you hold them accountable? About the Chichen litter How many Cases have been traced back to a feedlot owned by a packer feeding Chicken litter? Just because it is a source of possible cross contamination doesn't mean it was the source that caused the BSE issue that we are now facing. Do I think that loop hole should be closed yes I have said that for a long time but it is the government that has to close it not the packers. You want accountability at packer level but why is it that you don't seem to be asking for accountability at the Government level or the feed manufacturer level or the producer level. In todays reality of the beef industry there is enough blame for all the levels and singling out one sector to take the fall for everything for all of the levels is wrong.

 

[rkaiser]

Tam -

In todays reality of the beef industry there is enough blame for all the levels and singling out one sector to take the fall for everything for all of the levels is wrong.

Couldn't agree with you more Tam. The grassroots producers of Canada and the USA take the fall every time.

Some of us would like to see the rest of the industry take more of the hit, but simply become blamers for opening our mouths. And that is where it stops. In the end the rancher pays. You have said it, SH has said it, and it is reality.

 

[Tam]

And if the Government wouldn't have negotiated them out of testing the Under twenty month

Tam by that statment one would gather that we are sending under twenty months to Japan. That hasn't happened yet. Hopefully it will and the sooner the better. The interesting thing will then be how the Japanese consumer accepts untested beef when sold along side beef that is tested.

So Randy are you now taking advantage of the deal the government negotiated when they didn't buckle to the pressure to 100% test for market access? If the government would have buckled to the supporters of testing would Japan now be on the verge of taking beef from Untested Under twenty month old cattle? And if the Government wouldn't have negotiated them out of testing the Under twenty month would we have had enough testing capacity to handle the testing you were asking for?

Bill that was a nice little snip to discredit , but if you read the whole quote you will see I used Randy's own words about how Japan is on the verge of taking our beef so how you can gather I meant they were taking it is beyond me.

Deals are negotiated and then they are implimented. And it is to bad that in this case the implimenting is taken a bit longer than it should, because of the political rangleings of the Japanese government to get out of the 100% testing they are doing so our beef can come in untested but that is part of the implimenting stage. not the negotiating stage. :wink:
By the way Bill would you like to answer the question would Canada have had enough testing capacity if we still had to test for Japan once the border opens to our beef?

 

[Econ101]

Tam, not giving large corporations money for a problem they are largley responsible for is not discrimination.

Now you said you couldn't prove that it was packers that invented feeding ruminant proteins to ruminant, didn't you? So how can you say the PACKERS were largely responible for the BSE issue in Canada? BSE was what caused the border to be closed which resulted in the crash of fat cattle prices not the packer. If you look at the lawsuit that a few lawyers thought they would get going on the Canadian cattlemens behalf, you will see that they didn't name a packer in the lawsuit. They named the government and a feed mill that was thought to have made the feed that was responible for the BSE infection in Canada.

Tam, Are you saying that packers were not feeding animal proteins to ruminiants? Traceback and accountablility in this industry is lacking. The packers did start animal proteins in ruminant feed. They are continuing it today in their poultry feed operations.

Can BSE be traced back to this practice? Of course it can. Now where is the accountability?

Just how many feed manufacturers are there in Canada and the US that are not owned by a packer? Was the feed that was thought to have caused the problem traced back to a packer and if it was then why wasn't that packer named in the lawsuit that was filed on behalf of the Canadian cattle industry? Now unless you can prove that the feed that caused the mess we are facing right now in North America came from a Packer owned feed plant how can you hold them accountable? About the Chichen litter How many Cases have been traced back to a feedlot owned by a packer feeding Chicken litter? Just because it is a source of possible cross contamination doesn't mean it was the source that caused the BSE issue that we are now facing. Do I think that loop hole should be closed yes I have said that for a long time but it is the government that has to close it not the packers. You want accountability at packer level but why is it that you don't seem to be asking for accountability at the Government level or the feed manufacturer level or the producer level. In todays reality of the beef industry there is enough blame for all the levels and singling out one sector to take the fall for everything for all of the levels is wrong.

