Silence please

[smalltime]

Dry .Oils costs tomuchto waste.

 

[bramblebush]

I have noted with interest that the ardent R-Calf supporters on this forum have been completely silent per the ruling to rescind Judge Cebull's order and reopen the border immediately. Where are their spinmisters?

Am I correct in assuming they are in mourning or are they in conference with none other than their fearless leaders and legal advisors and the legal staff of The Organization for Competitive Markets.

This is two strikes already, three if you count the failed dumping case. The next shoe to drop will be on the phony legal case brought against the packers by none other than Herman and a few of his phony cohorts. I can only hope when that charge gets shot out of the saddle that the companies whom they have charged will turn around and sue them for everything they are worth. Using the legal system at every whim as they now have chosen can become a two edged sword. Personally, I hope they get their day in court which they so ardently seek.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, ""Low" as defined in scientific terms, not your term, is what the judges cited as a proper measurement of risk. The fallacy of R-Calf's position was clearly demonstrated with that line of questioning."

"Low" is NOT a scientific term! "Low" is totally subjective. What is "low" to somebody might be "unacceptable" to others. Prime example; I was talking to a buddy of mine in Tampa, Florida. Our humidity that day was 55% and I told him it was terribly humid. He laughed at me and told me that was "low".

Agman, "Yes, I am going to tell you that the goals of the packer are not inconsistent with goals of producers. They need each other and the packer knows that."

Are you trying to tell me that the ability of a packer to bypass US markets for their cattle is good for US producers? Don't try to tell us that is not what packers are pushing for.

What about allowing foreign product to be labeled exactly the same as US? Is that good for US producers?

Finally, if the goals of packers are not inconsistant with producers, why were the packers pushing the USDA to not allow private BSE testing - a practice that certainly would of opened up Japan and one that NCBA says is costing US PRODUCERS $175/head?

 

[agman]

Agman, ""Low" as defined in scientific terms, not your term, is what the judges cited as a proper measurement of risk. The fallacy of R-Calf's position was clearly demonstrated with that line of questioning."

"Low" is NOT a scientific term! "Low" is totally subjective. What is "low" to somebody might be "unacceptable" to others. Prime example; I was talking to a buddy of mine in Tampa, Florida. Our humidity that day was 55% and I told him it was terribly humid. He laughed at me and told me that was "low".

Agman, "Yes, I am going to tell you that the goals of the packer are not inconsistent with goals of producers. They need each other and the packer knows that."

Are you trying to tell me that the ability of a packer to bypass US markets for their cattle is good for US producers? Don't try to tell us that is not what packers are pushing for.

What about allowing foreign product to be labeled exactly the same as US? Is that good for US producers?

Finally, if the goals of packers are not inconsistant with producers, why were the packers pushing the USDA to not allow private BSE testing - a practice that certainly would of opened up Japan and one that NCBA says is costing US PRODUCERS $175/head?

For the last time, how you define "low" is immaterial. The court said the term "low as used in scientific terms was proper. They don't care what you think - that is good. What proof do you have that "low risk" is not a common reference in scientific terms. I have seen that term used many times in scientific writings. When queried by the judges R-Calf's attorney could not define what "low" meant to him. His foot was stuck in his mouth at that time - case is over. When asked if you want ZERO tolerance the answer was no. Well then what is "low"? Sputter, stutter, silence, oops I am ............. Case over, unanimous decision by the judges or have you not been informed yet by your leadership? Why can you just not admit that you and yours are on the wrong side of the issue. Most producers, who you claim you support, know R-CAlf is wrong.

There has never been any offical protocol established by Japan to allow tested beef into the country - period. Get off that dying horse. Your support for that claim has never once appeared in official print and furthermore the lack of any protocol was told to me from one of the individuals directly involved in the negotiations for the U.S. and reaffirmed to me two weeks. Perhaps you have better contacts than I have.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "For the last time, how you define "low" is immaterial. The court said the term "low as used in scientific terms was proper. They don't care what you think - that is good. What proof do you have that "low risk" is not a common reference in scientific terms. I have seen that term used many times in scientific writings"

"Low" is NOT scientific. PPM, 1/xxx IS scientific. Those are hard numbers, not subjective. Look at the USDA and their claim to be scientific - are they talking "young" animals, or is there a hard number involved? (hint: 30 or 20 months, depending on the sound science dujour.) "Low" is in the eyes of the beholder.

