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

Questions for Tim H. on new Thread

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Is this what you are waiting for Mike?
I've always considered it my duty to alleviate the the impatience of virgins. Smile

www.cattletoday.com/forum/ptopic9689.html



_________________
Rancher's/Cattleman Action LEGAL FUND....."Working" the grassroots producer!!
...(Hey, it beats the hell out of chasing ambulances)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Econ101
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2695
Location: TX

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
TimH, the only way the costs of the tests could get sent back down to the producers is if Creekstone had market power. Obviously with 3000 per week kill, they do not have market power. Do you discount Creekstone's contention that the cost of the test would be more than offset by the benefits of exporting to Japan? The tests could actually PAY producers through higher prices selling to Japan. Why not let the market handle this one?

I find Mike's question fun, but the real issues are whether or not the markets are allowed to work or whether the USDA and Canadian equivalent are going to manage the markets for their favorite boys. Of course their favorite boys are giving their favorite candidates campaign bribe money. None of this is good for the average producers. It only leads to the dominance of the large packers in the USDA and their manipulation of USDA policy for their own benefit, and not the benefit of producers.

I find it funny that you and others support such stances while still saying your policies are for the producer/consumer.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
No I do not discount Creekstone's contention.
Sure!! Why not let the market decide!

Was that really worth starting a whole new thread , Econ? :? :)
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
TimH said:
No I do not discount Creekstone's contention.
Sure!! Why not let the market decide!

Was that really worth starting a whole new thread , Econ? :? :)

You asked for it, Tim. You could have answered my questions in the same thread but did not. I think Mike answered your question on the other thread.

Right now the policy at the USDA/Canadain govts. is to ask the packers what they want to do and then make policy. It shouldn't work that way.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Econ101 said:
TimH said:
No I do not discount Creekstone's contention.
Sure!! Why not let the market decide!

Was that really worth starting a whole new thread , Econ? :? :)

You asked for it, Tim. You could have answered my questions in the same thread but did not. I think Mike answered your question on the other thread.

Right now the policy at the USDA/Canadain govts. is to ask the packers what they want to do and then make policy. It shouldn't work that way.

Econ, do you reckon that, if I started a new thread, and re-asked bse-tester these questions, he/she :) would answer them......."... did Japan re-impose its ban on US beef because it was not tested or was it because a shipment contained SRM???
Japan continues to(voluntarily) test 100% of their domestic cattle for BSE. Do they remove SRM's as well??" .


Yup, Mike answered my question. I asked if that was what he was waiting for. Apparently it was not what he wanted to hear. Fair enough.... I guess. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
TimH said:
Econ101 said:
TimH said:
No I do not discount Creekstone's contention.
Sure!! Why not let the market decide!

Was that really worth starting a whole new thread , Econ? :? :)

You asked for it, Tim. You could have answered my questions in the same thread but did not. I think Mike answered your question on the other thread.

Right now the policy at the USDA/Canadain govts. is to ask the packers what they want to do and then make policy. It shouldn't work that way.

Econ, do you reckon that, if I started a new thread, and re-asked bse-tester these questions, he/she :) would answer them......."... did Japan re-impose its ban on US beef because it was not tested or was it because a shipment contained SRM???
Japan continues to(voluntarily) test 100% of their domestic cattle for BSE. Do they remove SRM's as well??" .


Yup, Mike answered my question. I asked if that was what he was waiting for. Apparently it was not what he wanted to hear. Fair enough.... I guess. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Tim, it was obvious that the lax oversight of the USDA AND prvt. company protocal was to blame. The customer wanted the beef shipped to them from the U.S. to be tested and started that process with Creekstone. The USDA just slapped them in the face with a big fat "NO" and then sent Goodlatte over to do some saber rattling and to score some points back home for political purposes. The NCBA fell for it hook line and sinker and NCBA supporters on this site blindly used their rubber stamp.

The USDA will not allow voluntary testing---as Creekstone found out.

The arguments and foot dragging on the bse issue is just a tool that is being used to manipulate outcomes and the USDA wants to remain at the helm of those outcomes instead of facts and evidence making policy. Hey, I think that is rcalf's stated complaint on bse.

The USDA has been embarrased over this issue and their failure to provide ANY regulatory oversight in this industry. It has a HUGE possible impact on the real and percieved safety of our food supply and the livelihoods of producers who are in this system.

