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

R-CALF bashers question

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
A number of you are posting of all the long-term problems that will be caused by R-CALF advocating a closed border with Canada. I happen to think it is the lesser of the evils, but let me toss this at you folks:

Put yourself in R-CALF's place. You are greatly concerned about the USDA's catering to the big packers and feel that if the trend continues, it will be devestating to the US cowman. The USDA just did the AMI's dirtywork on Creekstone, and now they're falling all over themselves trying to get the Canadian border reopened for them - even to the point of ignoring their own rules. What would you do?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
A number of you are posting of all the long-term problems that will be caused by R-CALF advocating a closed border with Canada. I happen to think it is the lesser of the evils, but let me toss this at you folks:

Put yourself in R-CALF's place. You are greatly concerned about the USDA's catering to the big packers and feel that if the trend continues, it will be devestating to the US cowman. The USDA just did the AMI's dirtywork on Creekstone, and now they're falling all over themselves trying to get the Canadian border reopened for them - even to the point of ignoring their own rules. What would you do?
Advocating? What a nice word for lying, deception, fear mongering and going to any means to keep the CANADIAN border closed.

I thought R-Calfs advocating was all about food safety and protecting the American herd.

Why single out Canada? Why not the imported product that is replacing Canadian?
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Try to sell the script to Hollywood. I'll bet Michael Mooron would be willing to direct, as facts aren't important to him either.
 

CattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
VERY GOOD !! I bet Michael "Moron" could really tell the story......really tell it TOTALLY Screwed Up! I thought all the Montana Freemen were in Jail? :roll: If Canada is going to be the WORLD's BEEF PACKER then maybe we can load up the illegals and haul them up there! I can see it all now............Michael "Moron" directs the movie"THE MONTANA TRAIL TO CALGARY"
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill, considering the record amounts of boxed beef we're getting from you guys, what is being replaced?

Here's your chance. I asked nicely and would appreciate reciprocation.

Cal, what is non-factual?

Cattle Co., Like I mentioned earlier, I asked nicely and don't see why you find glory in being an ass. Anybody can point a finger and critique. Lets hear a better idea.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Sandhusker, serious question, serious answer.

If I were R-calf, I would not have wasted my money on an injunction that will only delay the inevitable. I would have put all those hard earned donations into marketing a "branded beef product"

If R-calf would have helped the producers in this manner two years ago, they would be well on their way to having a value added chain, not worrying about captive supplys and also have a product that was "born raised and processed' in the US. :)
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
A number of you are posting of all the long-term problems that will be caused by R-CALF advocating a closed border with Canada. I happen to think it is the lesser of the evils, but let me toss this at you folks:

Put yourself in R-CALF's place. You are greatly concerned about the USDA's catering to the big packers and feel that if the trend continues, it will be devestating to the US cowman. The USDA just did the AMI's dirtywork on Creekstone, and now they're falling all over themselves trying to get the Canadian border reopened for them - even to the point of ignoring their own rules. What would you do?

Sandhusker you claim the USDA is catering to the big packers But who is beneifiting from the border being closed. The two big American packers in Canada have had a capitive supply of cattle since this thing started. AND now that they have been increasing capacity in Canada, they will be forcing the closuses of even more small competeing plants in the US that used to compete for the Canadian cattle. And who do we all have to blame for this prolonged border closure and the increased capacity in Canada but R-CALF. R-CALF claims they hate the packers but the truth is R-CALF is handing the packers even more profits and POWER by holding the border closed. This border closure is causing more packer concentration in the US with the lost of 6000 jobs and closed plants but R-CALF can't see that the packer problems in the US are just going to get bigger the longer this border stays closed and more small packers go under.
Canada has suffered short term damage and will survive but the US is looking at long term damage if something isn't done to stop packer concentration in the US, which is being brought on by this border closure thanks to R-CALF.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Bill, considering the record amounts of boxed beef we're getting from you guys, what is being replaced?

Here's your chance. I asked nicely and would appreciate reciprocation.

Cal, what is non-factual?