Agman, "When queried by the judges R-Calf's attorney could not define what "low" meant to him. His foot was stuck in his mouth at that time - case is over."

Funny you should mention that. :lol: That is the exact question Judge Cebull asked USDA. "Low" was their arguement, not R-CALF's. By the way, USDA are the ones who couldn't define "low", even after they argued it. :wink:

What would you do if you were considering an operation and the Dr. informed you that "Thousands of people have had this and only a "low" number have turned into flaming homosexuals." Would the word "low" prompt any further questions from you or would you accept it as you expect us to accept the USDA's "low"?

Agman, "Why can you just not admit that you and yours are on the wrong side of the issue. Most producers, who you claim you support, know R-CAlf is wrong."

So would that mean that a "low" number of producers support R-CALF? :roll:

Agman, "There has never been any offical protocol established by Japan to allow tested beef into the country - period. Get off that dying horse. Your support for that claim has never once appeared in official print and furthermore the lack of any protocol was told to me from one of the individuals directly involved in the negotiations for the U.S. and reaffirmed to me two weeks. Perhaps you have better contacts than I have."

Well ain't you sumthin? Are these the same contacts that told you US multinational packers are buying foreign plants only to serve the local markets? :lol: (hmmm, doesn't Canada produce much more than the local population can consume?) Are these the same contacts who told you we were't going to have the corn crop that was projected because of all those marginal quality acres? (yeah, I remember that) :lol: Can you say RECORD CROP, Children? :lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah, Agman, I realize you have contacts, but please turn down this "I know more than you do because I know this guy" crap. President Bush has contacts, too. It's obvious he doesn't know everything, either.

No official protocol, eh? Guess that's the end of the road, then. Heck, it's only $175/head to us. We might think of pressing the issue if it was worth anything. :?

 

[agman]

Agman, "For the last time, how you define "low" is immaterial. The court said the term "low as used in scientific terms was proper. They don't care what you think - that is good. What proof do you have that "low risk" is not a common reference in scientific terms. I have seen that term used many times in scientific writings"

"Low" is NOT scientific. PPM, 1/xxx IS scientific. Those are hard numbers, not subjective. Look at the USDA and their claim to be scientific - are they talking "young" animals, or is there a hard number involved? (hint: 30 or 20 months, depending on the sound science dujour.) "Low" is in the eyes of the beholder.

Agman, "When queried by the judges R-Calf's attorney could not define what "low" meant to him. His foot was stuck in his mouth at that time - case is over."

Funny you should mention that. :lol: That is the exact question Judge Cebull asked USDA. "Low" was their arguement, not R-CALF's. By the way, USDA are the ones who couldn't define "low", even after they argued it. :wink:

What would you do if you were considering an operation and the Dr. informed you that "Thousands of people have had this and only a "low" number have turned into flaming homosexuals." Would the word "low" prompt any further questions from you or would you accept it as you expect us to accept the USDA's "low"?

Agman, "Why can you just not admit that you and yours are on the wrong side of the issue. Most producers, who you claim you support, know R-CAlf is wrong."

So would that mean that a "low" number of producers support R-CALF? :roll:

Agman, "There has never been any offical protocol established by Japan to allow tested beef into the country - period. Get off that dying horse. Your support for that claim has never once appeared in official print and furthermore the lack of any protocol was told to me from one of the individuals directly involved in the negotiations for the U.S. and reaffirmed to me two weeks. Perhaps you have better contacts than I have."

Well ain't you sumthin? Are these the same contacts that told you US multinational packers are buying foreign plants only to serve the local markets? :lol: (hmmm, doesn't Canada produce much more than the local population can consume?) Are these the same contacts who told you we were't going to have the corn crop that was projected because of all those marginal quality acres? (yeah, I remember that) :lol: Can you say RECORD CROP, Children? :lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah, Agman, I realize you have contacts, but please turn down this "I know more than you do because I know this guy" crap. President Bush has contacts, too. It's obvious he doesn't know everything, either.

No official protocol, eh? Guess that's the end of the road, then. Heck, it's only $175/head to us. We might think of pressing the issue if it was worth anything. :?

Response...Sandhusker, you are wrong the judges ruled, that is what counts. Have the intergrity to admit that.

Well ain't you sumthin? Are these the same contacts that told you US multinational packers are buying foreign plants only to serve the local markets? :lol: (hmmm, doesn't Canada produce much more than the local population can consume?)


