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

Schafer addresses farm bill, Canadian BSE, Cuban trade

flounder

Well-known member
Schafer addresses farm bill, Canadian BSE, Cuban trade

By Mark Conlon, For Lee Agri-Media
Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:16 PM CDT



There has been no shortage of problems or concerns to face for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's new secretary, Ed Schafer.

Since taking office in January, Schafer, the former governor of North Dakota, has been thrust into the middle of negotiations for the new farm bill, has had to address a massive meat recall in response to poor handling at a plant in California and has been asked to respond to the latest announcement of another case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Canada, to name a few.

Recently, Lee Agri-Media was able to visit with Schafer via telephone while he participated in the National Farmers Union annual convention in Las Vegas. In this interview, Schafer talked about the ongoing negotiations on the farm bill, USDA's response to the latest BSE case in Canada, trade relations with Cuba, implementing country-of-origin labeling, and more.

Q: In regards to the farm bill - what do you think the chances are of getting a new farm bill passed by the March 15 deadline?

Schafer: I think the chances of getting one passed by the March 15 deadline are slim. There are so many details and conference sessions that have to take place that physically, you just couldn't get the work done. But I'm confident that we'll have an agreed upon framework in place and the work will be accomplished.

If we're in the midst of detail work and paragraph generation and things like that, then I think we can extend (negotiations) for a short period of time. If you look historically, the farm bill has been signed in April or around there and that would not be unusual.





Q: If a new bill isn't completed by that time, and it doesn't appear that it will, would you favor an extension of the current farm bill, or reverting back to the 1949 bill?

Schafer: Neither one of them are good options. If you look at the impact of going back to permanent law, which includes 1936 in some cases, and 1949, it's just not going to happen. Milk prices have tripled. You've got a lot of other commodity issues that take place - if you don't have allotted acreage you wouldn't get any subsidy programs. No representative of the people who is doing their job is going to allow that to happen. So, that we're not even considering.

If you look at extending the current legislation, that's not a good option either. The problem you have is - the '08 crop is in, you'd have to go through the '09 crop, so you're talking about two years of extension at a minimum, probably. And you look at leaving behind nutrition increases; you've got increased participation and higher prices in school lunch programs and nutrition assistance programs; you drop support for specialty crops; you drop support for conservation programs. And, importantly, you drop support for the energy issues, and you know, we're seeing big progress in the merging of energy in agriculture and that would get put on hold for a couple years. Extending this bill is just not a good idea.



Q: Can a permanent disaster element be part of a successful farm bill that won't be vetoed by the president?

Schafer: I think the president's been very clear that he wants to see a safety program in the legislation. What shape that safety net legislation is going to take, we don't know yet. But he's been adamant of saying no permanent disaster declaration. That's been driven by the fact that $5 billion, or depending on your score it could be $6.5 billion - it's a big pot of money that's above and beyond the baseline increase that they have already. The spending issues here are what's driving that conversation.

The president wants a safety net program out there and will sign legislation with a good safety net program in place. Whether in the end we're going to see a permanent disaster title or we're going to see an increase in safety net programs or (something) other, for instance, as Chairman Collin Peterson has suggested Š You know there are just other ways of doing it and we don't know what that final form is going to take yet.

Q: The administration has recently altered its farm program payment cap position, saying now the Adjusted Gross Income limitation must be lowered and include a hard cap at no more than $500,000. Originally it proposed an Adjusted Gross Income of $200,000. Why the change?

Schafer: It's an effort to understand some of the issues out there in that Adjusted Gross Income cap for a high valued producer in some areas of the country where you have some different input considerations, etc. When we were looking at this last week, the administration said we need to move forward. We're trying to compromise, we're trying to come up with ways to get this farm bill on the table because the president wants to sign a new farm bill this year, so we tried to make some movement to allow that to happen.

Q: In the latest House proposal, part of the funding for the bill comes from tax enforcements that were included in the president's budget, but the president has said that isn't acceptable. Why not?

Schafer: The president, as you know, has set course for the budgets to provide a balanced budget by the year 2012. In identifying funding sources in an effort to get to that target Š if we identify funding sources and continue to increase spending to increase the size and scope of government we're not going to make the goal.

Q: Do you still plan on having country-of-origin labeling implemented by Oct. 1?

Schafer: USDA will be prepared to implement on Oct. 1. That's a policy that's driven by the Legislative Branch. It's been on hold and up and down and whatever. We've missed a couple of the rule making publishing deadlines, but we'll be in a position to have interim guidelines in place, which have the force of the guidelines, and we'll be prepared to implement country-of-origin labeling come Oct. 1 should the Legislative Branch still allow us to do so.