Cattle Co., Like I mentioned earlier, I asked nicely and don't see why you find glory in being an ass. Anybody can point a finger and critique. Lets hear a better idea.
Canadian live cattle are being replaced with Mexican. If R-Calf's injunction is expanded Canadian boxed beef will be replaced by South American and Australian beef.

I am surprised that had to be explained.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
A number of you are posting of all the long-term problems that will be caused by R-CALF advocating a closed border with Canada. I happen to think it is the lesser of the evils, but let me toss this at you folks:

Put yourself in R-CALF's place. You are greatly concerned about the USDA's catering to the big packers and feel that if the trend continues, it will be devestating to the US cowman. The USDA just did the AMI's dirtywork on Creekstone, and now they're falling all over themselves trying to get the Canadian border reopened for them - even to the point of ignoring their own rules. What would you do?

Sandhusker you claim the USDA is catering to the big packers But who is beneifiting from the border being closed. The two big American packers in Canada have had a capitive supply of cattle since this thing started. AND now that they have been increasing capacity in Canada, they will be forcing the closuses of even more small competeing plants in the US that used to compete for the Canadian cattle. And who do we all have to blame for this prolonged border closure and the increased capacity in Canada but R-CALF. R-CALF claims they hate the packers but the truth is R-CALF is handing the packers even more profits and POWER by holding the border closed. This border closure is causing more packer concentration in the US with the lost of 6000 jobs and closed plants but R-CALF can't see that the packer problems in the US are just going to get bigger the longer this border stays closed and more small packers go under.
Canada has suffered short term damage and will survive but the US is looking at long term damage if something isn't done to stop packer concentration in the US, which is being brought on by this border closure thanks to R-CALF.
Canada has suffered short term damage and will survive

It may be short term damage and the industry will survive in Canada but there are thousands of individual producers who are the victims. Billions of dollars of equity have been sucked out of the pockets of producers and this will be nothing compared to what will happen if boxed product is halted from moving south. There had better be one hell of a contingency plan if that happens. Setting up "emergency harvest facilities" won't accomplish much if there is no where for the beef to go.
I wonder if setting up those "emergency" facilities would be going against the current belief that gov't and industry groups shouldn't get involved in choosing who to support in packing space expansion?
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
I see Sandhuskers point and maybe this isn't really answering his question, but

What if the USDA had made an announcement something like this, "As Canada has been a good trading partner, and as we don't think there is enough of a problem with BSE, if precautions are taken, ie; nothing is butchered for human consumption over the age of 30 months that isn't teasted, we the US will continue to take live cattle imports from Canada, marked as a product of Canada. We will stand beside the cattlemen of Canada and the US to work through this problem and put our very best scientist to work to prove or disprove the theories about BSE. We will have normalized trade."

Would this have solved most problems and could it still be done? Or are too many making too much profit, for this to ever happen?

I was told that the CEO of Tyson foods, some years ago, made the comment about competition. "When your competition is drowning, give them a glass of water." I think there are many who think this way.

Always follow the money and you will see who is making it and why they won't change policy for fear of losing that profit.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill, "Canadian live cattle are being replaced with Mexican. If R-Calf's injunction is expanded Canadian boxed beef will be replaced by South American and Australian beef. I am surprised that had to be explained."

South America and Australia don't have BSE, Canada does. That is what started this whole deal, remember?

Tam, you just told me what you've been saying all along. I know your views there. What I asked is what you would do if in R-CALF's shoes.

Murgen, thank you for your answer. I see what you are saying, but R-CALF was founded to influence trade decisions. Their members joined them to get a political voice. Branded beef doesn't fit into that category. Even if they could, I think taking this on with branded beef would be like taking a club to a gun fight. What a daunting task it would be to take on the people who have over 80% of the trade with the regulatory agency in their back pocket. You would have to find a niche, and considering what happened to Creekstone, if the big boys don't want you to play, you're not going to play.

