Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
What I can't figure is R-CALF backing Creekstone proposal to test UTM cattle and Creekstone wanting to bring in Canadian cattle. Maybe DeBruycker was going to supply them.
R-CALF supports Creekstone.
- Thread starter Big Muddy rancher
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Creekstone wanted to test Canadian cattle to get some use out of their testing facility. They had a couple million investment sitting there idle and they wanted it to generate some cash flow.
TimH
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Sandhusker, are you saying that ,under those circumstances(the need to generate cash flow), R-Calf would not have any objections to importing cattle from Canada?
Sandhusker
Well-known member
TimH said:
NO, I don't think there is any way that R-CALF would support that. That is the problem with the border opening in the first place, Tim. It was opened for cash flow (the big packer's). It's blood money. Our health standards were compromised for big packer profits. I don't see how that can not be recognized. What changed between country #22 & #23? That is the question the border proponents can't answer.
R-CALF says let Creekstone test domestic animals (and generate the cash flow) as the facility was intended for.
By the way, Tim, I know you're not an R-CALFer and probably in the other camp. I appreciate your civility - you can be a good example for a few others around here.
TimH
Well-known member
Sandhusker, in your original response to BMR's 1st post, you said, "Creekstone wanted to test Canadian cattle to get some use out of their testing facility. " That was Creekstone's proposal.
Now you seem to be saying R-calf supports Creekstones testing of domestic cattle only.
I'm confused??? :???:
Now you seem to be saying R-calf supports Creekstones testing of domestic cattle only.
I'm confused??? :???:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
TimH said:
What is the confusion, Tim? Creekstone built the facility to test domestic cattle for the Japanese market. The USDA/AMI partnership nixed that idea. Creekstone then asked if they could test Canadian cattle so they could get some cash flow going to get some return on their investment.
R-CALF supports Creekstone's original plan.
TimH
Well-known member
Creekstone Responds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S.-headquartered natural beef company responds with a letter to USDA's decision to deny its request for private BSE testing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two executives of Creekstone Farms Premium Beef LLC, Arkansas City, Kansas – CEO John Steward and COO Bill Felding – sent a letter USDA Secretary Ann Veneman, USDA chief of staff Dale Moore and USDA undersecretaries J.B. Penn and Bill Hawks, arguing the company's case to conduct its own testing of cattle it processes for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Last December USDA confirmed that one cow in Washington state was infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Almost immediately, more than three dozen, including Japan and South Korea, countries closed their markets to imported U.S. beef. Although no additional U.S. cattle have been diagnosed with BSE and USDA has stiffened regulations designed to keep BSE infective tissue out of the food supply, Japan is insisting that the U.S. test all cattle presented for slaughter for BSE. The U.S. argues that scientific evidence does not support testing 100 percent of the cattle.
In February, Creekstone Farms said it would be willing to test 100 percent of its own cattle. The company added that Japan would accept privately tested cattle. Last week, USDA denied Creekstone's request to conduct private BSE testing.
The letter from Steward and Felding reads:
On behalf of Creekstone Farms I want to thank you for the opportunity to have met with you in Washington, D.C. last Thursday, April 8. We had hoped for a different outcome to the meeting, however, and are very disappointed with USDA 's decision not to allow Creekstone Farms to voluntarily test all of the cattle we process for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). As we have discussed in the various meetings held with the USDA over the past several weeks, BSE testing of our cattle is something our export customers and consumers are asking for, and we feel we should be able to provide it to them.
Creekstone Farms will challenge the USDA's decision, and are currently analyzing our legal options. We are challenging USDA's authority to control the sales of BSE diagnostic tests in the United States and your decision to prohibit companies like Creekstone Farms from conducting 100 percent testing of young animals that would meet our customers' needs and requirements.
