• 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 Sandhusker, OT, Rancher, Tommy or any R-CALFers

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
If Canada agreed to conduct BSE testing on UTM cattle using the same testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support importing UTM cattle from Canada?

Yes or No?


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
If Canada agreed to conduct BSE testing on UTM cattle using the same testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support importing UTM cattle from Canada?

Yes or No?


~SH~

Creekstone wanted to test carcasses, Canada wants to send live cattle. Apples and oranges.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
If Canada agreed to conduct BSE testing on UTM cattle using the same testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support importing UTM cattle from Canada?

Yes or No?


~SH~

SH, reread your question, it doesn't make sense. :???: I worry about your drinking. :roll: How can we take tested cattle? I thought they had to be dead before you can test them? :eek:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
If Canada agreed to conduct BSE testing on UTM cattle using the same testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support importing UTM cattle from Canada?

Yes or No?


~SH~

Creekstone wanted to test carcasses, Canada wants to send live cattle. Apples and oranges.

If I remember correctly Creekstone wanted to test Canadian cattle as well.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
If Canada agreed to conduct BSE testing on UTM cattle using the same testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support importing UTM cattle from Canada?

Yes or No?


~SH~

Creekstone wanted to test carcasses, Canada wants to send live cattle. Apples and oranges.

If I remember correctly Creekstone wanted to test Canadian cattle as well.

They did - they had a big testing facility getting no use. Still, they would of been testing carcasses, not live cattle.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Scott if there was a reliable test for live cattle, yes I would support taking UTM cattle from Canada.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Creekstone wanted to test carcasses, Canada wants to send live cattle. Apples and oranges.

If I remember correctly Creekstone wanted to test Canadian cattle as well.

They did - they had a big testing facility getting no use. Still, they would of been testing carcasses, not live cattle.


As the brain is needed to do the test it is obvious Creekstone was going to test Canadian cattle not carcasses.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
If I remember correctly Creekstone wanted to test Canadian cattle as well.

They did - they had a big testing facility getting no use. Still, they would of been testing carcasses, not live cattle.


As the brain is needed to do the test it is obvious Creekstone was going to test Canadian cattle not carcasses.

You are correct, Bill. Part of Creekstones' proposal was to ship live cattle in from Canada in sealed containers for slaughter at their plant to be tested for the Japanese market. They also were going to send brain samples of these slaughtered cattle to Japan for their surveillance.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
FINE!

If Canada agreed to conduct BSE testing on UTM carcasses using the same testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support continued importation of Canadian beef from Canadian UTM cattle?

Yes or No?


If U.S. packing plants segregated Canadian live cattle and the USDA mandated the same BSE testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support importation of Canadian live cattle knowing that the beef would be BSE tested?

Yes or No?


Shouldn't be able to slither around it this time Sandblaster.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
FINE!

If Canada agreed to conduct BSE testing on UTM carcasses using the same testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support continued importation of Canadian beef from Canadian UTM cattle?

Yes or No?


If U.S. packing plants segregated Canadian live cattle and the USDA mandated the same BSE testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support importation of Canadian live cattle knowing that the beef would be BSE tested?

Yes or No?


Shouldn't be able to slither around it this time Sandblaster.


~SH~

Yes on the UTM beef-- if they are required to be labeled as "Product of Canada"... I would not mind it they weren't tested if they were just labeled and the health decision was left to the consumer..

I have a problem with the live cattle---- As we saw with the Washington cow, it doesn't matter where it originated from- if it tests positive in the US, its the US that pays the trade closure consequences......if we had guarantees from our trading partners that this would not happen again and we had a safe way of disposing of SRM's in place- then open it up- but label it "Product of Canada".....

I think all beef originating from Canada should be required to be labeled "product of Canada" for the consumer to make the choice......
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
OT, just wondering if your label would say "product of Canada, Processed, Graded and inspected in USA"? :???:
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Murgen,

I bet our Canadian product down there would sell a lot better if it was labelled as product of Canada. OT how bout a deal well live up to that part of the deal if you make that short @ss Leo and Bill disappear and quit running our product into the dirt!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Murgen,

I bet our Canadian product down there would sell a lot better if it was labelled as product of Canada. OT how bout a deal well live up to that part of the deal if you make that short @ss Leo and Bill disappear and quit running our product into the dirt!

If we had Mandatory COOL in effect now, much of the wind would be taken out of R-CALF's sales-- many of their arguments would become moot, because the decisions would be left to the consumer....

Like I've said before- If M-COOL is initiated, I'd say throw open the border....Just allow the consumer to make an informed choice.....
 

