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

Perspective, reasons you should buy regular goods

Help Support Ranchers.net:

All I know is that timely rains can make any rancher look pretty smart, and if you don't get the moisture, you can look like a slipshod bad operator. :? :wink: :)

I think we all try to do the best we can with the hand we are dealt. It is foolish for any of us to cut down others because they don't follow exactly the same procedures that we do.
 
So much twisting of comments and facts.........so little free time to play on the internet!

RM, first, back to the question of NCBA "policy".........where is your apology for 'misunderstanding' how our policies are set in your attempt to make the organization look bad?

BTW, who are you accusing with your "the fact that they won't even answer....." comment? Jason answered, and I was not avoiding the question, but was considering it. I'm not certain that cattle CAREFULLY fed REQUIRE such care, nor am I certain that the practice is universal.

The product will be "healthy" if it has no residues in it, IMO.

What do you think about andybobs' observation that many livers are condemned not because they are damaged or 'bad', but because they have a different texture that may be confusing.

What I AM very sure of is that the "doctors" organization determined to stop uses of antibiotics in animals may or may not be bona fide medical doctors and searchers, but more likely are activists with less than sterling credibility. Has there been genuine research or study LINKING antibiotic use on animals to problems with antibiotic resistant illnesses in HUMANS? Has there been any real crackdown on over-prescribing antibiotics for humans by doctors? I don't believe so, since it still is done. Has there been any call to end the redundant practice of putting antibacterials in soaps? Why are residues of antibiotics found in sewage systems where there are no animals using the systems? There is more than a little indication that this issue has more to do with anti-animal agriculture than with better health of people or animal, from what I've observed.

Would you explain why your answer to the question is "no".

Sandhusker, when an R-CALF leader or DIRECTOR (such as Johnny Smith, for instance) makes a statement that seems to indicate a policy on an issue, should that be taken at face value, or discounted as so much hot air?

Really, has anyone said there are no dishonest people in any line of this business? So, there are some better organic standards than the govt. has. How are we to know if the individual producer actually follows what he claims to do? How is it verified? Should be be so paranoid about this issue that there must be radical testing and verification of practices?

Back to your "church bake sale" liturgy.....I never missed your point, but simply found it diversionary. It would be foolish to put the same price on each pie, no matter the quality. Point: some producers are willing to keep on going to the sale barn and asking "what will you give me", while others are MARKETING their calves on the merits, separating them by quality before allowing the bidding to begin.

Another question for you, Sandhusker, which BSE tests are simple, totally accurate, give immediate results, and are accepted by the veterinary/medical/research community world wide for use by non-professionals?

mrj
 
MRJ, "Back to your "church bake sale" liturgy.....I never missed your point, but simply found it diversionary. It would be foolish to put the same price on each pie, no matter the quality."

Yes you have missed it. This isn't about pies.

MRJ, "Another question for you, Sandhusker, which BSE tests are simple, totally accurate, give immediate results, and are accepted by the veterinary/medical/research community world wide for use by non-professionals?"

No test for any disease are accepted for use by non-professionals.
 
Someday I got to meet this Johnny Smith...Anybody that can get himself mentioned in all of Maxines posts and keep her panties in such a wad-- must be one hell of a man... :wink: :lol:
 
Sandhusker, when an R-CALF leader or DIRECTOR (such as Johnny Smith, for instance) makes a statement that seems to indicate a policy on an issue, should that be taken at face value, or discounted as so much hot air?
Click to expand...

MRJ....I think you would have to ask him if he is giving his opinion or if he is talking about R-calf policy. Just because Johnny Smith is a director or what ever he is, doesn't mean he agrees with all R-calf policy or R-calf agrees with his opinions on everything. Do you agree?
 
mrj said:
What I AM very sure of is that the "doctors" organization determined to stop uses of antibiotics in animals may or may not be bona fide medical doctors and searchers, but more likely are activists with less than sterling credibility.
Click to expand...