We are hopeful there will be a resolution to the current U.S. beef trade embargo with Japan. It is imperative to companies such as ours that trade be resumed. However, we understand the position of our Japanese customers, consumers and their government, as well as the challenges their staunch positions represent. They are requesting 100% testing of all beef bound for their market as the precursor to the resumption of trade. The USDA's current plan to test only older U.S. cattle for BSE will not meet this requirement. On Monday, Japanese Vice Agriculture Minister Mamoru Ishihara announced that the "U.S. government's decision not to accept [Creekstone's] offer is, frankly speaking, regrettable."
Creesktone Farms has received a tremendous amount of support during the past few weeks for our proposal to test all of our cattle for BSE. We will continue to work with our senators and congressmen, as well as industry experts, to help find a solution to this recent USDA decision. Please understand our situation as well as our consternation over why the USDA will not embrace our plan. Creekstone Farms plans to test more cattle than the USDA, at a lower cost. If our plan were to be implemented, we would test over 300,000 head of cattle over the course of a year, versus the USDA proposed cattle population of approximately 220,000 head. As well, the USDA is planning on spending a minimum of $72 million of taxpayer money to conduct these tests. The Creekstone Farms' plan will cost less than $6 million using the identical test kit, and our customers are willing to pay for the cost of the testing.
We ask that the USDA reverse its decision of last week and allow Creekstone Farms to test our beef for BSE. In addition, Creekstone Farms is asking for USDA approval of the following secondary options:
* Expand the USDA's surveillance program to involve 1 million head of young animals.
* Approve the procedure whereby Creekstone Farms is allowed to ship brain stem samples to Japan for BSE testing in their laboratories.
* Approve Kansas State University as an official USDA laboratory with direction to establish Creekstone Farms as a satellite laboratory.
* Approve the purchase of young Canadian cattle that would be BSE tested at our processing plant in Arkansas City, Kansas.* Approve labeling domestic product BSE tested due to increased consumer concern in the U.S.
This letter is also giving notice to the USDA that our loss in revenue is a minimum of $200,000 per day. We will continue to track this loss on a daily basis to determine damages. Additionally, we have nine important questions that we would appreciate having USDA address and respond to immediately. Please be advised we will be sharing this with the media.
Sincerely,
John Steward, CEO
Bill Felding, COO
Web posted: April 14, 2004
Category: Food Safety,Legislation and Regulation,Marketing,Processor News,Trade
Chris Harris, Editor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S.-headquartered natural beef company responds with a letter to USDA's decision to deny its request for private BSE testing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two executives of Creekstone Farms Premium Beef LLC, Arkansas City, Kansas – CEO John Steward and COO Bill Felding – sent a letter USDA Secretary Ann Veneman, USDA chief of staff Dale Moore and USDA undersecretaries J.B. Penn and Bill Hawks, arguing the company's case to conduct its own testing of cattle it processes for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Last December USDA confirmed that one cow in Washington state was infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Almost immediately, more than three dozen, including Japan and South Korea, countries closed their markets to imported U.S. beef. Although no additional U.S. cattle have been diagnosed with BSE and USDA has stiffened regulations designed to keep BSE infective tissue out of the food supply, Japan is insisting that the U.S. test all cattle presented for slaughter for BSE. The U.S. argues that scientific evidence does not support testing 100 percent of the cattle.
In February, Creekstone Farms said it would be willing to test 100 percent of its own cattle. The company added that Japan would accept privately tested cattle. Last week, USDA denied Creekstone's request to conduct private BSE testing.
The letter from Steward and Felding reads:
On behalf of Creekstone Farms I want to thank you for the opportunity to have met with you in Washington, D.C. last Thursday, April 8. We had hoped for a different outcome to the meeting, however, and are very disappointed with USDA 's decision not to allow Creekstone Farms to voluntarily test all of the cattle we process for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). As we have discussed in the various meetings held with the USDA over the past several weeks, BSE testing of our cattle is something our export customers and consumers are asking for, and we feel we should be able to provide it to them.
