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

Question for anti-COOL folks

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big packers are behind this "free trade" deal. They want to be able to move beef from any country to any country without restrictions. The reasons are obvious, more options for them and cheaper suppliers. If you don't agree, please tell me how I'm wrong. If you're in agreement so far, here's the question;

When Tyson, Cargill, Smithfield, et al need beef and they can get all they need from Australia, Argentina, Brazil, whatever cheaper than they can buy US - where do you think they're going to source their product? How is that going to affect YOU?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
No arguement Sandhusker -

How about a question back at you.

You know that I have no problem with cool.

SO when it happens - will you and Oldtimer be happy - or will you continue to play the blame game about who's beef is safer etc.?
 

Bill

Well-known member
No need in me answering your question Sandhusker as I am in favor of mCOOL (as long as it is applied to both domestic and imported beef) but here is a question for you.

Why wouldn't US producers that are so passionate about COOL try to get Canadian producers on side and work with them instead of alianating them. I agree with the assessment of the South American beef supply and if that hits North America may God help us all.

Leave the R-Calf anti-Canadian rhetoric at the door and give us your honest answer.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Big packers are behind this "free trade" deal. They want to be able to move beef from any country to any country without restrictions. The reasons are obvious, more options for them and cheaper suppliers. If you don't agree, please tell me how I'm wrong. If you're in agreement so far, here's the question.



When Tyson, Cargill, Smithfield, et al need beef and they can get all they need from Australia, Argentina, Brazil, whatever cheaper than they can buy US - where do you think they're going to source their product? How is that going to affect YOU?

Sandhusker, I don't agree! I believe that there other multi-national corporations behind the free trade issues, other than just the packers.


Sandhusker, your headliner "Question for anti-COOL folks" What does your question have to do with anti-COOL folks? My answer to you would be the same, anti or pro COOL!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts[/b]
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
No need in me answering your question Sandhusker as I am in favor of mCOOL (as long as it is applied to both domestic and imported beef) but here is a question for you.

Why wouldn't US producers that are so passionate about COOL try to get Canadian producers on side and work with them instead of alianating them. I agree with the assessment of the South American beef supply and if that hits North America may God help us all.

Leave the R-Calf anti-Canadian rhetoric at the door and give us your honest answer.

We're getting off topic here and I really want the anti-COOL guys to weigh in, but...

Sure, I'll give you an honest answer, Bill. My views certainly are not anti-Canadian as I have nothing at all against Canadians. So, you can take that "R-CALF anti-Canadian" comment and place it where it belongs - in the toilet. I'm looking at this purely from a business standpoint, and if it helps you, replace Canada with "Company X" and US with "Company Y".

Canadians are in competition with us, directly if overseas in one of the 37 countries who already have COOL and indirectly when Tyson and Cargill sell your product mixed with ours down here. If anybody worldwide chooses Canadian beef instead of US, we lose a sale and thus lose money. I also look at Canada and see not only competition, but a net exporter of beef. If I'm in the business of SELLING beef, shouldn't I be partnering with somebody who BUYS beef? Now, if Canada enhances my sales by bringing to the table something that I can't do myself, there's something to be weighed. However, what does a partnership with Canada do that the US can't do alone? Why would any business take on a partner who's cut is larger than the contribution?

Randy, "SO when it happens - will you and Oldtimer be happy - or will you continue to play the blame game about who's beef is safer etc.?"

We'll let the consumer make the call and the chips will fall where they fall.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Ben, "Sandhusker, I don't agree! I believe that there other multi-national corporations behind the free trade issues, other than just the packers."

That's true, Ben, but I didn't say the packers were the only ones behind free trade and that has no bearing on the question. The question is what are you going to do to get the packers to buy your product instead of the cheaper imports?


Ben, "Sandhusker, your headliner "Question for anti-COOL folks" What does your question have to do with anti-COOL folks? My answer to you would be the same, anti or pro COOL!"

You didn't answer the question whatever your affilliation! :lol: I posed it to you anti-COOL folks because I see COOL as a tool that helps get us out of the price game - a game we already know we can't win. Maybe you guys have a better idea? So, what are you going to do?
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Sandhusker- "If I'm in the business of SELLING beef, shouldn't I be partnering with somebody who BUYS beef?"

