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

Rule 2- Canadian Imports would be 10% of US Cull Slaughter

A

Anonymous

Guest
CN_Today 1/25/2007 4:51:00 PM


US Rule Would Let In 610,000 Older Canada Cattle Yearly



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)-A recently unveiled U.S. plan to let Canada ship older cattle - usually too decrepit to produce milk anymore - to the U.S. for slaughter would result in an average of about 610,000 of them crossing the border yearly, according to an estimate made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.



The U.S. has banned such “cull cattle“ since Canada reported its first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease, in May 2003. The U.S. eased restrictions on cattle under 30 months old, which are the bulk of Canadian exports, in July 2005. The younger cattle are believed to be far less likely to be infected with BSE.



Older cattle are believed to a higher risk for infection with the fatal brain-wasting disease that is transmissible to humans through consumption. All of the eight BSE cases found in Canada - and the three discovered in the U.S. -have involved cattle over 30 months old.



A “Key Economic Impacts“ summary that USDA recently distributed to state agricultural leaders is a five-year prediction. It says the imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months old “would account for about 10% of U.S. cull cattle slaughter.“


The expected boost in Canada’s exports of older cattle to the U.S. would result in fewer shipments of younger fed and feeder cattle, according to government documents, one of which was submitted to the U.S. Federal Register. Fed cattle are mostly 20- to 30-month old beef cattle, while feeders are young beef cattle, such as yearlings and calves, that are placed into feedlots for finishing.



Canadian feeder cattle exports to the U.S. would decline by 100,000 to 250,000 head yearly if the USDA is successful getting its proposed rule on older Canadian cattle approved, according to government estimate.



That, the USDA says, would cause an average increase in U.S. feeder cattle prices of 0.6% per head over the first five years the rule is in place.



The impact on Canadian fed cattle exports would be smaller, the USDA said: “The decrease in steers and heifers imported (by the U.S.) for slaughter would range from about 15,000 to 85,000 head in the years 2007 to 2011.“ U.S. fed cattle prices would rise an average of 0.2% over five years.



There are some U.S. cow-slaughter operations that specialize in processing older beef and dairy cattle. They have suffered without imports from Canada.



The U.S. was importing about 250,000 head of older Canadian cattle each year before the U.S. banned them, according to the American Meat Institute.



The USDA’s rule proposal to ease its ban on older Canadian cattle – unveiled to the public earlier this month - also paves the way for Canada to ship beef derived from the older animals, and that would initially replace some of the fed beef now being sent to the U.S.



U.S. fed beef imports from Canada are expected to “decline about 75 million pounds (carcass weight) in 2007 and 35 million in 2008, with no impact expected in later years,“ USDA said in the estimate.



Increased Canadian beef exports would also displace some cull cattle product now being imported from Australia, New Zealand and Uruguay, the USDA said said in a document obtained by Dow Jones Newswires.



The USDA had originally intended to move quicker with its proposal to allow in the older Canadian cattle shipments, but additional BSE cases in Canada last year caused delays. Canada reported finding its eighth case last August. The country’s seventh case - found in July - sparked sharper concern by USDA officials, though, because the infected cow was just four years old and born after Canada put in place a feed ban measure aimed at stopping the spread of the disease.


The U.S. rancher organization R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America called into question the effectiveness of Canada’s feed ban this month when it vocally opposed USDA’s proposal to ease restrictions on Canada.



R-CALF Chief Executive Bill Bullard called the country’s feed ban - a ban on feeding rendered bovine byproducts back to cattle - the “weakest link“ in fighting BSE.



But USDA officials said they weighed risks carefully before deciding to allow in more Canadian cattle imports. They stressed that a series of safeguards in the U.S. protect both cattle and humans from the disease.



USDA Chief Veterinarian John Clifford said earlier this month: “Even if by small chance (Canadian) BSE-infected material were to make it past the first mitigation, it is highly unlikely that the material would eventually infect a U.S. animal.“



Canada would be the only country impacted by the proposed USDA rule to allow older cattle imports, although it applies theoretically to any “minimal-risk region,“ according to the proposed USDA rule.



A minimal-risk region, according to USDA, is one where BSE has been discovered, but safeguards are sufficient to protect against the spread of the disease.



The USDA is now accepting public feedback on its proposed rule. USDA’s Clifford, speaking to reporters in a Jan. 4 press conference in anticipation of the proposed rule, declined to predict how long the entire rule-making procedure might take.