Creekstone Farms will challenge the USDA's decision, and are currently analyzing our legal options. We are challenging USDA's authority to control the sales of BSE diagnostic tests in the United States and your decision to prohibit companies like Creekstone Farms from conducting 100 percent testing of young animals that would meet our customers' needs and requirements.
We are hopeful there will be a resolution to the current U.S. beef trade embargo with Japan. It is imperative to companies such as ours that trade be resumed. However, we understand the position of our Japanese customers, consumers and their government, as well as the challenges their staunch positions represent. They are requesting 100% testing of all beef bound for their market as the precursor to the resumption of trade. The USDA's current plan to test only older U.S. cattle for BSE will not meet this requirement. On Monday, Japanese Vice Agriculture Minister Mamoru Ishihara announced that the "U.S. government's decision not to accept [Creekstone's] offer is, frankly speaking, regrettable."
Creesktone Farms has received a tremendous amount of support during the past few weeks for our proposal to test all of our cattle for BSE. We will continue to work with our senators and congressmen, as well as industry experts, to help find a solution to this recent USDA decision. Please understand our situation as well as our consternation over why the USDA will not embrace our plan. Creekstone Farms plans to test more cattle than the USDA, at a lower cost. If our plan were to be implemented, we would test over 300,000 head of cattle over the course of a year, versus the USDA proposed cattle population of approximately 220,000 head. As well, the USDA is planning on spending a minimum of $72 million of taxpayer money to conduct these tests. The Creekstone Farms' plan will cost less than $6 million using the identical test kit, and our customers are willing to pay for the cost of the testing.
We ask that the USDA reverse its decision of last week and allow Creekstone Farms to test our beef for BSE. In addition, Creekstone Farms is asking for USDA approval of the following secondary options:
* Expand the USDA's surveillance program to involve 1 million head of young animals.
* Approve the procedure whereby Creekstone Farms is allowed to ship brain stem samples to Japan for BSE testing in their laboratories.
* Approve Kansas State University as an official USDA laboratory with direction to establish Creekstone Farms as a satellite laboratory.
* Approve the purchase of young Canadian cattle that would be BSE tested at our processing plant in Arkansas City, Kansas.* Approve labeling domestic product BSE tested due to increased consumer concern in the U.S.
This letter is also giving notice to the USDA that our loss in revenue is a minimum of $200,000 per day. We will continue to track this loss on a daily basis to determine damages. Additionally, we have nine important questions that we would appreciate having USDA address and respond to immediately. Please be advised we will be sharing this with the media.
Sincerely,
John Steward, CEO
Bill Felding, COO
Web posted: April 14, 2004
Category: Food Safety,Legislation and Regulation,Marketing,Processor News,Trade
Chris Harris, Editor
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Like I said R-CALF says it supports Creekstone but Creekstone wanted to bring in Canadian cattle. How do we make it any plainer Sandy?
So does R-CALF support importing of Canadian cattle or not? If not I guess they don't really support Creekstone. Guess the rest of the R-CALFers are waiting to see what Leo wants them to say.
So does R-CALF support importing of Canadian cattle or not? If not I guess they don't really support Creekstone. Guess the rest of the R-CALFers are waiting to see what Leo wants them to say.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Guys, how can I make it any simpler? R-CALF supported Creekstone's original plan to test domestic cattle to meet a customers demands. That's it. Plain and simple and easy to understand.
You guys are trying to parlay that into a blanket approval of everything Creekstone wanted to do after being denied. That is not the case.
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
By the looks of the letter testing Canadian cattle was part of the ORIGINAL plan :!:
TimH
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Has R-Calf withdrawn their support of Creekstones proposals, then?