Don't you kind of think that attacking the packers with branded beef is a case of treating the symptoms instead of treating the illness? If the USDA would simply stop catering to the AMI (and in your case the CCA doing the exact same), it seems a lot of problems would be solved.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Bill, "Canadian live cattle are being replaced with Mexican. If R-Calf's injunction is expanded Canadian boxed beef will be replaced by South American and Australian beef. I am surprised that had to be explained."

South America and Australia don't have BSE, Canada does. That is what started this whole deal, remember?

Tam, you just told me what you've been saying all along. I know your views there. What I asked is what you would do if in R-CALF's shoes.

Murgen, thank you for your answer. I see what you are saying, but R-CALF was founded to influence trade decisions. Their members joined them to get a political voice. Branded beef doesn't fit into that category. Even if they could, I think taking this on with branded beef would be like taking a club to a gun fight. What a daunting task it would be to take on the people who have over 80% of the trade with the regulatory agency in their back pocket. You would have to find a niche, and considering what happened to Creekstone, if the big boys don't want you to play, you're not going to play.

Don't you kind of think that attacking the packers with branded beef is a case of treating the symptoms instead of treating the illness? If the USDA would simply stop catering to the AMI (and in your case the CCA doing the exact same), it seems a lot of problems would be solved.
South America and Australia don't have BSE, Canada does. That is what started this whole deal, remember?

What excuse will R-Calf use for South America (FMD I suppose) and Australia or is truly just an issue with Canada and not imports in general? The imports will continue to flow into the US, point of origin is the question.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
R-calf members have got a choice they can sit back and waste money on court cases and moan and complain or get out and get it done before the packers and retailers do it themselves. Branding is the way of the future and the reatilers are already starting to "brand" their own product, beating the producer to the counter. These articles are from 2002, all the fear mongering about safety etc. will only speed up what is talk about in them.


Smith (2000c) reported that Reg Clause (Iowa cow/calf operator) said “Cattle producers should approach production and marketing as
‘teams,’ creating alliances that can do more to capture higher prices and profitability for members in a group than producers can do for
themselves individually. Alliances decrease exposure to market risks and volatility, and help producers respond to competition from
other protein sectors and to consolidation, especially in the retail sector, which has been felt all the way back to the farm gate. Alliances
also get producers away from cash, or spot, markets that are definitely not to their advantage; cash markets are predatory and have little
relation to true value, providing therefore, little reason to improve product value. Alliances can not only coordinate genetic, health,
nutrition and management practices to add value but can provide beef suitable for ‘branding’ which adds more value, revenues and
return” (Smith, 2000c).


Roger Blackwell (Ohio State University) said “Certainly, producers can continue to produce and sell cattle ‘the old way,’ but those
producers won’t be as successful as those who acknowledge that they must change to meet consumer demands, which will take
alliances or partnerships”

However, the demands driving the beef industry toward vertical coordination, according to Ritchie (2001b), are:
(1) Branded Products With Specific Attributes,
(2) Enhanced Risk Management,
(3) Transfer Of Information—Up And Down The Beef Production Chain,
(4) Food Safety, and
(5) Quality Attributes (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2001).

Purcell (2002b) says “Demand for beef and pork started a decline in the late 1970s that didn’t bottom until 1995 for pork, and 1998 for
beef. The idea that the price-driven system would send signals along the supply chain so producers would change to match consumer
preferences simply did not work; it was clear that the price-driven systems would not generate the necessary coordination and quality
control. Contracts, pricing grids, marketing agreements, producer-initiated vertical alliances and even packer ownership of genetics and
production facilities are replacing the failed pricing system. Now, in 2002, grassroot level concerns about livestock industry
concentration, contracts and alliances appear to be growing, and may threaten progress that is being made on the demand side of the
pork and beef equation.”

Purcell (2002b) reported that processors invested billions of new dollars in technology as well as product and
market development during the 1990s, and argued that those investments are more important to producers than to the middlemen in the beef and pork system.