Source: Bill Tomson Dow Jones Newswires 202-646-0088 [email protected]
 

cowsense

Well-known member
I for one would highly doubt that there will be a flood of OTM live cattle moving south. I've talked with several from the CCA and the statistics show that Canada's cowherd is shrinking considerably from it's post-BSE numbers. We now have new cow slaughter plants operating with one or two more scheduled to come on line. As well Cargill and Tyson are killing considerable amounts of cows as they are much more profitable to kill in the present market than fed cattle. Canada is also in the process of passing legislation to make sure that imported offshore beef cannot enter tariff free to displace domestic supplies southward. The proposed age limit of being born after 99 will also severely limit eligible numbers that can be exported live; live movements will be probably be made up of younger cows (not in steady supply at any time), Purebred breeding stock and Dairy replacements. The real advantage to the Canadian cattle industry will be that there will once again be competitive bidding in the market place and our producers will not be forced to sell in a market controlled by a handful of powerful companies!
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
I agree with you cowsense. I dont think there will be a big flood of cull cattle to the US. With the exchange rate where it sits today there would have to be alo t better price in the US to pay for freight to ship cull animals across the line.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
I tried to find the numbers, but couldn't. Does anyone know what our current cull animal slaughter is sitting at? I thought it was sitting around 800,000 per year, so I find it difficult to believe that 3/4s of our culls will suddenly go south, especially with the unfavorable exchange rate.

I can see an initial flood when it first opens, due to the cull markets being so depressed up here and purchasing conditions being favorable, but the market will stabilize quickly. And calving season being right around the corner will hold many culls back. We've already fed them the winter, hoping for that "one last calf", whats the point in sending them south?

Rod
 

Kato

Well-known member
I can't see a lot of them heading south either.

What it will mean is that the cost of shipping younger fats will drop due to the fact that the extreme measures that are taken now to meet the requirement for dentition and the zero tolerance for accidentally bred heifers will be lightened up. The way the rule is now, if a heifer is as little as two weeks pregnant, with an embryo the size of the end of your finger, the vet that passed her will lose accreditation for export.

Heifers now must also be segregated from not just bulls, but steers as well, by more than one pen's distance. One simple fence doesn't do it. There has to be a pen between them. As a result, the spread between steer and heifer feeder prices is phenomenal. On some sizes of calves it can be as much as 30 cents a pound or more. Buyers just don't want to bother with them, so they sell cheap, go through the packing plants in Canada, and then sell for full price in boxes sent to the U.S.

Another example of how you-know-who have benefitted from this whole fiasco. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VEWWWY INTERESTING !!! Now on this subject all the Canadians think USDA is out in left field and wrong... Must be the message USDA is saying which decides if they know what they are doing or not :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
On page page xiii of the Economic Analysis

A chart called: Projected cull cattle imports from Canada ……

2007 – 2008 – 2009 - 2010 - 2011

458…... 403…...333…...343…... 346

Average is 376,600 NOT 610,000 as stated in the first paragraph of the article OT posted.

Oldtimer since you highlighted the references to "610,000" and the "10%"
would you be so kind as to show us how the author arrived at this conclusion?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
S.S.A.P. said:
On page page xiii of the Economic Analysis

A chart called: Projected cull cattle imports from Canada ……

2007 – 2008 – 2009 - 2010 - 2011

458…... 403…...333…...343…... 346

Average is 376,600 NOT 610,000 as stated in the first paragraph of the article OT posted.

Oldtimer since you highlighted the references to "610,000" and the "10%"
would you be so kind as to show us how the author arrived at this conclusion?

A “Key Economic Impacts“ summary that USDA recently distributed to state agricultural leaders is a five-year prediction. It says the imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months old “would account for about 10% of U.S. cull cattle slaughter.“
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SSAP, "Oldtimer since you highlighted the references to "610,000" and the "10%" would you be so kind as to show us how the author arrived at this conclusion?"

Those numbers are from the same outfit who said your feed ban became effective March, 1999. It's the same outfit who can't define "low risk", that keeps redefining "sound science", can't follow their own rules, reverses policy arbitrarily, doesn't follow their own preachings, got us in a crappy deal with Japan, etc.... Welcome to our world.
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
SSAP, "Oldtimer since you highlighted the references to "610,000" and the "10%" would you be so kind as to show us how the author arrived at this conclusion?"

Those numbers are from the same outfit who said your feed ban became effective March, 1999. It's the same outfit who can't define "low risk", that keeps redefining "sound science", can't follow their own rules, reverses policy arbitrarily, doesn't follow their own preachings, got us in a crappy deal with Japan, etc.... Welcome to our world.


Those numbers don't reflect (are not the same!!) as those given in the supplemental information listed under the REFERENCED " A recently unveiled U.S. plan to let Canada ship older cattle " that the author OPENS HIS ARTICLE WITH.


USDA Proposes to Allow Additional Imports From BSE Minimal-Risk Countries
• Transcript
• Docket
• Risk Assessment
– Estimation of BSE Prevalence in Canada
– Harvard Model of BSE Implications
• Environmental Assessment
• Economic Analysis

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

.... I'm questioning the author's accuracy ...... Source: Bill Tomson Dow Jones Newswires
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
S.S.A.P. said:
On page page xiii of the Economic Analysis

A chart called: Projected cull cattle imports from Canada ……

2007 – 2008 – 2009 - 2010 - 2011

458…... 403…...333…...343…... 346

Average is 376,600 NOT 610,000 as stated in the first paragraph of the article OT posted.