Response...I referenced my sources, what do you have to back up your failed opinion-nothing as usual. At least produce a printed copy of the protocol that Japan will accept tested beef from the U.S. In short, produce or shut up.

No, the research I referenced regarding multi-nationals was done by Federal Reserve economists. Unfortunately, you, setting in Valentine NE think you know more having done no research per this subject. That is par for an R-Calfer such as yourself - pleanty of baseless and senseless opinions. Canada is unique in that they do produce alot more beef than they can consume. I have never stated otherwise. Have you examined imports and exports on a per capita basis though? I expect not, that would be beyond your scope of reason.

Regarding last years corn crop I made a statement early in the growing season-marginal acreage was put into production. Crop conditions improved and we had a miracle crop. Too bad you do not have access to follow-up research reflecting changing crop conditions. Of coarse you never had access to the economic value studies that I released projecting a top within several cents of the actual high for the December corn futures did you now? Even if you would have had access I seriously doubt you would have the intellectual capacity to understand their meaning and use. You would still be hung up on yesterday's comment thinking you have a "got ya in hand"!!!

Your comment referencing last year's corn crop reminds me of a speaking engagement I was at and the president of the NFU was blasting the major grain companies. He knew exactly what they would do to take advantage of those poor producers. He repeatedly said that. After the fact that is, kinda like your statement. If you knew early in the growing season it would be a record crop did you suggest to producers in your area to hedge at the top - if not, why not?

The value difference was $93 per head in 2004. The number you cite $175 per head from the NCBA is wrong. They are wrong in that calculation. Unlike you, I am not a blind follower of any organization.

It is your lack of legitimate contacts and information that keeps you mired in defenseless positions. That is sad. No better example exists of your total unwillingness to reason and admit wrong than your laughable attempt to support your "low risk" point of view. People a hell of a lot smarter than you have made that determination and you are not smart enough to recognize that. That is your problem, not mine. It is not wrong to be wrong; it is just wrong to stay wrong. You are dead wrong young man. Have the integrity to admit it.

 

[ocm]

Agman, interesting how many conclusions you are coming to about the Ninth Circus' decision. They haven't even published their reasons yet. You have "inside contacts" there too?

Also interesting how you are talking about items related to the merits of the case. The full case on the merits has not even been presented yet. And that was not the issue before the Ninth Circus, even though USDA presented a case on the merits to them. I guess they knew those guys have always played fast and loose with the rules anyway. You never know what might happen when you are before a Court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.

I'll take the George W. Bush appointed Cebull over the Circus Act anytime. Maybe Judge Cebull will be a little more careful how he writes his opinion after the July 27th hearing than he was this first time.

You mentioned in an earlier post that Judge Cebull has been overturned 11 times. Since he is under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Clowns I would says that being overturned by them so much would indicate that he is a law and order conservative--the kind GWB says he appoints. So where would that put you?

 

[Sandhusker]

If Tyson is interestd in buying a plant to serve the local markets, why the heck would they buy in Canada where they rely heavily on exports? If local markets are their niche, why were they so vocal on opening the border? Do you need a report to realize they are up there so they have another source to supply the US market? I don't.

I will have the integrity to admit that I disagree with ANYBODY who says "low" is a scientific measurement. So far we have one court that says it is and one that says it isn't, or so it is said. I haven't seen the opinion yet.

Agman, " If you knew early in the growing season it would be a record crop did you suggest to producers in your area to hedge at the top - if not, why not? "

I suggested to my producers not to listen to all the economists and traders who were talking about $4 corn and pull the trigger on a trailing stop. Nobody missed the top by more than 15 cents. I'd say that wasn't bad for a bunch of non-connected folks.

Fine, lets use $93, then. I'd say that's enough to call the Japanese.

 

[agman]

Agman, interesting how many conclusions you are coming to about the Ninth Circus' decision. They haven't even published their reasons yet. You have "inside contacts" there too?

Also interesting how you are talking about items related to the merits of the case. The full case on the merits has not even been presented yet. And that was not the issue before the Ninth Circus, even though USDA presented a case on the merits to them. I guess they knew those guys have always played fast and loose with the rules anyway. You never know what might happen when you are before a Court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.

I'll take the George W. Bush appointed Cebull over the Circus Act anytime. Maybe Judge Cebull will be a little more careful how he writes his opinion after the July 27th hearing than he was this first time.

You mentioned in an earlier post that Judge Cebull has been overturned 11 times. Since he is under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Clowns I would says that being overturned by them so much would indicate that he is a law and order conservative--the kind GWB says he appoints. So where would that put you?