Henderson (2002) said, as changes in agriculture and the livestock industries have squeezed smaller operators,
many have sought solutions to their worsening economic plight by:
(a) Criticizing concentration and vertical integration.
(b) Complaining about imports of cattle and beef from foreign countries.
(c) Seeking relief from Congress and the courts (e.g, the Johnson Amendment, country-of-origin labeling, RCALF and LMA lawsuits,
etc.).

Henderson (2002) said “The demise of the little man in our industry is not because the big players have grown big, the big players have
grown because they are willing to change to meet the demands of a changing business climate. There remain many opportunities for the
little man in our industry but they don’t include fighting to maintain an outdated commodity business. Opportunities lie in identifying
products that are in demand, and producing for those markets.”
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Murgen, I agree with you on branded product. However, the situation with the AMI calling the shots with the USDA and CCA remain. Maybe you don't feel that is the case, but my opinion is that is it as obvious as could be. Do you feel there is a problem there?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Cal said:
Try to sell the script to Hollywood. I'll bet Michael Mooron would be willing to direct, as facts aren't important to him either.
Poor Michael, I bet he lost money on that film. This isn't he Political site though is it?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,981
Reaction score
78
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
Murgen, I agree with you on branded product. However, the situation with the AMI calling the shots with the USDA and CCA remain. Maybe you don't feel that is the case, but my opinion is that is it as obvious as could be. Do you feel there is a problem there?[/quote}



Sandhusker why do you talk USDA and CCA in the same breath?

The USDA is a government department and the CCA is a cattle industry group. One makes rule the other lobbies. You say we give R-CALF to much credit for prohibiting MID from cool but you do the same with CCA.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sand: "Put yourself in R-CALF's place. You are greatly concerned about the USDA's catering to the big packers and feel that if the trend continues, it will be devestating to the US cowman. The USDA just did the AMI's dirtywork on Creekstone, and now they're falling all over themselves trying to get the Canadian border reopened for them - even to the point of ignoring their own rules. What would you do?"

What would I do?

First I would educate myself on the true economic impact of Canadian imports vs. the economic impact of our export markets.

Then I would work with Canada to address BSE instead of trying to deceive consumers into believing that we never had a case of BSE in the U.S. so we could both get back to normalized world wide trade which would return higher cattle prices than we are experiencing currently ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

I would also realize that Canadian beef is not going to disappear from the world market and understand that a reduction in Canadian imports will eventually mean that same reduction in Japanese exports.

That's what I would do if I was R-CULT!

Since I am not driven by blame, I can't relate to R-CULT!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sand: "Put yourself in R-CALF's place. You are greatly concerned about the USDA's catering to the big packers and feel that if the trend continues, it will be devestating to the US cowman. The USDA just did the AMI's dirtywork on Creekstone, and now they're falling all over themselves trying to get the Canadian border reopened for them - even to the point of ignoring their own rules. What would you do?"

What would I do?

First I would educate myself on the true economic impact of Canadian imports vs. the economic impact of our export markets.

Then I would work with Canada to address BSE instead of trying to deceive consumers into believing that we never had a case of BSE in the U.S. so we could both get back to normalized world wide trade which would return higher cattle prices than we are experiencing currently ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

I would also realize that Canadian beef is not going to disappear from the world market and understand that a reduction in Canadian imports will eventually mean that same reduction in Japanese exports.

That's what I would do if I was R-CULT!

Since I am not driven by blame, I can't relate to R-CULT!



~SH~

Why I answer your posts, I'll never know...

You didn't say anything about the problem...the USDA.

Canadian imports have NOTHING to do with Japanese exports, unless your'e referring to the fact that we are presenting ourselves to the Japanese as the world leaders in quality yet contradicting that by taking product from Canada others won't take.

It is the USDA's job to work with Canada - not any trade organization.

A reduction in Canadian imports will mean the same reduction in Japanese exports? Only if we continue to cater to the AMI and allow that to happen. Japan isn't taking Canadian beef now, yet we could of been sending them beef for over a year.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Other than Murgen, sure didn't get many answers. Guess it's much easier to critisize than actually come up with an alternative.
 

Latest posts

Top