Sandhusker, Everyday there are six to ten loads of beef shipped from Pasco, Washington to Canada, and I have no idea of how much beef is shipped everyday into Canada on the east coast, it would be alot greater though, than that shipped from Pasco. If you count the live cattle, what about the thousands of feeders that go north every year from the USA, or the fats that go north everyday into Ontario.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker- "If I'm in the business of SELLING beef, shouldn't I be partnering with somebody who BUYS beef?"

Sandhusker, Everyday there are six to ten loads of beef shipped from Pasco, Washington to Canada, and I have no idea of how much beef is shipped everyday into Canada on the east coast, it would be alot greater though, than that shipped from Pasco. If you count the live cattle, what about the thousands of feeders that go north every year from the USA, or the fats that go north everyday into Ontario.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Ben, some Americans move to Mexico, too. What's the net?

So what's the plan with my original question?
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker- "If I'm in the business of SELLING beef, shouldn't I be partnering with somebody who BUYS beef?"

Sandhusker, Everyday there are six to ten loads of beef shipped from Pasco, Washington to Canada, and I have no idea of how much beef is shipped everyday into Canada on the east coast, it would be alot greater though, than that shipped from Pasco. If you count the live cattle, what about the thousands of feeders that go north every year from the USA, or the fats that go north everyday into Ontario.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Ben... the beef from these cattle would be labled Product of USA and Canada. I sure would pick them over Product of USA and China. Wouldn't you?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Guess I'm not eligible to answer your original question...and I dare say, it doesn't look like you are getting any answers! :roll: :lol:

Sandhusker- "If I'm in the business of SELLING beef, shouldn't I be partnering with somebody who BUYS beef?"

Like partnering with McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King to do some positive advertising for our largest customers?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
No need in me answering your question Sandhusker as I am in favor of mCOOL (as long as it is applied to both domestic and imported beef) but here is a question for you.

Why wouldn't US producers that are so passionate about COOL try to get Canadian producers on side and work with them instead of alianating them. I agree with the assessment of the South American beef supply and if that hits North America may God help us all.

Leave the R-Calf anti-Canadian rhetoric at the door and give us your honest answer.

We're getting off topic here and I really want the anti-COOL guys to weigh in, but...

Sure, I'll give you an honest answer, Bill. My views certainly are not anti-Canadian as I have nothing at all against Canadians. So, you can take that "R-CALF anti-Canadian" comment and place it where it belongs - in the toilet. I'm looking at this purely from a business standpoint, and if it helps you, replace Canada with "Company X" and US with "Company Y".

Canadians are in competition with us, directly if overseas in one of the 37 countries who already have COOL and indirectly when Tyson and Cargill sell your product mixed with ours down here. If anybody worldwide chooses Canadian beef instead of US, we lose a sale and thus lose money. I also look at Canada and see not only competition, but a net exporter of beef. If I'm in the business of SELLING beef, shouldn't I be partnering with somebody who BUYS beef? Now, if Canada enhances my sales by bringing to the table something that I can't do myself, there's something to be weighed. However, what does a partnership with Canada do that the US can't do alone? Why would any business take on a partner who's cut is larger than the contribution?

Randy, "SO when it happens - will you and Oldtimer be happy - or will you continue to play the blame game about who's beef is safer etc.?"

We'll let the consumer make the call and the chips will fall where they fall.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You fell of the path even before you got started!!!

Read what I wrote! American and Canadian PRODUCERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So I guess if the Canadian producer is your competition AS WELL AS the big bad packers AS WELL AS the South Americans AS WELL AS the Chinese AS WELL AS the Aussies AS WELL AS all the CHICKEN and PORK and other protein sources sold in the US............. then you had better go it alone.

How's it been working so far? :roll:

I think Randy nailed it. You seem much more content in playing the blame game and pointining fingers at all those I have listed above. It seems to me that Canadian producers should be the first group considered to partner up with in trying to find a solution.

Oh well I guess we're simply wrong again huh?
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Big packers are behind this "free trade" deal. If you don't agree, please tell me how I'm wrong. If you're in agreement so far, here's the question;

Sandhusker, your above post, is what you said! I don't agree, I told you how I thought you were wrong!