You got it-contacts. Too bad you are out in left field by yourself. There were very bright people in the courtroom who saw the events unfold. Wait and see when they publish their opinion and see if I am not on target with my assessment.

Your guys got clobbered in court, just be man enough to admit it. If anyone played fast and loose it was Cebull playing up to his lawyer friend and local buddies. I believe one of the Montana papers even ran an account of that relationship. I don't believe for one minute he was bought off. I do believe he was really hood-winked though. I do expect he will be much more careful of the facts in the upcoming case. If he had any sense he would dismiss the case and avoid further embarrassment. That case has less merit than the one that just got overturned. If he rules the same as in the previous case you can count on that being overturned as well. I believe that would be number 12.

I doubt whether GW new Cebull at all. His name was placed in nomination by local politicians as is usually the situation. I remain a conservative on economic policy and a moderate on social policy. If you think otherwise you are just wrong one more time.

 

[ocm]

That case has less merit than the one that just got overturned

There you go again, knowing what is going to be presented. You have a contact at R-CALF, too?

I would bet on you being more libertarian than conservative. Unfortunately, many libertarians have co-opted the name "conservative." Maybe I ought to give it up and call myself anti-liberal and anti-libertarian.

 

[agman]

If Tyson is interestd in buying a plant to serve the local markets, why the heck would they buy in Canada where they rely heavily on exports? If local markets are their niche, why were they so vocal on opening the border? Do you need a report to realize they are up there so they have another source to supply the US market? I don't.

I will have the integrity to admit that I disagree with ANYBODY who says "low" is a scientific measurement. So far we have one court that says it is and one that says it isn't, or so it is said. I haven't seen the opinion yet.

Agman, " If you knew early in the growing season it would be a record crop did you suggest to producers in your area to hedge at the top - if not, why not? "

I suggested to my producers not to listen to all the economists and traders who were talking about $4 corn and pull the trigger on a trailing stop. Nobody missed the top by more than 15 cents. I'd say that wasn't bad for a bunch of non-connected folks.

Fine, lets use $93, then. I'd say that's enough to call the Japanese.

What did I say about Canada? It is unique is it not? I have never said otherwise.

I don't believe I ever said corn was going to $4.00. What I pointed out was that with usage at record levels and with ending stocks relatively low any crop size under 10.6 billion would further reduce ending stocks. Remember that prior to last year the largest crop ever produced in the U.S. was 10.2 billion bushels with more acres planted than last year. A very similar scenario existed in 1995 and unfortunately for cattle feeders we did not have a record crop and corn went to $5.50 per bushel. Only you and all your accumulated knowledge knew the crop would be 11.7 billion at the beginning of the planting season. That was 1.5 billion more than was ever produced in this country. What a genius, tell me your secret.

Too bad you did not have access to my economic value studies regarding ending stocks and corresponding price highs and lows. Given your knowledge of the final crop beforehand, as you imply, you could have done a better job than leave $.15 per bushel on the table. It was through good contacts that I was able to evaluate crop progress throughout the entire growing season, not just at planting time. Just curious. What is this years corn crop size going to be? If you knew last years outcome at the beginning of the season as you so aptly imply am I wrong in assuming you know the crop size this year?

Where is your proof of a protocol that Japan will accept tested beef. If my information and contacts are wrong then your numerous contacts (LOL) should aid you in producing a document to prove my statement wrong. Oops, you don't have any reputable contacts nor can you produce such a document on your own so you just stuck your foot in your mouth one more time. Put up or shut up.

 

[agman]

That case has less merit than the one that just got overturned

There you go again, knowing what is going to be presented. You have a contact at R-CALF, too?

I would bet on you being more libertarian than conservative. Unfortunately, many libertarians have co-opted the name "conservative." Maybe I ought to give it up and call myself anti-liberal and anti-libertarian.

Hardly do I have need any contacts in R-Calf. They are very public with their dispaly of ignorance of the issues confronting the beef industry. Why would I need them as a contact, so I can be half informed as you and their members.

OCM, does that really stand for a member of the Organization for Competitive Markets-how sneaky? Now that is a classy group. They finally found a group of misinformed and unfortunately misguided cattle producers to raise money so they can spend it on frivolous lawsuits to test their legal skills.

Don't waste your time on my political persuasion. How do you think you really know? Oh, since you are a supporter of R-Calf and maybe even an esteemed member of the OCM I am certain you can discern all facts correctly!!!