Yeah those fake doctors at Harvard medical that recommend being careful with prescribing antibiotics must not know what they're talking about. :roll:

:roll:

Rod
 
OT, IMO, Johnny Smith, an owner of Ft. Pierre cattle auction and director of R-CALF, is a Jimmy Baker type preacher, R-CALF is his church, and the cattle producers who put their dollars in the R-CALF collection plate at the sale are his congregation. Truth about the Beef Checkoff and NCBA is sacrificed routinely from his pulpit (the auction block and "market reports" on some SD radio stations). I believe anyone who routinely propagandizes against the Beef Checkoff making false claims that NCBA uses the money to support Policy issues for purposes of turning ranchers aginst those two organizations should have to answer for it. He knows better, having long been a SDLMA rep on the SD Beef Council and attended meetings where the facts have been thoroughly explained.

Rod, I NEVER said care should not be taken with use of antibiotics. I do say that there is too little research verifying the connection between antibiotics used for animals and antibiotic resistant illnesses in humans. Nor do I believe that careful, regulated, use of antibiotics in cattle feeding under advice of veterinarians is irresponsible use of antibiotics.

BTW, what are the credentials of the "physicians" on that activist groups board? How many are in research in the area of antibiotics, and how many are in non-related disciplines, such as psychiatry, for instance?

ranch hand, JS raises mega bucks for R-CALF. Without the fundraising at the sale barns, that group would have only their members' dues to play "lawsuit" with. On rare occasions, we have seen in print lists of money raised in various barns, and Ft. Pierre is huge.

Sandhusker, maybe you are beginning to get it re. BSE testing!!! Now, how much increase in cattle prices would be necessary to fund the huge increase in bureaucracy needed to provide professionals to test, record, administer, and verify the testing of ALL beef produced in the USA?

mrj
 
MRJ, "Sandhusker, maybe you are beginning to get it re. BSE testing!!! Now, how much increase in cattle prices would be necessary to fund the huge increase in bureaucracy needed to provide professionals to test, record, administer, and verify the testing of ALL beef produced in the USA?"

Our Asian customers don't buy ALL the beef produced in the USA. Besides that, they said they would pay for the test. Do some math, MRJ. We lost around 1.4 Billion for every year the USDA, with NCBA's approval, kept US cattlemen from servicing a market. Until we get to former levels, we're still losing money. How many $20 tests could we of done for the $5 billion that we've already left on the table? What kind of cattlemen's organization supports a policy that squelches private enterprise and costs cattlemen $5 Billion and counting?
 
mrj said:
BTW, what are the credentials of the "physicians" on that activist groups board? How many are in research in the area of antibiotics, and how many are in non-related disciplines, such as psychiatry, for instance?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, ridicule it and it will go away. I've seen studies FROM MEDICAL DOCTORS from reputable schools and research facilities that attribute resitant strains to antibiotic overuse. If medicating feed for animals isn't overuse, I don't know what is.

Rod
 
mrj wrote-" JS raises mega bucks for R-CALF. Without the fundraising at the sale barns, that group would have only their members' dues to play "lawsuit" with. On rare occasions, we have seen in print lists of money raised in various barns, and Ft. Pierre is huge."







MRJ, Johnny Smith is to R-CALF, what the Beef Promotion Research Board, is to the NCBA.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 
Sorry, Ben, but the CBB is NOT a director, on NCBA. J.S. obviously is a director of R-CALF, and the SD BIC.

The Federation division of NCBA is the national org. of the state Beef Councils and controlling and funded by the state 50 cent share of the Beef Checkoff, independent of the CBB (which controls the national 50 cent share of the dollar Beef Checkoff) while the Policy division of NCBA is not checkoff funded.

Rod, sure there may be SOME such studies, however, there definitely is at least one activist group claiming to be doctors that makes many opportunities to criticize comption of meats, definitely including beef.

There definitely are credible, respected researchers in many science based fields who support modern methods of feeding and caring for animals.