Sense, I didn't agree with you, I didn't qualify, to answer your question.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker said:
Big packers are behind this "free trade" deal. If you don't agree, please tell me how I'm wrong. If you're in agreement so far, here's the question;

Sandhusker, your above post, is what you said! I don't agree, I told you how I thought you were wrong!

Sense, I didn't agree with you, I didn't qualify, to answer your question.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

So you don't agree that the big packers support free trade? That's all that I said. What does your waffling tell you, Ben? :lol:
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
My views certainly are not anti-Canadian as I have nothing at all against Canadians. So, you can take that "R-CALF anti-Canadian" comment and place it where it belongs - in the toilet. I'm looking at this purely from a business standpoint, and if it helps you, replace Canada with "Company X" and US with "Company Y".

Canadians are in competition with us, directly if overseas in one of the 37 countries who already have COOL and indirectly when Tyson and Cargill sell your product mixed with ours down here. If anybody worldwide chooses Canadian beef instead of US, we lose a sale and thus lose money. I also look at Canada and see not only competition, but a net exporter of beef. If I'm in the business of SELLING beef, shouldn't I be partnering with somebody who BUYS beef? Now, if Canada enhances my sales by bringing to the table something that I can't do myself, there's something to be weighed. However, what does a partnership with Canada do that the US can't do alone? Why would any business take on a partner who's cut is larger than the contribution?

By this line of reasoning, I guess we should be skeptical of all of our ranching neighbors in Cherry County. They are undoubtedly more in "direct" competition with us than are ranchers in Canada, South America or Australia. This should also give us reason to do nothing but cheer when Ted Turner buys another ranch in Cherry County, because another direct competitor is no longer around to bother us. :? What about South Dakota ranchers or Wyoming ranchers? I guess they are also to be considered "bad guys" because they are also competing for available money that is spent on beef.

COOL (country of origin labeling) is nothing more than a "cool" buzzword. It means nothing to a hungry person. Which would be more desirable, a beef steak with origins in South America, or a strictly vegetarian meal grown in Grandma's garden next door and processed and cooked entirely by her? No offense to Grandma, but I believe I would take the South American steak, thank you.

Personally, I despise rules and regulations. The quotation, "That government is best that governs least," comes to mind. Life is complicated enough without more bureaucratic unenforceable rules clogging up the arteries of commerce.

We claim Cherry County, Nebraska, as our ranch residence. Though we live on the Nebraska side of the border, a third of our ranch is actually in Bennett County, South Dakota. This could be a genuine hassle, but fortunately there is a "loop-hole" whereby we can annually apply for a grazing permit. This allows us to freely take cattle back and forth on both sides of the border without having them brand inspected and health inspected. What a pain life would be if we couldn't take advantage of this grazing permit. For starters, much of this border isn't even fenced.

I appreciate the freedoms allowed between the different states in these wonderful United States of America. Canada has always been like a little brother to us, with almost as much freedom allowed between the two countries as between our own states. It is sad that this friendly border is now in jeopardy of too much regulation. If I was a rancher along the USA/Canadian border, I would like to exercise the same "freedoms" that I am allowed being on the Nebraska/South Dakota border. Mandatory country-of-origin labeling would not set well with me. Beef that would "travel" back and forth on both sides of the border would end up being beef without a home. Canada couln't claim it because it had set hoof in the USA. The USA couldn't claim it because it was "tainted" on Canadian soil.

COOL is a desirable attribute, but only on a voluntary basis, on branded beef that has met certain criteria. Otherwise it will just be an expensive boondoggle that will not generate enough extra money to pay the costs of implementation.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Big packers are behind this "free trade" deal. They want to be able to move beef from any country to any country without restrictions. The reasons are obvious, more options for them and cheaper suppliers. If you don't agree, please tell me how I'm wrong. If you're in agreement so far, here's the question;

When Tyson, Cargill, Smithfield, et al need beef and they can get all they need from Australia, Argentina, Brazil, whatever cheaper than they can buy US - where do you think they're going to source their product? How is that going to affect YOU?

Back to the original question :wink: :) , "How is that going to affect YOU? (me)"

The foreign beef is already available to the packers. If there is an unretrievable cost to cattle producers of the USA to implement MCOOL, which there will be, it will directly affect me. It will make our beef that much more expensive for the packers to use, and give them even more reason to buy cheaper foreign beef instead of our own.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Sandhusker said:
My views certainly are not anti-Canadian as I have nothing at all against Canadians. So, you can take that "R-CALF anti-Canadian" comment and place it where it belongs - in the toilet. I'm looking at this purely from a business standpoint, and if it helps you, replace Canada with "Company X" and US with "Company Y".