Tam, If the packers are going to compete by selling the ofal or using it in their own operations for other feed (as in poultry) they should be held accountable for any damages caused by that use. No one told them to use the offal that way, they just made a new use up.

Do I think we need a new regulation everytime a company does something "stupid" like this? Heck, no. We need to have a judicial system that is not so influenced so that people get justice at least 97% of the time. If we have to make a new rule everytime someone comes up with a new way to commit fraud, we would have too many regulations. What do you think deregulation is all about? Just because there is no regulation against something does not mean there is no liability. That assertion is about as smart as my goldfish. Do the packers try to hide behind things like this? Yes, and you are an outspoken advocate for such fraud.

Am I excusing the govt. for their lack of accountabilty? Heck no. We have one of the most inefficient and corrupt judicial systems that is prone to political manipulation. The Pickett case is a perfect example. While in one sentence they verbalize the arguments in the case, the next they negate them for no good reason. Our govt. has no accountability and the bureaucrats that are supposedly responsible for running regulatory agencies pile up govt. retirement and benefits that put private industry to shame. They allow companies to win arguments because of company "efficiency" and low or no profitability as an excuse to not exercise the economic awards of damage.

The BSE issue was caused by the packers and they should bear the responsibility. This is just another example of what a cheap food policy gets you. Cheap food and a lot of costs distributed to those not responsible for causing the harm.

 

[Tam]

Tam, Are you saying that packers were not feeding animal proteins to ruminiants? Traceback and accountablility in this industry is lacking. The packers did start animal proteins in ruminant feed. They are continuing it today in their poultry feed operations.

Can BSE be traced back to this practice? Of course it can. Now where is the accountability?

Just how many feed manufacturers are there in Canada and the US that are not owned by a packer? Was the feed that was thought to have caused the problem traced back to a packer and if it was then why wasn't that packer named in the lawsuit that was filed on behalf of the Canadian cattle industry? Now unless you can prove that the feed that caused the mess we are facing right now in North America came from a Packer owned feed plant how can you hold them accountable? About the Chichen litter How many Cases have been traced back to a feedlot owned by a packer feeding Chicken litter? Just because it is a source of possible cross contamination doesn't mean it was the source that caused the BSE issue that we are now facing. Do I think that loop hole should be closed yes I have said that for a long time but it is the government that has to close it not the packers. You want accountability at packer level but why is it that you don't seem to be asking for accountability at the Government level or the feed manufacturer level or the producer level. In todays reality of the beef industry there is enough blame for all the levels and singling out one sector to take the fall for everything for all of the levels is wrong.

Tam, If the packers are going to compete by selling the ofal or using it in their own operations for other feed (as in poultry) they should be held accountable for any damages caused by that use. No one told them to use the offal that way, they just made a new use up.

Do I think we need a new regulation everytime a company does something "stupid" like this? Heck, no. We need to have a judicial system that is not so influenced so that people get justice at least 97% of the time. If we have to make a new rule everytime someone comes up with a new way to commit fraud, we would have too many regulations. What do you think deregulation is all about? Just because there is no regulation against something does not mean there is no liability. That assertion is about as smart as my goldfish. Do the packers try to hide behind things like this? Yes, and you are an outspoken advocate for such fraud.

Am I excusing the govt. for their lack of accountabilty? Heck no. We have one of the most inefficient and corrupt judicial systems that is prone to political manipulation. The Pickett case is a perfect example. While in one sentence they verbalize the arguments in the case, the next they negate them for no good reason. Our govt. has no accountability and the bureaucrats that are supposedly responsible for running regulatory agencies pile up govt. retirement and benefits that put private industry to shame. They allow companies to win arguments because of company "efficiency" and low or no profitability as an excuse to not exercise the economic awards of damage.

The BSE issue was caused by the packers and they should bear the responsibility. This is just another example of what a cheap food policy gets you. Cheap food and a lot of costs distributed to those not responsible for causing the harm.

DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTED PROOF OF YOUR ACCUSATIONS? As it has been said on here many times the proof is up to the accuser so prove the packers caused the BSE issue in North America. Prove they, the packers, imported the infected cattle from the UK. Prove they, the packers, made the feed that infected the North American herd. Prove they, the packers, fed it to the infected cattle. At least prove they invented feeding Ruminant proteins back to ruminants. Your opinion is cheap talk but now that you have insisted on putting the fault of the BSE issue solely on the heads of the packers PROVE IT WITH DOCUMENTED PROOF.

 

[Econ101]

Tam, Please stop the "proof" game. The fact is, and has been widely acknowledged on this forum, that the BSE problems originated from cattle being fed parts of other cattle that the packers sold as a feed ingredient.

Do you deny this?

 

[Bill]

And if the Government wouldn't have negotiated them out of testing the Under twenty month

Tam by that statment one would gather that we are sending under twenty months to Japan. That hasn't happened yet. Hopefully it will and the sooner the better. The interesting thing will then be how the Japanese consumer accepts untested beef when sold along side beef that is tested.

So Randy are you now taking advantage of the deal the government negotiated when they didn't buckle to the pressure to 100% test for market access? If the government would have buckled to the supporters of testing would Japan now be on the verge of taking beef from Untested Under twenty month old cattle? And if the Government wouldn't have negotiated them out of testing the Under twenty month would we have had enough testing capacity to handle the testing you were asking for?

Bill that was a nice little snip to discredit , but if you read the whole quote you will see I used Randy's own words about how Japan is on the verge of taking our beef so how you can gather I meant they were taking it is beyond me.

Deals are negotiated and then they are implimented. And it is to bad that in this case the implimenting is taken a bit longer than it should, because of the political rangleings of the Japanese government to get out of the 100% testing they are doing so our beef can come in untested but that is part of the implimenting stage. not the negotiating stage. :wink:
By the way Bill would you like to answer the question would Canada have had enough testing capacity if we still had to test for Japan once the border opens to our beef?

Not trying to discredit, merely correct. You said we had talked them out of testing under twenty months but until we send them some it is as meaningless as the talk we heard for almost 2 years out of CCA that the US border would soon be opening. It eventually did as will Japan but I won't be clicking my heels until it happens.

As far as the testing, go back and recall some of Ralph Klein's banter about "TESTING EVERY ANIMAL IN ALBERTA". If the political will was there within gov't and especially our industry and a portion of the BSE bailout money had been diverted, we could have had enough labs to test all OTMs and much of that beef would be moving offshore.

We have been darn fortunate in both countries that more positive cases have not been announced but there will be some it's just a question of when.

 

[Tam]

Tam, Please stop the "proof" game. The fact is, and has been widely acknowledged on this forum, that the BSE problems originated from cattle being fed parts of other cattle that the packers sold as a feed ingredient.

Do you deny this?

Gee Econ can't you prove your accusations so you are telling me to stop asking?

The packers sold a raw material to the feed manufacturing industry which was and still is legal for them to do. Now what the feed manufacturer put that raw material into is the Feed manufacturers responibility not the packers. If the feed manufacturer had put it all into chicken or pork or pet food nothing would have happen but they put it in cattle feed, the packers didn't. Even now if the feed manufacturer puts it in chicken feed which is still legal to do in the US and the producer feeds that CHICKEN FEED to his sick calves because it also contains cheap antibiotics is the feed manufacturer responible for the misuse of his product or is the producer? If you as a producer :wink: sold an infected cow, (remember Econ some think that BSE can just spontaniously happen or be caused by the enviroment , and yours could just happen to be a victim of Mother nature) to a packer and he not knowing she was infected because the USDA didn't target her for testing sold the raw materials from her to a feed manufacturer. Who in turn made chicken feed out of the raw material not knowing they were infected. He then sold it to a chicken barn and the chicken barn sold the chicken litter back to a producer. Then the producer legally fed it to his cattle. And by chance one of his animals had the right conditions to contract BSE. Who would be responible for the second case of BSE?
1. Mother nature because your cow was infected,
2. YOU the producer that sold her not knowing she was infected,
3. the packer for selling raw materials from her not knowing she was infected
4. the USDA for not testing her to see if she was infected
5. the feed manufacturer for making feed from the raw materials from her that the packer sold to him,
6. the chicken barn for selling the chicken litter,
7. the producer that fed her back to his cattle
or
8. the USDA that didn't make the feeding of chicken litter back to cattle illegal which would have stopped the first cow from getting fed back to the second cow?
I can see why the producers in the US don't want to ID their cattle as if a reportable disease like BSE is found they can't be held responible for it. but the packer can because he unfortunately was the one that slaughtered her.
The packer is a middle man in this chain of events I want your proof of the packers wrong doing in this sequence of events, if you insist on accusing him of causing BSE and that he should be held accountable. Put up or shut up.