Oldtimer since you highlighted the references to "610,000" and the "10%"
would you be so kind as to show us how the author arrived at this conclusion?

A “Key Economic Impacts“ summary that USDA recently distributed to state agricultural leaders is a five-year prediction. It says the imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months old “would account for about 10% of U.S. cull cattle slaughter.“


So Oldtimer what you are saying is that the data and proposal presented to domestic, international and global parties on the USDA / APHIS page is not the one 'we' should be acknowledging?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SSAP- Are you insinuating that a government agency like USDA would speak in double talk :???: :lol: :lol:
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
SSAP- Are you insinuating that a government agency like USDA would speak in double talk :???: :lol: :lol:

No - I'll repeat for you;
I am questioning the author's use of and source of information.

Mr Tomson's article also states :
"recently distributed to state agricultural leaders "

I presume that R-CALF can be considered an agricultural leader (at least that is what they promote) - therefore - they will have a copy of this Key Economic Impact summary. You are a r-calf member, therefore it should be available to you to peruse and present how these _two seperate_ economic studies differ by 233,400 head of culls (610,000 minus 376,600)

On page page xiii of the Economic Analysis
A chart called: Projected cull cattle imports from Canada ……
2007 – 2008 – 2009 - 2010 - 2011
458…... 403…...333…...343…... 346
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SSAP- I know you think of me as being extremely knowledgeable and count on me daily to keep you informed :wink: :lol: :lol: , but I'm sorry I did not write the article and haven't yet profected the ability to mind read the author.... :roll: :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
SSAP- I know you think of me as being extremely knowledgeable and count on me daily to keep you informed :wink: :lol: :lol: , but I'm sorry I did not write the article and haven't yet profected the ability to mind read the author.... :roll: :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mr Tomson's article also states :
"recently distributed to state agricultural leaders "
  • I presume that R-CALF can be considered an agricultural leader (at least that is what they promote) - therefore - they will have a copy of this Key Economic Impact summary.

You are a r-calf member, therefore it should be available to you to peruse and present how these _two seperate_ economic studies differ by 233,400 head of culls (610,000 minus 376,600)

So you're telling me you couldn't be bothered to check for accuracy concerning the huge discreprancy in the reported number of culls to cross the border..... even though your "leader" has a copy.......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I always thought I was leading-- and it was the good folks of R-CALF that agree with my views and that were following much of my way of thinking-- since I had them long before R-CALF existed...... :wink: :lol:
 

fedup2

Well-known member
The numbers of cull cattle that would be imported with the rule, projected to average 545,000 cows and 66,000 bulls and stags per year
-------------------------
Cull cattle imports from Canada in thousand head are converted to processing beef in million pounds carcass weight equivalent by multiplying by the following carcass weights (pounds) for cows and bulls/stags, respectively: 2007, 576 and 888; 2008, 579 and 893; 2009, 583 and 899; 2010, 586 and 904; and 2011, 590 and 909 (Source: Expert opinion, USDA Economic Research Service, Market and Trade Economics Division, Animal Products, Grains, and Oil Seeds Branch).
------------------------------
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Thank you fedup.

Mr Tomson just clarified that his numbers were taken from what Fedup posted.
It is in a section referred to as : Welfare Effects for the Modeled Commodities > Cull cattle / Processing beef
(page identified as 24 - pdf version identified as page 62 of 137)

  • < My apologies to the readers. >
I admit, I am having trouble understanding the "BAS / Welfare Model".

Can someone explain it in layman's terms?
 

fedup2

Well-known member
In the mid 90’s, the Baseline Analysis System (BAS model) was developed for the purpose of systematically analyzing the spread and control of diseases of concern to Veterinary Services, as well as trade impacts of APHIS rulemaking.
With respect to trade issues, the BAS model has been used by APHIS for the economic analysis of a number of rules, including most recently the BSE minimal-risk regions rule and the rule (not yet proposed) that would allow fresh beef imports from Brazil. It will be used in the economic analysis for the rule that would allow for the importation of additional commodities from BSE minimal-risk regions.

This model is a net trade, partial equilibrium welfare model. Net trade is the absolute value of the difference between exports and imports. Partial equilibrium means that the model results are based on maintaining commodity price equilibrium in a limited portion of an overall economy. Welfare refers to benefits or losses to society, as measured by changes in consumer and producer surplus. Consumer surplus is the difference between what a consumer pays for a unit of a good and the maximum amount that the consumer would be willing to pay for that unit. Producer surplus is the difference between the amount a producer is paid for a unit of a good and the minimum amount that the producer would accept to supply that unit.

APHIS can use the model to estimate price, quantity, and welfare effects due to a particular economic change, such as a resumption of cattle imports from Canada. In this example, the model can tell the agency how much prices, U.S. production, and producers' welfare may decline, and how much consumption and consumers’ welfare may increase, given the additional supply of cattle.
 
Top