Canadians are in competition with us, directly if overseas in one of the 37 countries who already have COOL and indirectly when Tyson and Cargill sell your product mixed with ours down here. If anybody worldwide chooses Canadian beef instead of US, we lose a sale and thus lose money. I also look at Canada and see not only competition, but a net exporter of beef. If I'm in the business of SELLING beef, shouldn't I be partnering with somebody who BUYS beef? Now, if Canada enhances my sales by bringing to the table something that I can't do myself, there's something to be weighed. However, what does a partnership with Canada do that the US can't do alone? Why would any business take on a partner who's cut is larger than the contribution?

By this line of reasoning, I guess we should be skeptical of all of our ranching neighbors in Cherry County. They are undoubtedly more in "direct" competition with us than are ranchers in Canada, South America or Australia. This should also give us reason to do nothing but cheer when Ted Turner buys another ranch in Cherry County, because another direct competitor is no longer around to bother us. :? What about South Dakota ranchers or Wyoming ranchers? I guess they are also to be considered "bad guys" because they are also competing for available money that is spent on beef.

COOL (country of origin labeling) is nothing more than a "cool" buzzword. It means nothing to a hungry person. Which would be more desirable, a beef steak with origins in South America, or a strictly vegetarian meal grown in Grandma's garden next door and processed and cooked entirely by her? No offense to Grandma, but I believe I would take the South American steak, thank you.

Personally, I despise rules and regulations. The quotation, "That government is best that governs least," comes to mind. Life is complicated enough without more bureaucratic unenforceable rules clogging up the arteries of commerce.

We claim Cherry County, Nebraska, as our ranch residence. Though we live on the Nebraska side of the border, a third of our ranch is actually in Bennett County, South Dakota. This could be a genuine hassle, but fortunately there is a "loop-hole" whereby we can annually apply for a grazing permit. This allows us to freely take cattle back and forth on both sides of the border without having them brand inspected and health inspected. What a pain life would be if we couldn't take advantage of this grazing permit. For starters, much of this border isn't even fenced.

I appreciate the freedoms allowed between the different states in these wonderful United States of America. Canada has always been like a little brother to us, with almost as much freedom allowed between the two countries as between our own states. It is sad that this friendly border is now in jeopardy of too much regulation. If I was a rancher along the USA/Canadian border, I would like to exercise the same "freedoms" that I am allowed being on the Nebraska/South Dakota border. Mandatory country-of-origin labeling would not set well with me. Beef that would "travel" back and forth on both sides of the border would end up being beef without a home. Canada couln't claim it because it had set hoof in the USA. The USA couldn't claim it because it was "tainted" on Canadian soil.

COOL is a desirable attribute, but only on a voluntary basis, on branded beef that has met certain criteria. Otherwise it will just be an expensive boondoggle that will not generate enough extra money to pay the costs of implementation.

Very well stated Soapweed.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Sandhusker said:
Big packers are behind this "free trade" deal. They want to be able to move beef from any country to any country without restrictions. The reasons are obvious, more options for them and cheaper suppliers. If you don't agree, please tell me how I'm wrong. If you're in agreement so far, here's the question;

When Tyson, Cargill, Smithfield, et al need beef and they can get all they need from Australia, Argentina, Brazil, whatever cheaper than they can buy US - where do you think they're going to source their product? How is that going to affect YOU?

Back to the original question :wink: :) , "How is that going to affect YOU? (me)"

The foreign beef is already available to the packers. If there is an unretrievable cost to cattle producers of the USA to implement MCOOL, which there will be, it will directly affect me. It will make our beef that much more expensive for the packers to use, and give them even more reason to buy cheaper foreign beef instead of our own.

SOME foreign beef is available to packers, but not what they want. The trade laws are not such that they can get all they want - yet. What are you going to do when there are no restrictions on South American beef and they can bring up all they want?