Q: Canada recently announced another case of BSE (mad cow), which is its seventh since its feed ban was put into effect in 1997. It appears that policy isn't working out as they had hoped as there have been more cases of BSE after the feed ban than before.

1. Do you feel this poses a significant threat to the U.S. cattle industry?

2. What, if any changes, will USDA make to its OTM rule as a result of this latest finding?

3. Do you feel it's appropriate that Canada and the U.S. both have a “controlled risk” designation?

Schafer: As far as you mention - ‘it appears not to be working' - actually, I think it is working, with their national ID system up there Š and no designation says that you have totally no cases of BSE. As a matter of fact we know Canada has them and that's why they got the limited risk designation as a nation because the incidences is very small.

The fact that it was found, identified, contained, and did not enter the meat supply nor did it go out and get exported into the U.S. as a live animal, either way the process worked. So I would contend that the rules do make a difference, that we have started to identify the cases. And, of course, they're getting identified because we're doing testing of millions of animals instead of not even being aware of it before. So, in that case, I think the system has worked well.

As far as should the U.S. and Canada both be limited risk, the answer is yes. The limited risk designation doesn't say it's BSE-free, it says there is a limited risk of it and at the same, it's measures are in place so that it will not infect herds. We are convinced that the isolated incidences of BSE in Canada do not pose a threat or risk to the beef industry in the United States.

That leads us to the third (question) - what changes may be made - I don't anticipate that any are needed nor will be.

Q: What is the difference between trading with Communist China and North Korea as compared to Cuba?

Schafer: The one difference that I can see having been in China, I have not been in Cuba, but the one difference I can see, in China the government policies are allowing a huge emergence of the middle class. People have more disposable income; they're getting better jobs; they're getting paid better; they're getting their own homes; they're moving into a more capitalistic society and away from the central control Communistic society.

That's what we feel, appropriately, is moving in the right direction - eventually giving people rights and opportunity and financial gain on their own without the government. That's not happening in Cuba. That community has been on hold. The middle class isn't emerging, it's decreasing - more people on poverty, more problems with infrastructure, more lessening of business influence. There just isn't anything happening down in Cuba, so I think that's a difference. But I'm sympathetic to the argument of how you can deal with one dictator and not another...end



Attachment to Singeltary comment

January 28, 2007




Greetings APHIS,


I would kindly like to submit the following to ;


BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM BOVINES
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01



[Federal Register: January 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 5)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1101-1129]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ja07-21]



http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801f8152



BSE; MRR; IMPORTATION OF LIVE BOVINES AND PRODUCTS
DERIVED FROM BOVINES [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041] RIN 0579-AC01
Date: January 9, 2007 at 9:08 am PST


http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064801f3412




tss
 

flounder

Well-known member
Thursday, March 13, 2008

DOWNER COW BLUES SENATORS WANT CRACKDOWN

http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2008/03/downer-cow-blues-senators-want.html


tss
 

PORKER

Well-known member
There is a serious problem with our food safety system," said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Thats My Congressman at work !!!
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Now that was an interesting interview Schafer stated he thinks the canadian system of bse detection is working, and he is expecting to find more BSE/BASE in the US at than currently found. :clap: And the cherry on top is that He thinks canadian and US cattle pose the same risk for BSE :clap: . How many r-Kooks like him now? :oops:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Now that was an interesting interview Schafer stated he thinks the canadian system of bse detection is working, and he is expecting to find more BSE/BASE in the US at than currently found. :clap: And the cherry on top is that He thinks canadian and US cattle pose the same risk for BSE :clap: . How many r-Kooks like him now? :oops:

You think a company man toeing the company line is a big revelation? Do you honestly think he would have a job if he said anything else?

Can either you or Schafer explain to me how your last cow would of been found and kept out of the food chain had she been taken to the packer before she warranted a test?
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
I should not comment until the CFIA releases it's final report. But if this case is like the rest born after 97 she would be showing neurological signs and was a voulenteer submission for testing on farm by the producer. Thus could not be tranported legally in canada let alone shipped to the US end of story. But we will see what the whole report puts out. Until then any comments would be rumor, conjecture and speculation. Let's wait for the FACTS.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
I should not comment until the CFIA releases it's final report. But if this case is like the rest born after 97 she would be showing neurological signs and was a voulenteer submission for testing on farm by the producer. Thus could not be tranported legally in canada let alone shipped to the US end of story. But we will see what the whole report puts out. Until then any comments would be rumor, conjecture and speculation. Let's wait for the FACTS.

