• 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 in Iowa

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Bullard takes shots at packers in Iowa appearance

Tuesday, January 17, 2006



By Jean Caspers-Simmet

Agri News staff writer

WAVERLY, Iowa -- Bill Bullard, R-CALF USA CEO, told Iowa State Dairy Association delegates last week that while he doesn't pretend to understand the dairy industry, he does understand the beef industry and they are a part of it.

Dairy accounts for 21 percent of the adult cattle herd in the United States.

R-CALF USA was formed seven years ago to represent the interests of live cattle producers, Bullard said.

While the industry has tried to convince cattle producers that what's good for the packer is also good for the producer, history has shown otherwise. Bullard said that in order to determine what live cattle producers need to do to advance their interests, they need to understand the goals of major meatpackers.

One of their goals is to minimize the financial risk associated with the cyclical nature of the U.S. cattle industry. When U.S. supplies tighten, cattle prices increase, which increases meatpackers' risk and reduces profits.

"To reduce this risk meatpackers expand their supplies of cattle by melding together the herds of Canada, the United States and Mexico into one seamless North American herd," Bullard said.

Packers want to harmonize U.S. animal health and food safety standards to match the lower standards in other countries, Bullard said.

"Meatpackers don't want consumers to perceive any difference in beef, no matter what country the cattle come from,'' he said.

Meatpackers label their products with house brands, but they don't want country-of-origin labels, Bullard said. They want consumers to seek out their label, regardless of where the cattle originated.

Packers also lobby Congress to restrict producer access to trade-remedy laws because packers don't want independent cattle producers to restrict their access to inventories that are less costly than U.S. cattle, Bullard said.

"The guiding light has been that we're all in this together and that if we increase demand it will increase profitability for everyone, but these strategies do not increase profitability for cattle producers,'' Bullard said.

The past three years, producers have received historically high cattle prices, triggered not only by tight supplies, but also increased demand, a reduction in imports, and the packers' reduced access to captive-supply cattle held in Canada, Bullard said.

"The dramatic increase in prices revealed that packers were not keeping their promise to pass profits back to U.S. producers when beef demand increased,'' Bullard said. "Beef demand had actually been on the rise for a full six years before live cattle prices were finally able to respond without the interference from Canadian captive supplies and Canadian imports."

Bullard said the goal of R-CALF USA is to insure that independent cattle producers can continue to set the terms of their production, the terms for their marketing, and receive their competitive share of the consumers' beef dollar from the competitive marketplace.

"Only live cattle producers share the desire to maximize the profitability of the live-cattle segment of our industry," Bullard said. "If producers won't step up to compete to maximize their profitability, no one else in the industry will either."

R-CALF USA, which is based in Montana, has 442 members in Minnesota and 718 in Iowa. Nationwide, there are 18,192 members in 47 states. The organization is the fastest growing cattle organization in the country, Bullard said.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
I though Bullard said cow-calf producers were part of the cattle industry not the beef industry.

At least he admits he doesn't know about the dairy industry.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Long on statements and short on facts.

Goooooooooo R-CULT!



~SH~
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
From the article above-

Packers want to harmonize U.S. animal health and food safety standards to match the lower standards in other countries, Bullard said.

Huh??? I thought the sticking point was raising the lower US standards(allowing plate waste and chicken litter in feed) up to the higher CDN standards??? In this "information at light speed" age we live in, Bullard really should pick a position and stick with it!!! :D :D

Too funny!!! :D :D
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
TimH said:
From the article above-

Packers want to harmonize U.S. animal health and food safety standards to match the lower standards in other countries, Bullard said.

Huh??? I thought the sticking point was raising the lower US standards(allowing plate waste and chicken litter in feed) up to the higher CDN standards??? In this "information at light speed" age we live in, Bullard really should pick a position and stick with it!!! :D :D

Too funny!!! :D :D

You must be unaware of the USDA's efforts to get the OIE to lower standards.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,050
Reaction score
127
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
From the article above-

Packers want to harmonize U.S. animal health and food safety standards to match the lower standards in other countries, Bullard said.

Huh??? I thought the sticking point was raising the lower US standards(allowing plate waste and chicken litter in feed) up to the higher CDN standards??? In this "information at light speed" age we live in, Bullard really should pick a position and stick with it!!! :D :D

Too funny!!! :D :D

You must be unaware of the USDA's efforts to get the OIE to lower standards.


