• 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 Convention

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I was planning on it, but gave my family a "live within the budget and don't buy what you don't have to" talk before I mentioned a trip to Denver.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
I was planning on it, but gave my family a "live within the budget and don't buy what you don't have to" talk before I mentioned a trip to Denver.

That puts you between a rock and a hard spot. Call it an investment. You can stay at the Red Lion (4 blocks away) for $65 a night if you book through Expedia.

If you don't go, your insights and contribution will be missed.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
ocm said:
Sandhusker said:
I was planning on it, but gave my family a "live within the budget and don't buy what you don't have to" talk before I mentioned a trip to Denver.

That puts you between a rock and a hard spot. Call it an investment. You can stay at the Red Lion (4 blocks away) for $65 a night if you book through Expedia.

If you don't go, your insights and contribution will be missed.

I communicate with Randy Stevenson on a regular basis, so somebody is hearing me out. I would love to go. Maybe you can call my wife and tell me that I'm desperately needed?
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
I will not be able to attend the convention either. It is at the wrong time of year for me.

How many others wish the convention was at a different time of the year? My pick would be mid-September.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Here is something one of the R-Calf Convention attendees could take with them when the topic turns to everything they percieve to be wrong in Canada.


August 17, 2005

Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT) Press Release

Responding to information released by the US Department of Agriculture that over 1,000 meat packers had been citied for failing to take required steps to protect consumers from Mad Cow Disease, Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT) called for increased front-end Mad Cow protections, steps to be taken before the meat is processed. “This new USDA data illustrates that we cannot rely only on end-product steps to protect the American public,” stated Richard Wood, FACT’s Executive Director. “Front end protections must be increased, focusing on cattle feed and cattle surveillance,” he stated.

On August 15th, USDA made public information that showed it had cited meat packers for failing to take steps to adequately remove brains and spinal cords from older cattle to reduce the risk to consumers from Mad Cow Disease. USDA enacted this new rule in January 2004, after an infected cow was detected in Washington State. The brain and spinal cord ban is necessary because these tissues are most likely to contain prions, the protein that leads to Mad Cow and the related human disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease. These high-risk tissues are called specified risk materials (SRMs). The over 1000 citations were given because of: failures to have plans in place to adequately remove the high risk tissues; cross-contamination between high risk and edible meat; poor-record keeping; and inadequate age determination. Age determination is important because infectivity builds up in cattle over time.

The removal of specified risk materials from cattle slaughtered for human consumption is part of a multi-tiered system designed to protect the public from Mad Cow. The first level of protection was to guard the borders from importing cattle and cattle feed from countries with the disease. This protection failed when the first case of BSE was detected in a cow born in Canada and then more recently in a US born cow.

The second level of protection is the ban on feeding protein from cattle back to other cattle, because this can lead to the spread and multiplication of the disease. The Food and Drug Administration implemented a ban on feeding proteins from cattle back to other cattle in 1997, but the feed ban is widely recognized as being inadequate because of questions of cross-contamination in feed plants. The 1997 rule also has serious gaps in its coverage such as allowing cattle to be fed with poultry house waste that contains meat and bone meal from cattle. Even before the first US Mad Cow case in December 2003, the FDA was considering strengthening the ban and in January 2004 went as far as announcing rules to tighten the ban. Now over 18 months later, the FDA has still not published any new rules on the ban.

The third level of protection is the USDA surveillance program. USDA tests a sample of cattle that it believes are at higher risk for Mad Cow. This sampling program detected the two US Mad Cow cases found thus far; however, unlike other countries where BSE has been detected, the US and Canada refuse to test all adult cattle. USDA’s own Inspector General strongly criticized the agency’s testing program in August 2004. Now a year later, USDA has just announced that it will go ahead and sample a meager 20,000 out of the over 6 million apparently healthy adult cattle slaughtered every year, the same sampling size criticized by the Inspector General as being inadequate. For that level of testing to detect any cow with the disease, one out of every 7000 cattle would need to be infected; a level much higher than is realistic. FACT believes that if 1 out of every 7000 cattle is infected with Mad Cow, the system has already failed.

As FACT sees it, USDA requires meat packers to remove the brain and spinal cords from older cattle because of the limitations of the Mad Cow Sampling Program. “If the USDA could detect all infected cattle and chose to test all adult cattle, removing these high risk tissues would not be necessary,” Wood stated.