 

[Anonymous]

ocm: "There you go again, knowing what is going to be presented. You have a contact at R-CALF, too?"

Canada and the U.S. have the same BSE firewalls in place. When Canada had BSE in their native herd, R-CULT stated "USDA doesn't care about food safety" and "USDA hasn't gone far enough to assure the safety of our beef". R-CULT called Canadian beef a "high risk" to consumer safety. Now that we have BSE in our native herd Leo McDonnell says, "consumers shouldn't worry because we have these firewalls in place" and "we have the safest beef in the world".

FLIP FLOP!
FLIP FLOP!
FLIP FLOP!

Canada's beef is "high risk" when they had BSE in their native herd but the U.S. beef is the "safest in the world" when we have BSE in our native herd? Talk about a clear double standard!

Would you really want to try to defend such blatant hypocrisy ocm?


I'll bet R-CULT was actually relieved to hear the verdict considering the consequences of trying to defend their position of "if you have BSE in your native herd, your beef is considered "high risk". I doubt they would have enjoyed taking that position against the integrity of the U.S. beef supply?


Regarding, knowing what R-CULT's position would be, your point is taken ocm. How could anyone possibly know what R-CULT's position would be when they make it up as they go?

Now that we have a case of BSE in our native herd, I guess we can thank our lucky stars that the media doesn't see R-CULT as a credible source of information on BSE or we would be in a world of hurt right now with our domestic case of BSE wouldn't we?

How anyone claiming to represent the U.S. cattleman could risk the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption (domestic production) to stop the importation of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption (Canadian live cattle imports) is beyond comprehension. Considering how Canada would have eventually absorbed an equivalent portion of our export markets to Japan and South Korea, R-CULT's actions could be considered bordering on insanity. That's what you get when you base your position on emotion rather than fact.

Kinda like forward contracting your cattle than suing the packers for needing less cattle in the cash market after you willingly forward contracted your cattle. That's just about as bright!


Hey Sandman,

Since R-CULT stated that Canadian beef is "HIGH RISK", could you define "high risk"? Is that a scientific term? How do you measure that?

If you want to get bogged down in semantics, two can play that game.

Making an issue out of the definition of "low" proves R-CULT's level of desperation in this case.


There is no way R-CULT can defend their position against Canada without risking the integrity of the safety of U.S. beef. We should all be thankful that the 9th circuit saw through R-CULT's BSE "fear mongering" bullsh*t to stop Canadian imports.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "What did I say about Canada? It is unique is it not? I have never said otherwise."

Considering that Canada is probably their single largest investment, rather than have to call it "unique", I would say the report is flawed.

Agman, "I don't believe I ever said corn was going to $4.00."

Yep, you never mentioned a dollar figure.

Agman, " If you knew last years outcome at the beginning of the season as you so aptly imply am I wrong in assuming you know the crop size this year?"

Didn't you catch where I said we used a trailing stop? Is that a srategy someone with a crystal ball would use?

Agman, "Where is your proof of a protocol that Japan will accept tested beef."

There is none that I am aware of, Agman. Where have I posted that there is? If you would be the optimist you claim you are, you would realize there is no established protocol that they WON'T take tested beef, either. I'm sure Creekstone did a little due diligence before making the decision to invest millions in their testing facility - they obviously were convinced Japan would take tested product. I'm saying that this closure is costing us enough money that it is more than worthwhile to put the Japs on the spot with the offer.

Established protocol can also be changed. The USDA had an established protocol of shutting the border and not reopening to BSE positive countries and went 22-0 in applying it. That protocol, created for health reasons, was changed exclusively for #23 when it was discovered the established protocol would be expensive for certain folks. Notice how protocol can be changed, and it doesn't even take a change in the original fear to do it? Big money holds a hand of trumps.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I'm sure Creekstone did a little due diligence before making the decision to invest millions in their testing facility - they obviously were convinced Japan would take tested product."

Creekstone admitted that "BSE TESTED" did not mean "BSE FREE" so what's the point in testing cattle less than 24 months of age?

CONSUMER DECEPTION!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "I'm sure Creekstone did a little due diligence before making the decision to invest millions in their testing facility - they obviously were convinced Japan would take tested product."

Creekstone admitted that "BSE TESTED" did not mean "BSE FREE" so what's the point in testing cattle less than 24 months of age?

CONSUMER DECEPTION!


~SH~

Looks like you just shot down your own "false advertising" arguement! :lol: :lol:

Where has the USDA mentioned anything about "consumer deception"?