The FACTS are neurological signs manifest in the final stages of the disease, Q. She probably looked completely healthy a couple of weeks before they cut her head off, thus making her perfectly legal to be transported in Canada and the US at that time.

Considering accepted transmission theory, she most likely contracted the disease when she was a calf. Thus, if she's 7 years old, she's had the disease 6+ years! Under today's rules, that BSE positive animal could of been sent down here and/or put into both of our food chains at any time and nobody would know - we would still be hearing how "the system is working, we're catching them." That is not rumor, conjecture or speculation. That is a fact. Pardon me if I don't give Mr. Schafer applause for that.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
SandH you are making things up again :roll: there is little imformation posted on the CFIA website as the investigation is not complete yet. Just because you want things to be a certain way does NOT mean that they are that way. I will wait for the CFIA report before making comments. Maybe you should try doing the same. Rather than rushing in and making things up. Yes the fact is that canada has BSE and is testing for it and finding it, not hiding it. Being open and transparent seems to be working for Canada. The CFIA has already stated not one part of this cow made it into the human or animal foodchain. We will see when the final report comes out exactly how WRONG your assumptions are.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Poor old Sandhusker - desperately holding on to the "Canada has BSE - USA does not dream." Lots of healthy American BSE positive cows making it in to your food system right now buddy boy.

Too bad a few more of those cows down in Califenia weren't tested to Canadian standards.

Gotta give you credit for your determination Sandy boy. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
SandH you are making things up again :roll: there is little imformation posted on the CFIA website as the investigation is not complete yet. Just because you want things to be a certain way does NOT mean that they are that way. I will wait for the CFIA report before making comments. Maybe you should try doing the same. Rather than rushing in and making things up. Yes the fact is that canada has BSE and is testing for it and finding it, not hiding it. Being open and transparent seems to be working for Canada. The CFIA has already stated not one part of this cow made it into the human or animal foodchain. We will see when the final report comes out exactly how WRONG your assumptions are.

Making things up? You need a government report to tell you that cow had BSE for most of her life? You need a government report to tell you she would of appeared normal until the very last? You need a government report to tell you that normal appearing cattle can be transported and slaughtered WITHOUT TESTING? It takes a man to face facts he doesn't like....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Poor old Sandhusker - desperately holding on to the "Canada has BSE - USA does not dream." Lots of healthy American BSE positive cows making it in to your food system right now buddy boy.

Too bad a few more of those cows down in Califenia weren't tested to Canadian standards.

Gotta give you credit for your determination Sandy boy. :roll:

And I"ll give you credit for your determination, Randy! Don't make me come up there and put a whippin on you, boy! :wink:

Feel free to take apart my statement and show me where I'm wrong. That invitation goes to BMR, Kato, Bill, don,..... Just show me where I'm wrong.
 

Kato

Well-known member
I notice that the media is not mentioning this at all any more, unlike the Chino story that just won't quit. It still goes rolling across the screen on CNN. :shock: Exactly what health concerns do you think the media are talking about with these poor old downers? Most reports I've seen include BSE among them.

Whether or not those old Chino cows had BSE is irrelevant. The impression in the general public, which is still being given, is that it's possible. We've learned up here that being proactive, even when it's the harder way to go can go a long way toward keeping consumer confidence. Anyone who says we like mandatory ID, expensive SRM disposal rules, and taking losses by keeping the old girls on the farm for testing and disposal is lying. We don't do these things because we like to to them. We do them because they are the right things to do. Especially the downers. Even in a world with no BSE those kind of animals should never see a truck.

Wouldn't that be ironic if MCOOL was found to be a tool used by American consumers to avoid American beef? :shock:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Wouldn't that be ironic if MCOOL was found to be a tool used by American consumers to avoid American beef?
With ScoringAg being the only system to have a verified audit at retail with traceback in real time ,US consumers will buy more US. beef ,pork ,lamb because of item level traceability proving the meat was born, raised,and processed in the USA.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
I notice that the media is not mentioning this at all any more, unlike the Chino story that just won't quit. It still goes rolling across the screen on CNN. :shock: Exactly what health concerns do you think the media are talking about with these poor old downers? Most reports I've seen include BSE among them.

Whether or not those old Chino cows had BSE is irrelevant. The impression in the general public, which is still being given, is that it's possible. We've learned up here that being proactive, even when it's the harder way to go can go a long way toward keeping consumer confidence. Anyone who says we like mandatory ID, expensive SRM disposal rules, and taking losses by keeping the old girls on the farm for testing and disposal is lying. We don't do these things because we like to to them. We do them because they are the right things to do. Especially the downers. Even in a world with no BSE those kind of animals should never see a truck.