Sandhusker, SOME cattle producers and organization leadership understand that it is better to use the best available, internationally accepted science as a guide for beef production and sales than to dive into use of an unknown, less than accepted 'test' for BSE. Most especially when current knowledge SUPPORTS the USDA contention that beef, even from animals with BSE, is safe if proper practices of SRM removal are followed.

Further USDA and NCBA did NOT keep us from servicing that market, overzealous, more than slightly protectionist, regulations by foreign countries did it.

If beef is so tested for export, it should have to be tested for our own US consumers, IMO. What would it tell consumers about you if you do not want them as well 'protected' from BSE as you do those lucrative foreign consumers????

mrj
 
MRJ, "Sandhusker, SOME cattle producers and organization leadership understand that it is better to use the best available, internationally accepted science as a guide for beef production and sales than to dive into use of an unknown, less than accepted 'test' for BSE. Most especially when current knowledge SUPPORTS the USDA contention that beef, even from animals with BSE, is safe if proper practices of SRM removal are followed."

"Less than accepted test"? :shock: How do you explain those under 30 month BSE positives when the USDA's accepted science says that can't happen? How can beef be safe from BSE when every bite you take has nerve tissue? How do the prions make their way from the stomach to the SRMs if not thru the same blood stream that also courses every bite of beef that you eat? Have you ever considered those questions before you automatically believed what the USDA told you?

MRJ, "Further USDA and NCBA did NOT keep us from servicing that market, overzealous, more than slightly protectionist, regulations by foreign countries did it."

Horse crap. In Japan's case, they were simply asking the same that they did of their domestic producers. There are people in Asia who will buy tested US beef, but not tested. However, we can't tap into those markets because the USDA is protecting the interests of the big multi-nationals at the expense of US cattlemen - and the NCBA is supporting that. Why would a cattlemen's group support a policy that quashed business and suppresed sales? Answer: They're not a cattlemen's group. Greg Dowd says it cost us $175/head, MRJ, yet NCBA still supported it. Unbelievable.

MRJ, "If beef is so tested for export, it should have to be tested for our own US consumers, IMO. What would it tell consumers about you if you do not want them as well 'protected' from BSE as you do those lucrative foreign consumers???? "

What to you tell them when those "lucrative foreign consumers" get only 20 month and younger while they get the "old stuff"? Did you forget about that deal? Nobody is saying that ALL beef for export has to be tested. However, if some of our foreign customers want it, we should be able to provide it to them. Same for domestic. It's called generating saled by being responsive to a customer's requests. It's business 101. It's part of free enterprise and value-adding that the NCBA claims to support, but does not.
 
mrj said:
Rod, sure there may be SOME such studies, however, there definitely is at least one activist group claiming to be doctors that makes many opportunities to criticize comption of meats, definitely including beef.
Click to expand...

MRJ, you COMPLETELY missed my point. In HUMANS, overuse and misuse of HUMAN antibiotics is thought to have cause many of the resistant strains of previously treatable illnesses we see now. Now why would you think that overuse of CATTLE antibiotics, such as that seen in medicated feeds, wouldn't do the exact same thing to CATTLE? I'm not even remotely talking about cattle antibiotics having an effect on humans.

20 years ago, all a feedlot needed was penicillin and Liquimycin. Now they've got drug cabinets that look like a drugstore supermarket. Do you not see any connection? Or does the NCBA not actually care about animal welfare and is only concerned with short term economics of livestock production?

Rod
 
Ben, please be specific.

Exactly what are you implying?

And what is your basis for whatever that may be?

Thank you.

mrj
 
MRJ, "Sandhusker, as usual, you support whatever you believe will discredit NCBA and others, even when it is harmful to US beef producers, and regardless of the facts."

What is harmful to US beef producers is leadership that doesn't know the first thing about salesmanship –and costs us sales as a result. How many Billions of dollars did we leave, and are still leaving, on the able in Japan, MRJ? HOW MANY? How much have we lost in Korea? That doesn't bother you at all? Last year, almost all of my cow/calf guys lost money – real money. NCBA says being shut out of Asia cost them $175/head. Half of that amount would of put my guys in the black. Now please tell me how a cattleman's organization can support a policy that causes producers to lose real money? You think I'm just discrediting NCBA with no facts? The facts are the policies NCBA is supporting is costing US cattlemen real money and is jeopardizing future profitability! I'm on the front line and I see it.