Chuckie

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
367
Reaction score
0
Location
northeast nebraska
correct me if i'm wrong (which i'm SURE you guys'll do!).

1) creekstone's testing methodology is testing every animal killed there for BSE, regardless.

2) therefore, if creekstone's methodology is followed in canada before import of the boxed beef, and followed in this country for live cattle: what's the diff?

creekstone will be able to certify and export "BSE negative", as will the rest of the packers IF they follow creekstone's methodology.

if the USDA follows this line of logic and implements these "rules", it'll sure level the playing field for the packers, won't it?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Oldtimer said:
~SH~ said:
FINE!

If Canada agreed to conduct BSE testing on UTM carcasses using the same testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support continued importation of Canadian beef from Canadian UTM cattle?

Yes or No?


If U.S. packing plants segregated Canadian live cattle and the USDA mandated the same BSE testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support importation of Canadian live cattle knowing that the beef would be BSE tested?

Yes or No?


Shouldn't be able to slither around it this time Sandblaster.


~SH~

Yes on the UTM beef-- if they are required to be labeled as "Product of Canada"... I would not mind it they weren't tested if they were just labeled and the health decision was left to the consumer..

I have a problem with the live cattle---- As we saw with the Washington cow, it doesn't matter where it originated from- if it tests positive in the US, its the US that pays the trade closure consequences......if we had guarantees from our trading partners that this would not happen again and we had a safe way of disposing of SRM's in place- then open it up- but label it "Product of Canada".....

I think all beef originating from Canada should be required to be labeled "product of Canada" for the consumer to make the choice......

Why don't you just label all American beef as product of the USA?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT: "Like I've said before- If M-COOL is initiated, I'd say throw open the border....Just allow the consumer to make an informed choice....."

What good is a country of origin label if you cannot enforce it? You must have a traceback system to verify the 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption that would be labeled "Product of Canada" or "Product of Mexico".

My only concerns with Canada voluntarily labeling their beef as "product of Canada" is that I am convinced that R-CALF would spend money to lie about the safety of that product as opposed to promoting the safety of their own. That's how much I trust R-CALF.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
FINE!

If Canada agreed to conduct BSE testing on UTM carcasses using the same testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support continued importation of Canadian beef from Canadian UTM cattle?

Yes or No?


If U.S. packing plants segregated Canadian live cattle and the USDA mandated the same BSE testing methodology as Creekstone, would you support importation of Canadian live cattle knowing that the beef would be BSE tested?

Yes or No?


Shouldn't be able to slither around it this time Sandblaster.


~SH~

I didn't slither. You asked a vague question. Knowing the way you misinterpret seemingly black and white statements, I didn't want to leave you room to skew my comments.

My answer to both questions is the same; No, I would not support it, but I also would not lobby against it. I see no reason to import what we already have plenty of, especially when it takes money out of my and my customer's pockets. I've said before my view of trade is exchanging something you have for something you need.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
OT: "Like I've said before- If M-COOL is initiated, I'd say throw open the border....Just allow the consumer to make an informed choice....."

What good is a country of origin label if you cannot enforce it? You must have a traceback system to verify the 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption that would be labeled "Product of Canada" or "Product of Mexico".

My only concerns with Canada voluntarily labeling their beef as "product of Canada" is that I am convinced that R-CALF would spend money to lie about the safety of that product as opposed to promoting the safety of their own. That's how much I trust R-CALF.


~SH~

~SH~ I am convinced that in my part of the country, if beef were labeled and consumers and buyers had the chance to choose, it would cover about 95% of the product.... Local restaurants would be forced to show they are selling a US product--or they won't get the business.... But the way it is now even the restaurants don't have the way to tell where the beef they buy comes from-- all has the same old USDA stamp.......

As far as anyone advertising against Canadian beef- that shouldn't be a worry to the Canadians... Their government just GAVE them $87 million to promote and advertise Canadian beef......
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
If I remember correctly Creekstone wanted to test Canadian cattle as well.

They did - they had a big testing facility getting no use. Still, they would of been testing carcasses, not live cattle.


As the brain is needed to do the test it is obvious Creekstone was going to test Canadian cattle not carcasses.

Comments Sandhusker?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
They did - they had a big testing facility getting no use. Still, they would of been testing carcasses, not live cattle.


As the brain is needed to do the test it is obvious Creekstone was going to test Canadian cattle not carcasses.

Comments Sandhusker?

Comment about what? The USDA won't let them do anything.
 

Latest posts

Top