Wouldn't that be ironic if MCOOL was found to be a tool used by American consumers to avoid American beef? :shock:

Because the media isn't talking about it changes nothing. The media talks about whatever will sell a paper or give them a viewing audience so they can sell advertising. They want juicy stories, and they'll even juice it themselves (Dittmer).

I ask you again to show me where I'm wrong.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
RK, Kato :clap:
SandH When the CFIA is doing the testing for BSE i expect them to know more about a animal they found testing positive than i do. You do know what you wrote is quite ironic " It takes a man to face facts doesn't like...." You don't like the fact you do NOT know the whole story so you make things up. For example you do NOT know if the animal was ambulatory, why was she selected for testing or where in the industry was. Then you go on to assume she could have been on her way to the US. All assumption that could be but are likely NOT true. And you seem to think waiting for the complete report is not worth while. As for the last of the questions i know i do not need a government report to transport my cattle to slaughter just a manifest to document movement, CCIA tags in all animals for individual animal ID and my brand as herd ID in case an animal needs to be identified. Afterall i am proud of my product and want people to knmow where it comes from unlike those who do not have and do not want a NAId system, :wink: I'll wait for the final report on this cow then when everthing is releases after the investigation judgements will be made. But by all means go keep on making things up, all it will do is make it easier for people to discredit you if you ever do have a valid point.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Talk about Chino, the rumor trail has the kill plant sourced dairy animals from dairy operations in IDAHO,Washington region. Some are Wondering why the recall was so large? My thought is that a few dairy animals may have been imported from our neighbors to the north as dairy herd replacement heifers during 2002-3. bse assumption's by FSIS could be the reasons of total recall from Chino after I read this Story below.

SLAUGHTERING DAIRY CATTLE

Hallmark slaughtered about 500 cattle a day on average, and was one of only six or seven facilities statewide to process older cattle, including dairy cows past their prime, said Holly Foster, director of public relations for the California Beef Council.

Sybrand "Syp" Vander Dussen, president of the Chino-based Milk Producers Council and owner of Syann Dairy in Chino, said local dairies and cattle auctions that sell to slaughterhouses may have a few extra costs to transport their cows to slaughterhouses in Brawley, Fresno and Arizona but the price will be minimal.

The dairy industry in San Bernardino County has dwindled by nearly half since 1997, to 120 dairies as of Jan. 1, 2007. Still, milk produced by the county's 32,960 dairy cattle in 2006 was the most lucrative agriculture product in the region, valued at $230.7 million that year.

Foster said the slaughterhouse market for cattle owners and dairies has diminished, and less demand has meant less value for their animals.

"They're older, they're more battered through all the production of milk through the years," he said.

The Humane Society's Pacelle said the age and condition of older dairy cows could make them more susceptible to disease and injury.

But Michael Marsh, chief executive officer of Western United Dairymen, said dairy owners have a financial stake in making sure their cows are in shape to produce milk.

A cow producing milk is typically worth $2,500 to $3,000. If a cow becomes ill, the owner pays for a veterinarian to kill it. In California's Central Valley, farmers pay $75 to $100 to have a meat renderer pick up and dispose of a carcass. Disposal costs could be different in Southern California.

Randy Mouw, an Ontario dairyman with 1,400 milking cows, said the Hallmark slaughterhouse's closure and subsequent fear among consumers regarding the safety of meat will hurt his and others' bottom lines as demand decreases.

He said current USDA inspections and regulations are more than adequate to protect the food supply. Problems at the Hallmark/Westland facility were isolated to a couple of bad employees, he said.

"We still have criminals even though we have cops everywhere," he said.

Staff writers Richard Brooks and Jim Miller contributed to this report.

Reach Kimberly Pierceall at 951-368-9552 or [email protected]

Reach Ben Goad at 202-661-8422 or [email protected]

http://www.pe.com/localnews/sbcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_D_meat20.3c5df3c.html
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Talk about Chino, the rumor trail has the kill plant sourced dairy animals from dairy operations in IDAHO,Washington region. Some are Wondering why the recall was so large? My thought is that a few dairy animals may have been imported from our neighbors to the north as dairy herd replacement heifers during 2002-3. bse assumption's by FSIS could be the reasons of total recall from Chino after I read this Story below.
SLAUGHTERING DAIRY CATTLE

Hallmark slaughtered about 500 cattle a day on average, and was one of only six or seven facilities statewide to process older cattle, including dairy cows past their prime, said Holly Foster, director of public relations for the California Beef Council.

Sybrand "Syp" Vander Dussen, president of the Chino-based Milk Producers Council and owner of Syann Dairy in Chino, said local dairies and cattle auctions that sell to slaughterhouses may have a few extra costs to transport their cows to slaughterhouses in Brawley, Fresno and Arizona but the price will be minimal.