MRJ, "Obviously that Korean editorial writer is spreading ill will toward the USA in order to support his own agenda......and ignores the facts, quite like you do. "

"Ill will"? Just where is he wrong?

MRJ, "Reasonable customers would be expected to reject the box of unapproved material, not stop all trade, making this reek of trade trickery, IMO. Trade with the USA, especially our beef products, is extremely controversial with the politicians there. However, we hear reports that the PEOPLE of Korea want it, like it, and are eating as much of it as they can get!"


The US, as a supplier, can't even follow through with an agreement that we bullied the South Koreans into – and SK is being unreasonable?


MRJ, "So Korea does not have to accept the OIE recommendations......nor does the USA have to kowtow to Korea and accept whatever they wish to send to us if they continue to put artifically stringent blocks to importing our beef, IMO."

Nor does Korea have to buy our beef. Who's writing the check, MRJ? How would you respond if a salesman came to your door and demand you bought what he was selling?

MRJ, "Unlike some R-CALF members, I believe we DO need to export our beef and participate in world marketing. Isolationism didn't work in the past and will not work in the future."

Unlike some NCBA members who just parrot what they've been told, I know R-CALF isn't advocating isolationism.

MRJ, "I know that NCBA has called on USDA to lean harder on those exporting beef to clean up their act. What have you done to improve the situation, beyond your attempts to trash those to entities???"

Those entities should be trashed, MRJ. I'm embarrassed for them. I've contacted all three of my Congressmen pointing out the short-sided, block-headed, arrogant stupidity of the USDA – and the predictable results they've been getting. What have you done?



I'm sure you're a nice person and mean well, MRJ. However, you don't know the first thing that is really going on. People like you that just trust without connecting the dots themselves actually hurt what they're meaning to help. You need to wake up and actually see what NCBA is supporting and how it is affecting cattlemen. I see it and I'm mad as hell.
 
MRJ wrote:
Sandhusker, my church doesn't have bake sales. We learned that auctions are more fair. People will pay more for better quality, or for something they really want, friendly competitions excepted. We like those, too because they raise quite a bit more money for improvements to our little rural town church, along with being fun.
Click to expand...

So then, Maxine, wouldn't the same "pay more for better quality or for something they really want" apply to the beef industry. COnsumers WANT to know where their meat comes from and will pay for that assurance. Wouldn't it stand to reason that products labeled by country of origin would be WORTH MORE?

Of course, you will come up with some dribble put out by AMI disproving this, but I don't care. Once again, you have shown that COOL will work, but you won't admit it.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Sandhusker, NCBA has more than 27,000 dues paying Policy div. members, the majority of them cow/calf/stocker operators, and a significant percentage are independent cattle feeders. The predominate in policy decisions..........therefore your claims that NCBA policies damage US cattle producers simply cannot hold up. Re. producers making or not making money......what have you done to put your customers into the low cost group who have made money, according to studies at NDSU, among others? That most likely is more important than chasing the export market at this point in time. There obviously is more to trade negotiations than you seem willing to admit, and easier and more fun for you to blame USDA and NCBA. Or even packers. It clearly is not benefitting them to make such mistakes. Do you entirely rule out some form of sabotage (committed in either Korea or the USA) in those errors? I sure wouldn't!

POINT: there's much that is not yet known and understood about BSE. There is much to indicate that current practices are safe. I'm not sure there is ANY truly accurate test. Do you know of one and is it available in quantity to test every animal going to slaughter? Would only one test be absolutely accurate even if one exists? We can do and most likely are doing what is possible to keep the odds high in favor of safety, while searching diligently for better solutions, IMO, until such time as information and really accurate tests are available in necessary numbers.