 

[rkaiser]

My goodnes Tam. Does it really matter who is to BLAME. The producers of Canada were the ones to pay the price and nothing can be done to change that. But Tam will continue her unrelenting Defence of the packers.

Isn't it funny how In #3 of Tam's list, the packer is innocent for "not knowing" but in #7 the producer simply" fed her back to his cattle."

Tam

3. the packer for selling raw materials from her not knowing she was infected
7. the producer that fed her back to his cattle

I'm not here to argue on this on Tam dear, I don't believe in the feed transmission theory anyway. It is always interesting however to hear you stick up for your poor poor packer buddies who somehow squeezed through this whole debacle with PROFITS while the Canadian producer paid an ultimate price.

 

[Tam]

My goodnes Tam. Does it really matter who is to BLAME. The producers of Canada were the ones to pay the price and nothing can be done to change that. But Tam will continue her unrelenting Defence of the packers.

Isn't it funny how In #3 of Tam's list, the packer is innocent for "not knowing" but in #7 the producer simply" fed her back to his cattle."

Tam

3. the packer for selling raw materials from her not knowing she was infected
7. the producer that fed her back to his cattle

I'm not here to argue on this on Tam dear, I don't believe in the feed transmission theory anyway. It is always interesting however to hear you stick up for your poor poor packer buddies who somehow squeezed through this whole debacle with PROFITS while the Canadian producer paid an ultimate price.

Randy why is that some accusations have to be backed up by proof on Ranchers and some don't? If you accuse, you better beable to back it up or pay the consequences of making false accusation with your credibility. Econ is insisting the BSE is caused by the packers If he wants to keep his credibility here on Rancher let him prove it. Let us see what facts he has to back up his accusation. Maybe they are the same kind of facts you had when you posted the packers only lost 30% of their market because that is all we exported and how Canadian consumers accounted for 70% of our total beef production :wink:

And sorry Randy, I didn't include that the feed manufacturer didn't know and the chicken barn operator didn't know and so the producer that bought the chicken litter didn't know that she was infected. Could you not guess that if the first producer and the packer didn't know that none of the rest of them would know either Geez it doesnt take a rocket sciencist to figure it out they also wouldn't have know does it Randy? :roll:

 

[rkaiser]

If you were ever bring anything to the forum Tam, we may be able to question you. However it seems to be your job to police the site, and argue anything that could be seen as "against the packers".

Funny how most of us can get Econo's point, except the packer defenders.

I will have to humor you a bit on this one Tam because "as I said before --- I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FEED TRANSMISSION THEORY-"

So. If the feed transmission theory was true - Where does meat and bone meal come from. Ranchers - NO- Feeders - No - Feed Companies - NO unless that feed company is linked to one of the packer who DO produce MEAT and BONE meal. Meat and Bone meal is a product derived from the slaughter cattle - is it not? Cattle are slaughtered in packing plants - are they not. Packers lobbied the governments of the world to allow them to make a buck off this shirt, did they not?
Laws said that packers could sell this shirt to feed companies, true. Just like laws said Cargill and Tyson could rape the producers of Canada during the BSE situation. Does that make everything allright? Don't worry Tam, the law will protect your buddies even without puppets like you.