I would think that the "salmon run" up in Canada would have smartened up a few more Canadians but the omega-3 fatty acids obviously don't work on packer backers or brown nosers.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Is this what you are waiting for Mike?
I've always considered it my duty to alleviate the the impatience of virgins. Smile

www.cattletoday.com/forum/ptopic9689.html



_________________
Rancher's/Cattleman Action LEGAL FUND....."Working" the grassroots producer!!
...(Hey, it beats the hell out of chasing ambulances)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Econ101
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2695
Location: TX

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
TimH, the only way the costs of the tests could get sent back down to the producers is if Creekstone had market power. Obviously with 3000 per week kill, they do not have market power. Do you discount Creekstone's contention that the cost of the test would be more than offset by the benefits of exporting to Japan? The tests could actually PAY producers through higher prices selling to Japan. Why not let the market handle this one?

I find Mike's question fun, but the real issues are whether or not the markets are allowed to work or whether the USDA and Canadian equivalent are going to manage the markets for their favorite boys. Of course their favorite boys are giving their favorite candidates campaign bribe money. None of this is good for the average producers. It only leads to the dominance of the large packers in the USDA and their manipulation of USDA policy for their own benefit, and not the benefit of producers.

I find it funny that you and others support such stances while still saying your policies are for the producer/consumer.

How much market power does Creekstone have if they extract $400 more per head, their statement, and only a small portion of that ever gets to the producer?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Is this what you are waiting for Mike?
I've always considered it my duty to alleviate the the impatience of virgins. Smile

www.cattletoday.com/forum/ptopic9689.html



_________________
Rancher's/Cattleman Action LEGAL FUND....."Working" the grassroots producer!!
...(Hey, it beats the hell out of chasing ambulances)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Econ101
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2695
Location: TX

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
TimH, the only way the costs of the tests could get sent back down to the producers is if Creekstone had market power. Obviously with 3000 per week kill, they do not have market power. Do you discount Creekstone's contention that the cost of the test would be more than offset by the benefits of exporting to Japan? The tests could actually PAY producers through higher prices selling to Japan. Why not let the market handle this one?

I find Mike's question fun, but the real issues are whether or not the markets are allowed to work or whether the USDA and Canadian equivalent are going to manage the markets for their favorite boys. Of course their favorite boys are giving their favorite candidates campaign bribe money. None of this is good for the average producers. It only leads to the dominance of the large packers in the USDA and their manipulation of USDA policy for their own benefit, and not the benefit of producers.

I find it funny that you and others support such stances while still saying your policies are for the producer/consumer.

How much market power does Creekstone have if they extract $400 more per head, their statement, and only a small portion of that ever gets to the producer?

Obviously, Agman, they had neither market power or political power, two things which go hand in hand when it comes to this administration and its policies.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
The Quote,The customer wanted the beef shipped to them from the U.S. to be tested and started that process with Creekstone. The USDA just slapped them in the face with a big fat "NO" and then sent Goodlatte over to do some saber rattling and to score some points back home for political purposes. The NCBA fell for it hook line and sinker and NCBA supporters on this site blindly used their rubber stamp. ********************
Maybe That the office of the OIG and Mrs Fong should look closer!!!
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
517
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I have heard costs ranging from US$150 - to US$450 per head to be tested. It is amazing that such a wide variance should be discussed when the projected costs of our test will be US$10.00 per head or less for the per test unit of our test kit. (50 - 100 tests Per Kit) I don't get it as to where Creekstone is coming from with the projected costs of their test and would like someone to refresh my memory as to what that cost was put at? Thanks in advance. Ron.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
bse-tester said:
I have heard costs ranging from US$150 - to US$450 per head to be tested. It is amazing that such a wide variance should be discussed when the projected costs of our test will be US$10.00 per head or less for the per test unit of our test kit. (50 - 100 tests Per Kit) I don't get it as to where Creekstone is coming from with the projected costs of their test and would like someone to refresh my memory as to what that cost was put at? Thanks in advance. Ron.