Since you nor anyone else not involved in trade negotiations and in research into BSE can truly know all there is to know on these subjects, and you are claiming false deeds and deception on the part of USDA and others re. testing, SRM removal, and beef safety for starters, why should anyone believe you about these subjects over those who are doing their best with the knowledge currently available?

BTW, that "old stuff" does not go into the food chain if an animal is showing any sign of illness. Would you prefer that we do not use any older animals for food? What is your alternative, until we have enough truly accurate tests for ALL animals?

FYI, no one has "told me what to say" here. No one has bullied SK into the trade agreement! They are very tough trade negotiators. Again, what you don't know is probably illuninating compared with what you do know...yet you continue to act as if everything is at face value in negotiations. You continually claim or imply that nothing is being done to correct failures in miniscule amounts of the beef shipped. Reasonably, we know that is not true.

Certainly SK doesn't HAVE to buy our beef.....but their consumers do want it, and they want to sell products to us. Nor are we DEMANDING they buy anything forbidden in the contracts. BTW, wasn't there a prominent R-CALF member (maybe former member now) who used to say "we don't need to export beef"???

You say you contacted your legislators "pointing out short sided, block headed, arrogant stupidity of the USDA...". Boy, that's telling them!!! You remind me of a Wagon Boss on 1902 Roundups in SD who swore viciously at some of his hands, lining them out for the day, then proudly turned to another Wagon Boss, saying "that's telling 'em"! The other Wagon Boss calmly said "all my men and I are gentlemen and don't have to talk like that to understand one another"......and went on quietly and efficiently about his business!!!!

I am a nice person, and freely admit I don't know EVERYTHING about what is going on. You, on the other hand, may not truly know as much as you think you do, and need to take off those blinders and look at the whole picture. Please tell us how it would be possible for you, someone not involved, to know so much as you claim to about these issues and what you claim is IN THE MINDS of packers, USDA staff, NCBA leaders, when you don't even discuss the issues with them???chief,

Rod, maybe that isn't what you refer to, however many activists have blown it into fears over the possiblity of resistance crossing between species.

Why would you want to give up the research advances for bovine health of the past 20 years? Antibiotics, properly used for animals have proven very beneficial, and studies show improper uses are rare. And I believe you know very well that NCBA members DO care about animal welfare and have been leaders in improving care. We also understand that healthy animals are the more profitable animals, after all.

chief, I haven't talked to anyone at AMI recently, and don't need to to know that COOL covers too small a percentage of the beef sold in the USA to be viable as a quality test. Consumers want to know not only what country the beef is raised in, but which ranch/farm in the USA and COOL does not require that. Much of beef consumed in this country is through food service, restaurants, etc., and those are not covered by COOL. The means of such assurance to consumers already is available, with market driven, branded beef products. Check the current issue of Beef magazine for the latest update on the alliances providing such branded beef. That is the kind of ID consumers REALLY want on their beef! COOL, if implemented as the law is written, will prove to be an expensive lesson in "be careful what you ask for.....you may get it"!!!!

mrj
 
MRJ, "I am a nice person, and freely admit I don't know EVERYTHING about what is going on. You, on the other hand, may not truly know as much as you think you do, and need to take off those blinders and look at the whole picture. Please tell us how it would be possible for you, someone not involved, to know so much as you claim to about these issues and what you claim is IN THE MINDS of packers, USDA staff, NCBA leaders, when you don't even discuss the issues with them???"

I KNOW we've lost over 5 Billion and counting by not giving Asia what they want. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

I KNOW USDA would not let us give Asia what they wanted claiming trade had to be based on sound science, even though I KNOW they are allowing products that are not based on sound science to be traded. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

I KNOW NCBA backed the USDA's position. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

For NCBA to claim to back private enterprise and adding value, then to back a policy that stifles exactly that and at the same time costs US producers $5 Billion in lost sales - and counting - when my folks are backing up totally disgusts and infuriorates me. A cattleman's organization my fat arse.
 

Latest posts

Top