“The US has failed to keep Mad Cow from entering through its borders, the FDA has failed to take steps to strengthen the feed ban despite studying the problem for years, the USDA refuses to allow testing of potentially infected cattle, and now we know of over a thousand cases where the system to remove high risk materials in slaughter houses and meat packing plants has failed. What these failures reveal is the need to tighten all levels of controls,” concluded Wood.
Maybe a resolution could be passed for R-Calf to add FACT to their alliance of consumer groups to stand with them in sorting these problems out.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Bill said:
Here is something one of the R-Calf Convention attendees could take with them when the topic turns to everything they percieve to be wrong in Canada.


August 17, 2005

Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT) Press Release

Responding to information released by the US Department of Agriculture that over 1,000 meat packers had been citied for failing to take required steps to protect consumers from Mad Cow Disease, Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT) called for increased front-end Mad Cow protections, steps to be taken before the meat is processed. “This new USDA data illustrates that we cannot rely only on end-product steps to protect the American public,” stated Richard Wood, FACT’s Executive Director. “Front end protections must be increased, focusing on cattle feed and cattle surveillance,” he stated.

On August 15th, USDA made public information that showed it had cited meat packers for failing to take steps to adequately remove brains and spinal cords from older cattle to reduce the risk to consumers from Mad Cow Disease. USDA enacted this new rule in January 2004, after an infected cow was detected in Washington State. The brain and spinal cord ban is necessary because these tissues are most likely to contain prions, the protein that leads to Mad Cow and the related human disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease. These high-risk tissues are called specified risk materials (SRMs). The over 1000 citations were given because of: failures to have plans in place to adequately remove the high risk tissues; cross-contamination between high risk and edible meat; poor-record keeping; and inadequate age determination. Age determination is important because infectivity builds up in cattle over time.

The removal of specified risk materials from cattle slaughtered for human consumption is part of a multi-tiered system designed to protect the public from Mad Cow. The first level of protection was to guard the borders from importing cattle and cattle feed from countries with the disease. This protection failed when the first case of BSE was detected in a cow born in Canada and then more recently in a US born cow.

The second level of protection is the ban on feeding protein from cattle back to other cattle, because this can lead to the spread and multiplication of the disease. The Food and Drug Administration implemented a ban on feeding proteins from cattle back to other cattle in 1997, but the feed ban is widely recognized as being inadequate because of questions of cross-contamination in feed plants. The 1997 rule also has serious gaps in its coverage such as allowing cattle to be fed with poultry house waste that contains meat and bone meal from cattle. Even before the first US Mad Cow case in December 2003, the FDA was considering strengthening the ban and in January 2004 went as far as announcing rules to tighten the ban. Now over 18 months later, the FDA has still not published any new rules on the ban.

The third level of protection is the USDA surveillance program. USDA tests a sample of cattle that it believes are at higher risk for Mad Cow. This sampling program detected the two US Mad Cow cases found thus far; however, unlike other countries where BSE has been detected, the US and Canada refuse to test all adult cattle. USDA’s own Inspector General strongly criticized the agency’s testing program in August 2004. Now a year later, USDA has just announced that it will go ahead and sample a meager 20,000 out of the over 6 million apparently healthy adult cattle slaughtered every year, the same sampling size criticized by the Inspector General as being inadequate. For that level of testing to detect any cow with the disease, one out of every 7000 cattle would need to be infected; a level much higher than is realistic. FACT believes that if 1 out of every 7000 cattle is infected with Mad Cow, the system has already failed.

As FACT sees it, USDA requires meat packers to remove the brain and spinal cords from older cattle because of the limitations of the Mad Cow Sampling Program. “If the USDA could detect all infected cattle and chose to test all adult cattle, removing these high risk tissues would not be necessary,” Wood stated.

“The US has failed to keep Mad Cow from entering through its borders, the FDA has failed to take steps to strengthen the feed ban despite studying the problem for years, the USDA refuses to allow testing of potentially infected cattle, and now we know of over a thousand cases where the system to remove high risk materials in slaughter houses and meat packing plants has failed. What these failures reveal is the need to tighten all levels of controls,” concluded Wood.
Maybe a resolution could be passed for R-Calf to add FACT to their alliance of consumer groups to stand with them in sorting these problems out.

Bill, this problem is on both sides of the border. Where is Canada's cattle leaders on this issue? Is BMR asleep or just feeding at the table?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
ocm said:
Who's going to be at the R-CALF Convention?