Did you want the price for Creekstone, the packer's projected cost, the cost for the USDA to test, or the real cost?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
NCBA President Mike John claims that the lack of export markets is costing the US producer approximately $175 per head-- yet NCBA still blindly follows Tyson et al and fight against Creekstones or any of the other small packers request to test to sell into that market :???: ...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,172
Reaction score
405
Location
Big Muddy valley
bse-tester said:
I have heard costs ranging from US$150 - to US$450 per head to be tested. It is amazing that such a wide variance should be discussed when the projected costs of our test will be US$10.00 per head or less for the per test unit of our test kit. (50 - 100 tests Per Kit) I don't get it as to where Creekstone is coming from with the projected costs of their test and would like someone to refresh my memory as to what that cost was put at? Thanks in advance. Ron.


Tester does that $10 include the cost of collecting the urine the kit from you to make the sample and the Western Blot tets procedure? And if it is done on the slaughter house floor you have to add extra expense for the holding of meat and offal and possible reduced kills.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,172
Reaction score
405
Location
Big Muddy valley
Can anybody answer this for me? Also what would you charge to bring you cows up and run them thru the chute at the convenience of the collection technicion. Does anybody know how long a diretic take to work? Is there a withdrawl time?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Big Muddy rancher said:
Can anybody answer this for me? Also what would you charge to bring you cows up and run them thru the chute at the convenience of the collection technicion. Does anybody know how long a diretic take to work? Is there a withdrawl time?

I have only seen it done once, last October. After injection, it was only a couple of minutes before the bull let it rip. There were no noticeable side effects.

Are you talking "Slaughter" withdrawal time?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,172
Reaction score
405
Location
Big Muddy valley
Yes Mike I was wondering if their was a Slaughter withdrawal time. If testing is to be done when and where is the best time to do it that would cost the least.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Big Muddy rancher said:
Yes Mike I was wondering if their was a Slaughter withdrawal time. If testing is to be done when and where is the best time to do it that would cost the least.

I guess it depends on if you are testing live animals or slaughter animals.

If urine were to be tested on the slaughter floor, it would be no problem to get a sample (without a diuretic) after the hide comes off.

For live animals, from what I just read, there is no slaughter withdrawal time, but there is a 48 hour milk (for human consumption) withdrawal time.

I have no idea about the "when and where". I guess the place most convenient. "On farm" testing would be just like bleeding cows for a serology test. But maybe slower at first until one got his timing down on the diuretic.

The urine test would sure be convenient for testing cows where another positive was found in a private herd. The guvment wouldn't have to kill all a ranchers' animals and pay him for them.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Oldtimer said:
NCBA President Mike John claims that the lack of export markets is costing the US producer approximately $175 per head-- yet NCBA still blindly follows Tyson et al and fight against Creekstones or any of the other small packers request to test to sell into that market :???: ...

OT, what is your basis for that foolish statement? And on another thread, you didn't even know who the current NCBA president is? What kind of silly game are you playing now?

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
Oldtimer said:
NCBA President Mike John claims that the lack of export markets is costing the US producer approximately $175 per head-- yet NCBA still blindly follows Tyson et al and fight against Creekstones or any of the other small packers request to test to sell into that market :???: ...

OT, what is your basis for that foolish statement? And on another thread, you didn't even know who the current NCBA president is? What kind of silly game are you playing now?

MRJ

MRJ- Apparently you didn't read the writeup Jolley had on Cattlenetwork.com about your new NCBA President last week-- that was the first I heard they'd switched Presidents again and that was a statement (producers were losing $175 per head) President Mike John was quoted on in the interview and writeup.....
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,172
Reaction score
405
Location
Big Muddy valley
Mike was just throwing out different ideas on testing. Tester says his kit cost$10 but it only provides a sample for the Western Blot test. On the slaughter house floor they could get the brain stem if they wanted.
The Urine test kit would have a place in on-farm testing but it still has cost but granted not what eradication of the herd would. The one way to make it work would to have cattle tested at the feedyard or in a whloe herd testing to certify BSE Free herds. Maybe you should nominate your herd Mike.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
JUST FOR YOU MAXINE- Since you believe all us nonbelievers lie, I looked it back up for you:

He’s a strong proponent of free trade and he’s hell-bent on making the U.S. a net exporter of beef again. He explained the core of the problem in an editorial he wrote last fall for Iowa Farmer Today: “The tactics employed by activist groups within our industry do nothing but delay the re-entry of the U.S. cattle industry into key export markets, costing our cattle producers an estimated $175 per animal in the process.”
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=22405
 

Latest posts

Top