COOL does not add a cost to US beef that it does not add to foreign. Even if it did, foreign beef is already cheaper than ours.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Soapweed, when the cattlemen of this country decide to organize and take back the control of our industry, I hope you would be available, to be one of the leaders.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Sandhusker said:
My views certainly are not anti-Canadian as I have nothing at all against Canadians. So, you can take that "R-CALF anti-Canadian" comment and place it where it belongs - in the toilet. I'm looking at this purely from a business standpoint, and if it helps you, replace Canada with "Company X" and US with "Company Y".

Canadians are in competition with us, directly if overseas in one of the 37 countries who already have COOL and indirectly when Tyson and Cargill sell your product mixed with ours down here. If anybody worldwide chooses Canadian beef instead of US, we lose a sale and thus lose money. I also look at Canada and see not only competition, but a net exporter of beef. If I'm in the business of SELLING beef, shouldn't I be partnering with somebody who BUYS beef? Now, if Canada enhances my sales by bringing to the table something that I can't do myself, there's something to be weighed. However, what does a partnership with Canada do that the US can't do alone? Why would any business take on a partner who's cut is larger than the contribution?

By this line of reasoning, I guess we should be skeptical of all of our ranching neighbors in Cherry County. They are undoubtedly more in "direct" competition with us than are ranchers in Canada, South America or Australia. This should also give us reason to do nothing but cheer when Ted Turner buys another ranch in Cherry County, because another direct competitor is no longer around to bother us. :? What about South Dakota ranchers or Wyoming ranchers? I guess they are also to be considered "bad guys" because they are also competing for available money that is spent on beef.

COOL (country of origin labeling) is nothing more than a "cool" buzzword. It means nothing to a hungry person. Which would be more desirable, a beef steak with origins in South America, or a strictly vegetarian meal grown in Grandma's garden next door and processed and cooked entirely by her? No offense to Grandma, but I believe I would take the South American steak, thank you.

Personally, I despise rules and regulations. The quotation, "That government is best that governs least," comes to mind. Life is complicated enough without more bureaucratic unenforceable rules clogging up the arteries of commerce.

We claim Cherry County, Nebraska, as our ranch residence. Though we live on the Nebraska side of the border, a third of our ranch is actually in Bennett County, South Dakota. This could be a genuine hassle, but fortunately there is a "loop-hole" whereby we can annually apply for a grazing permit. This allows us to freely take cattle back and forth on both sides of the border without having them brand inspected and health inspected. What a pain life would be if we couldn't take advantage of this grazing permit. For starters, much of this border isn't even fenced.

I appreciate the freedoms allowed between the different states in these wonderful United States of America. Canada has always been like a little brother to us, with almost as much freedom allowed between the two countries as between our own states. It is sad that this friendly border is now in jeopardy of too much regulation. If I was a rancher along the USA/Canadian border, I would like to exercise the same "freedoms" that I am allowed being on the Nebraska/South Dakota border. Mandatory country-of-origin labeling would not set well with me. Beef that would "travel" back and forth on both sides of the border would end up being beef without a home. Canada couln't claim it because it had set hoof in the USA. The USA couldn't claim it because it was "tainted" on Canadian soil.

COOL is a desirable attribute, but only on a voluntary basis, on branded beef that has met certain criteria. Otherwise it will just be an expensive boondoggle that will not generate enough extra money to pay the costs of implementation.

If you want to pick the fly specs out of the pepper, two people in the same buffet line are in competiton with each other, but at any meaningful level? Producers in different states do compete with each other as well, but again the question; at what level? Perhaps them paying taxes into the same Federal kitty eases the "pain" somewhat?

I'm not worried so much about Canada as I am about South America. You can't deny that every Canadian beef sold down here pressures prices - it's the basics of supply/price. An open border with Canada - as long as they continue to run a net positive balance - WILL put downward pressure on our prices. That's not my opinion, that's just the way it is. However, an open border with Brazil and Argentina will sink us, and I mean sink us dead. We just as well of have rampant BSE in our herd, because we'll sell just as many animals. They can sell beef for cheaper than we can produce it, so why do we want to keep playing this price game? COOL gives us an out from that losing game. Now, if anybody has a better idea than COOL, lets hear it - that's what I'm here asking for. I haven't heard anything.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Soapweed, when the cattlemen of this country decide to organize and take back the control of our industry, I hope you would be available, to be one of the leaders.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

How you gonna do it, Ben? And how are you going to get the packers to buy US beef when they can get all they want from cheaper sources?
 
Top