I hope you can draw more than the 300-400 you had attend last year. The NCBA, representing real cattlemen, will have thousands in attendance.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
agman said:
ocm said:
Who's going to be at the R-CALF Convention?

I hope you can draw more than the 300-400 you had attend last year. The NCBA, representing real cattlemen, will have thousands in attendance.

A lot of the Real cattlemen have to stay home and take care of their Real cattle :wink:
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Oldtimer said:
agman said:
ocm said:
Who's going to be at the R-CALF Convention?

I hope you can draw more than the 300-400 you had attend last year. The NCBA, representing real cattlemen, will have thousands in attendance.

A lot of the Real cattlemen have to stay home and take care of their Real cattle :wink:

Really!!!! Who feeds the vast majority of cattle in the U.S. - NCBA memebers do. Who has the majority of cows & calves in this country - NCBA member do.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
agman said:
I hope you can draw more than the 300-400 you had attend last year. The NCBA, representing real cattlemen, will have thousands in attendance.

A lot of the Real cattlemen have to stay home and take care of their Real cattle :wink:

Really!!!! Who feeds the vast majority of cattle in the U.S. - NCBA memebers do. Who has the majority of cows & calves in this country - NCBA member do.

How much of the membership is voluntary? Where I live a large rancher/feeder who is an NCBA member gave all his employees a Christmas bonus of NCBA memberships. He also suggested strongly that his local suppliers should join NCBA if they wanted to keep his business. Many of them did.

The truth is not always so easily apparent.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Agman, "Really!!!! Who feeds the vast majority of cattle in the U.S. - NCBA memebers do. Who has the majority of cows & calves in this country - NCBA member do."

That is your opinion, and a biased one at that. You don't know that. I just did a quick and dirty count of the herd sizes of people in this immediate area who I know are a member of either outfit. The R-CALF member owned cattle outnumber NCBA member cattle at least 4 -1.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,074
Reaction score
295
Location
Big Muddy valley
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Here is something one of the R-Calf Convention attendees could take with them when the topic turns to everything they percieve to be wrong in Canada.


August 17, 2005

Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT) Press Release

Responding to information released by the US Department of Agriculture that over 1,000 meat packers had been citied for failing to take required steps to protect consumers from Mad Cow Disease, Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT) called for increased front-end Mad Cow protections, steps to be taken before the meat is processed. “This new USDA data illustrates that we cannot rely only on end-product steps to protect the American public,” stated Richard Wood, FACT’s Executive Director. “Front end protections must be increased, focusing on cattle feed and cattle surveillance,” he stated.

On August 15th, USDA made public information that showed it had cited meat packers for failing to take steps to adequately remove brains and spinal cords from older cattle to reduce the risk to consumers from Mad Cow Disease. USDA enacted this new rule in January 2004, after an infected cow was detected in Washington State. The brain and spinal cord ban is necessary because these tissues are most likely to contain prions, the protein that leads to Mad Cow and the related human disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease. These high-risk tissues are called specified risk materials (SRMs). The over 1000 citations were given because of: failures to have plans in place to adequately remove the high risk tissues; cross-contamination between high risk and edible meat; poor-record keeping; and inadequate age determination. Age determination is important because infectivity builds up in cattle over time.

The removal of specified risk materials from cattle slaughtered for human consumption is part of a multi-tiered system designed to protect the public from Mad Cow. The first level of protection was to guard the borders from importing cattle and cattle feed from countries with the disease. This protection failed when the first case of BSE was detected in a cow born in Canada and then more recently in a US born cow.

The second level of protection is the ban on feeding protein from cattle back to other cattle, because this can lead to the spread and multiplication of the disease. The Food and Drug Administration implemented a ban on feeding proteins from cattle back to other cattle in 1997, but the feed ban is widely recognized as being inadequate because of questions of cross-contamination in feed plants. The 1997 rule also has serious gaps in its coverage such as allowing cattle to be fed with poultry house waste that contains meat and bone meal from cattle. Even before the first US Mad Cow case in December 2003, the FDA was considering strengthening the ban and in January 2004 went as far as announcing rules to tighten the ban. Now over 18 months later, the FDA has still not published any new rules on the ban.