Why did they(Creekstone) propose importing CDN cattle to "generate cash flow"? Why couldn't they generate cash flow with domestic(US) cattle?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandhusker said:
And it was not only Creekstone...I believe there were a couple other smaller packers that wanted to test as a way to open the Oriental market--R-CALF came out supporting the free enterprise, allow the packer to give the consumer what they want, overall concept....I don't believe the discussion of cattle origin ever came up with R-CALF as it never got past the "Big Corporate bought" USDA's NO YOU CAN'T TEST policy....
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
I think you're wrong, BMR. The following exerpt from the letter; "... and are very disappointed with USDA 's decision not to allow Creekstone Farms to voluntarily test ...." clearly shows this letter was after the denial and not the original plan.
If you have any doubt, another quote; "We ask that the USDA reverse its decision of last week and allow Creekstone Farms to test our beef for BSE. In addition, Creekstone Farms is asking for USDA approval of the following secondary options:
A
Anonymous
Guest
TimH said:
At the time prices were not very good in Canada-- If you could get the product for 1/2 the price, why not :???: .........But then that would have competed with the screw job Cargil and Tyson was giving the Canadians- so they told the USDA to say NO.......
Sandhusker
Well-known member
TimH said:
R-CALF supported Creekstone, and other's, desires to test. I don't think they ever said anything about testing Canadian - no need to as Creekstone couldn't get over the first wall.
TimH
Well-known member
Oldtimer- "At the time prices were not very good in Canada-- If you could get the product for 1/2 the price, why not .........But then that would have competed with the screw job Cargil and Tyson was giving the Canadians- so they told the USDA to say NO......."
:shock: OT, are you saying that it is OK with R-Calf for Creekstone to import "cheap Canadian cattle" ?
:shock: OT, are you saying that it is OK with R-Calf for Creekstone to import "cheap Canadian cattle" ?
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Tim, you guys are trying to dig for potatos in a corn field. :lol: Your question was answered a few posts ago; "NO, I don't think there is any way that R-CALF would support that." Why did you ask it again?
I get the feeling you're not really asking for information but rather trying to trip us up. :wink:
If you have any doubt or questions on R-CALF's policies, their website is open. Check out the archives and you will find statements going back before BSE was found up there.
I get the feeling you're not really asking for information but rather trying to trip us up. :wink:
If you have any doubt or questions on R-CALF's policies, their website is open. Check out the archives and you will find statements going back before BSE was found up there.
A
Anonymous
Guest
TimH said:Oldtimer- "At the time prices were not very good in Canada-- If you could get the product for 1/2 the price, why not .........But then that would have competed with the screw job Cargil and Tyson was giving the Canadians- so they told the USDA to say NO......."
:shock: OT, are you saying that it is OK with R-Calf for Creekstone to import "cheap Canadian cattle" ?
TimH- You asked-
"Why did they(Creekstone) propose importing CDN cattle to "generate cash flow"? Why couldn't they generate cash flow with domestic(US) cattle?"
so I answered-
At the time prices were not very good in Canada-- If you could get the product for 1/2 the price, why not .........But then that would have competed with the screw job Cargil and Tyson was giving the Canadians- so they told the USDA to say NO.......
----------------------------------------
At the time the original testing proposal came out- their had been no mention of importing Canadian cattle......And I doubt that R-CALF would or does support the importing of Canadian cattle....Not at least until the US has mandatory COOL and the choice is left to the consumer.....
TimH
Well-known member
Oldtimer- "......And I doubt that R-CALF would or does support the importing of Canadian cattle...."
You "doubt"????? :shock: Do you mean you to tell me you are not sure of R-Calf's position on CDN imports??? :???: Especially "1/2 price" imports??? :???:
:wink:
You "doubt"????? :shock: Do you mean you to tell me you are not sure of R-Calf's position on CDN imports??? :???: Especially "1/2 price" imports??? :???:
:wink:
A
Anonymous
Guest
TimH said:
TimH- Are we bored today :wink: :lol: Whenever my kids used to start playing silly word games, I'd suggest I could find them some fence to fix or some sh*t to shovel- usually solved the problem......