The dairy industry in San Bernardino County has dwindled by nearly half since 1997, to 120 dairies as of Jan. 1, 2007. Still, milk produced by the county's 32,960 dairy cattle in 2006 was the most lucrative agriculture product in the region, valued at $230.7 million that year.

Foster said the slaughterhouse market for cattle owners and dairies has diminished, and less demand has meant less value for their animals.

"They're older, they're more battered through all the production of milk through the years," he said.

The Humane Society's Pacelle said the age and condition of older dairy cows could make them more susceptible to disease and injury.

But Michael Marsh, chief executive officer of Western United Dairymen, said dairy owners have a financial stake in making sure their cows are in shape to produce milk.

A cow producing milk is typically worth $2,500 to $3,000. If a cow becomes ill, the owner pays for a veterinarian to kill it. In California's Central Valley, farmers pay $75 to $100 to have a meat renderer pick up and dispose of a carcass. Disposal costs could be different in Southern California.

Randy Mouw, an Ontario dairyman with 1,400 milking cows, said the Hallmark slaughterhouse's closure and subsequent fear among consumers regarding the safety of meat will hurt his and others' bottom lines as demand decreases.

He said current USDA inspections and regulations are more than adequate to protect the food supply. Problems at the Hallmark/Westland facility were isolated to a couple of bad employees, he said.

"We still have criminals even though we have cops everywhere," he said.

Staff writers Richard Brooks and Jim Miller contributed to this report.

Reach Kimberly Pierceall at 951-368-9552 or [email protected]

Reach Ben Goad at 202-661-8422 or [email protected]

http://www.pe.com/localnews/sbcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_D_meat20.3c5df3c.html

Of course its the Canadians fault..why wouldn't we put the blame on someone else...... you also forgot the part about if they had only used ScoringAg.com. :wink:

Chino has one of the largest concentrations of dairy cattle in the U.S., with 250,000 on about 100 farms. After three to five years, when a cow is no longer producing milk, it is sold to a slaughterhouse such as Westland/Hallmark
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Yanuck, It's Not Canada's Fault .. It's the PACKING PLANT and the USDA/FSIS fault .They are The FIREWALL , They say. Guess what?
This isn't the first time either. We have Homegrown US Cattle too that is carrying the same crap. I wish Ron had his live BSE urine test ready.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Just a few things about dairy cattle that could have been imported prior to 02-03. First of all canadian cattle going south at that time needed a H of A tag a metal on in the ear,after passing health tests and import paper work to get into the US so there would be some way to track them, how do people think the washington cow was traced back to canada? Magic! I see alot on people on here complaining that packers should have been able to test for BSE privately, then what would stop companies like westland from claiming they were doing it too. this is the problem with giving the testing keys to the packers. That is why packers being responsible for testing for bse isn't allowed it is a conflict of interest.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
RK, Kato :clap:
SandH When the CFIA is doing the testing for BSE i expect them to know more about a animal they found testing positive than i do. You do know what you wrote is quite ironic " It takes a man to face facts doesn't like...." You don't like the fact you do NOT know the whole story so you make things up. For example you do NOT know if the animal was ambulatory, why was she selected for testing or where in the industry was. Then you go on to assume she could have been on her way to the US. All assumption that could be but are likely NOT true. And you seem to think waiting for the complete report is not worth while. As for the last of the questions i know i do not need a government report to transport my cattle to slaughter just a manifest to document movement, CCIA tags in all animals for individual animal ID and my brand as herd ID in case an animal needs to be identified. Afterall i am proud of my product and want people to knmow where it comes from unlike those who do not have and do not want a NAId system, :wink: I'll wait for the final report on this cow then when everthing is releases after the investigation judgements will be made. But by all means go keep on making things up, all it will do is make it easier for people to discredit you if you ever do have a valid point.

You don't need a report because what I am saying isn't specific to this one animal - it applies to all of them. I'll try to draw you a picture and make it as simple as I can;

1) Normal appearing cattle in the same age group in which BSE has been found up there are being exported down here and are being put into both of our food chains without being BSE tested.
2) Until right before ANY BSE positive animal shows the symptoms that would suggest BSE and that they should be tested, WHATEVER THEY ARE, they appear normal, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE HAD THE DISEASE FOR YEARS.

Now, I challenge you to refute either statement. If you can not, then please explain to me how a healthy appearing BSE positive cow can NOT be exported into the US. I assure you, you don't need any government report on your last positive, or any other, to complete this task.
 
Top