The third level of protection is the USDA surveillance program. USDA tests a sample of cattle that it believes are at higher risk for Mad Cow. This sampling program detected the two US Mad Cow cases found thus far; however, unlike other countries where BSE has been detected, the US and Canada refuse to test all adult cattle. USDA’s own Inspector General strongly criticized the agency’s testing program in August 2004. Now a year later, USDA has just announced that it will go ahead and sample a meager 20,000 out of the over 6 million apparently healthy adult cattle slaughtered every year, the same sampling size criticized by the Inspector General as being inadequate. For that level of testing to detect any cow with the disease, one out of every 7000 cattle would need to be infected; a level much higher than is realistic. FACT believes that if 1 out of every 7000 cattle is infected with Mad Cow, the system has already failed.

As FACT sees it, USDA requires meat packers to remove the brain and spinal cords from older cattle because of the limitations of the Mad Cow Sampling Program. “If the USDA could detect all infected cattle and chose to test all adult cattle, removing these high risk tissues would not be necessary,” Wood stated.

“The US has failed to keep Mad Cow from entering through its borders, the FDA has failed to take steps to strengthen the feed ban despite studying the problem for years, the USDA refuses to allow testing of potentially infected cattle, and now we know of over a thousand cases where the system to remove high risk materials in slaughter houses and meat packing plants has failed. What these failures reveal is the need to tighten all levels of controls,” concluded Wood.
Maybe a resolution could be passed for R-Calf to add FACT to their alliance of consumer groups to stand with them in sorting these problems out.

Bill, this problem is on both sides of the border. Where is Canada's cattle leaders on this issue? Is BMR asleep or just feeding at the table?



BMR was away attending stockgrower business. Remember I am involved in the industry. just like many hard working ranchers. We have our convention in June.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
ocm said:
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
A lot of the Real cattlemen have to stay home and take care of their Real cattle :wink:

Really!!!! Who feeds the vast majority of cattle in the U.S. - NCBA memebers do. Who has the majority of cows & calves in this country - NCBA member do.

How much of the membership is voluntary? Where I live a large rancher/feeder who is an NCBA member gave all his employees a Christmas bonus of NCBA memberships. He also suggested strongly that his local suppliers should join NCBA if they wanted to keep his business. Many of them did.

The truth is not always so easily apparent.

The truth..like the pressure R-Calf puts on bankers and local businesses to join that failed organization. Sounds like the rancher/feeder you mentioned is a very smart smart man; way to smart to waste his money on R-Calf.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Failed organization? :lol: :lol: :lol: Membership is growing leaps and bounds - more than doubling the last couple of years and you term it a "failed organization"? :lol: :lol: :lol:

R-CALF has put no pressure on any business here to join. What are you smoking today, Agman? You're suffering from the same illness SH has where you can't seperate reality from what you want reality to be. :lol:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
ocm said:
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
A lot of the Real cattlemen have to stay home and take care of their Real cattle :wink:

Really!!!! Who feeds the vast majority of cattle in the U.S. - NCBA memebers do. Who has the majority of cows & calves in this country - NCBA member do.

How much of the membership is voluntary? Where I live a large rancher/feeder who is an NCBA member gave all his employees a Christmas bonus of NCBA memberships. He also suggested strongly that his local suppliers should join NCBA if they wanted to keep his business. Many of them did.

The truth is not always so easily apparent.

R-CALF membership is a cheap deal for big cattle producers. NCBA members pay realistic dues to support the organization and a "Fair Share" addition of ten to twenty cents per head is added so that the bigger operators pay more than the small ones do. Guess you get what you pay for, so my membership will remain with NCBA.

Re. the 'muscle' applied to businesses......in my area of SD, I've heard of more than one small, local businessman complaining that same ultimatum was given by R-CALF promoters. And, don't bother to ask because I will not expose those guys to more problems by naming them.


MRJ
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
Failed organization? :lol: :lol: :lol: Membership is growing leaps and bounds - more than doubling the last couple of years and you term it a "failed organization"? :lol: :lol: :lol:

R-CALF has put no pressure on any business here to join. What are you smoking today, Agman? You're suffering from the same illness SH has where you can't seperate reality from what you want reality to be. :lol:

Sandhusker; you really should attend the NCBA convention in Denver. Feb 1-3 at the Denver Convention Center. Probably be 6K plus in attendance. Even though your analysis shows 4:1 in favor of rcalf, don't be be surprised at how many Cherry county producers will be there. It'll be a good place for you to network business, and go home with some thought provoking, useful information. Plus, all the feedlots that feed those Cherry county calves will be there in force. You'll impress the local folks you had the good sense to attend.
 

Latest posts

Top