To US levels.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
From the article above-



Huh??? I thought the sticking point was raising the lower US standards(allowing plate waste and chicken litter in feed) up to the higher CDN standards??? In this "information at light speed" age we live in, Bullard really should pick a position and stick with it!!! :D :D

Too funny!!! :D :D

You must be unaware of the USDA's efforts to get the OIE to lower standards.


To US levels.

The USDA has decided it easier to lower the target than to meet it.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Sandhusker wrote-

The USDA has decided it easier to lower the target than to meet it

I'm wasn't talking about what the USDA decided.....I was pointing out what R-Calf has been saying!!!

Which way is it Sandhusker.....USDA is lowering standards to allow importation of CDN beef and cattle... or USDA should raise standards before allowing importation of CDN beef and cattle???
A little consistancy , if you please!!!! :D
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
TimH said:
Sandhusker wrote-

The USDA has decided it easier to lower the target than to meet it

I'm wasn't talking about what the USDA decided.....I was pointing out what R-Calf has been saying!!!

Which way is it Sandhusker.....USDA is lowering standards to allow importation of CDN beef and cattle... or USDA should raise standards before allowing importation of CDN beef and cattle???
A little consistancy , if you please!!!! :D

It's not hard to figure out, Tim. Prior to May, 2003, the US had a zero tolerance policy towards BSE positive countries. Since we now take product from BSE positive countries when we would not in the past, it tells you our standards were lowered. Can you reach any other conclusion?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,050
Reaction score
127
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
Sandhusker wrote-

The USDA has decided it easier to lower the target than to meet it

I'm wasn't talking about what the USDA decided.....I was pointing out what R-Calf has been saying!!!

Which way is it Sandhusker.....USDA is lowering standards to allow importation of CDN beef and cattle... or USDA should raise standards before allowing importation of CDN beef and cattle???
A little consistancy , if you please!!!! :D

It's not hard to figure out, Tim. Prior to May, 2003, the US had a zero tolerance policy towards BSE positive countries. Since we now take product from BSE positive countries when we would not in the past, it tells you our standards were lowered. Can you reach any other conclusion?


The difference is you now are a BSE country. The new standards would allow you to export beef.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's not hard to figure out Tim, R-CULT will say whatever happens to fit their political position at the time to stop Canadian imports.

Before we had BSE in our native herd R-CULT said: "USDA has not gone far enough to assure the safety of our beef."

After we had BSE in our native herd R-CULT said: "Our beef is safe due to the precautionary measures we have in place".

When the dog farts and R-CULT talks it all sounds the same to me.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
TimH said:
Sandhusker wrote-



I'm wasn't talking about what the USDA decided.....I was pointing out what R-Calf has been saying!!!

Which way is it Sandhusker.....USDA is lowering standards to allow importation of CDN beef and cattle... or USDA should raise standards before allowing importation of CDN beef and cattle???
A little consistancy , if you please!!!! :D

It's not hard to figure out, Tim. Prior to May, 2003, the US had a zero tolerance policy towards BSE positive countries. Since we now take product from BSE positive countries when we would not in the past, it tells you our standards were lowered. Can you reach any other conclusion?


The difference is you now are a BSE country. The new standards would allow you to export beef.

In case you haven't noticed, those OIE standards are only a guideline for other countries to follow. They're not beholden to them. Other countries will accept our product only if they want to.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,050
Reaction score
127
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
It's not hard to figure out, Tim. Prior to May, 2003, the US had a zero tolerance policy towards BSE positive countries. Since we now take product from BSE positive countries when we would not in the past, it tells you our standards were lowered. Can you reach any other conclusion?


The difference is you now are a BSE country. The new standards would allow you to export beef.

In case you haven't noticed, those OIE standards are only a guideline for other countries to follow. They're not beholden to them. Other countries will accept our product only if they want to.


Gee that sounds like something the US would do.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
The difference is you now are a BSE country. The new standards would allow you to export beef.

In case you haven't noticed, those OIE standards are only a guideline for other countries to follow. They're not beholden to them. Other countries will accept our product only if they want to.


Gee that sounds like something the US would do.

Look around, BMR, it's what EVERYBODY does.
 

Latest posts

Top