 

[Mike]

Sandman: "I'm sure Creekstone did a little due diligence before making the decision to invest millions in their testing facility - they obviously were convinced Japan would take tested product."

Creekstone admitted that "BSE TESTED" did not mean "BSE FREE" so what's the point in testing cattle less than 24 months of age?
CONSUMER DECEPTION!
~SH~

You've left a key element out of your argument. "INTENT". If, as you say, "consumer deception" would be carried out, there is obviously no intention to do so, seeing as they, the customer, asked for it.

I can't help but notice your argument has shifted to 24 months from 30 months. Has the science changed?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Where has the USDA mentioned anything about "consumer deception"?"

"RED HERRING" Sandman!

I do not need to provide a quote by USDA using the words "CONSUMER DECEPTION" for BSE testing of cattle less than 24 months of age to be "CONSUMER DECEPTION".

Those are my words! I don't know or care whether USDA used those exact words.

Creekstone's Fielding admitted that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE".

USDA opposed Creekstone's request .


The fact that USDA opposed Creekstone's request says more about USDA's position on this issue than your little games about what exact words they used. Sheeeesh!

Mike: "You've left a key element out of your argument. "INTENT". If, as you say, "consumer deception" would be carried out, there is obviously no intention to do so, seeing as they, the customer, asked for it."

Oh, I see, so "CONSUMER DECEPTION" is ok if it's not your "INTENT" to deceive?

If consumers believe "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE" they are being misled and anyone selling beef has the responsibility to be honest with them like Fielding was when he said "BSE TESTED" did not mean "BSE FREE".

Mike, would you be willing to stamp "BSE TESTED BEEF BUT NOT BSE FREE" on the box?

Mike: "I can't help but notice your argument has shifted to 24 months from 30 months. Has the science changed?"

EU claims a few positive cattle between 24 and 30 months THAT WERE NOT CONFIRMED with further testing. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt rather than split hairs between 24 and 30 months.

You've already pointed this out Mike.


[note: Mike I mistakenly responded to Sandman so I edited this post accordingly.]


~SH~

 

[agman]

Agman, "Does the AMI influence policy? Yes, but not for the entire beef industry all of the time. Why is it that you think you know more about the entire beef industry than they do?"

You can bet they try to influence all they can if there is to be any effect to their bottom line.

I don't know more about the entire beef industry than they do - never said I did. However, it does't take a rocket scientist to recognize and understand their long-range plan. I've said before that it isn't devious and is in fact a sound business plan and one shareholders would expect. (although I won't endorse it on morality standards) The problem is that it steps on US producer's toes - the same producers who I rely on for my living and the survival of my community.

I understand your loyalties - you're for the big boys as they butter your bread. I'm for the little guys for the same reasons.

Once again your last statement is totally false. But then again, why would you care you. You heard something about my clientèle from someone who likely knows less than you-what a joke. Fact: I work with every segment of the beef industry, inclusive of very many producers. That is to my credit. Have you ever wondered why?

No, Agman, nobody has told me anything about your clientele. I've read plenty of your posts and, from them, it is easy to see that you value the profits of big business over the survival of the US producer. Would you like me to provide a shining example?

Go right ahead and show me.

 

[agman]

Agman, "What did I say about Canada? It is unique is it not? I have never said otherwise."

Considering that Canada is probably their single largest investment, rather than have to call it "unique", I would say the report is flawed.

Agman, "I don't believe I ever said corn was going to $4.00."

Yep, you never mentioned a dollar figure.

Agman, " If you knew last years outcome at the beginning of the season as you so aptly imply am I wrong in assuming you know the crop size this year?"

Didn't you catch where I said we used a trailing stop? Is that a srategy someone with a crystal ball would use?

Agman, "Where is your proof of a protocol that Japan will accept tested beef."

There is none that I am aware of, Agman. Where have I posted that there is? If you would be the optimist you claim you are, you would realize there is no established protocol that they WON'T take tested beef, either. I'm sure Creekstone did a little due diligence before making the decision to invest millions in their testing facility - they obviously were convinced Japan would take tested product. I'm saying that this closure is costing us enough money that it is more than worthwhile to put the Japs on the spot with the offer.

Established protocol can also be changed. The USDA had an established protocol of shutting the border and not reopening to BSE positive countries and went 22-0 in applying it. That protocol, created for health reasons, was changed exclusively for #23 when it was discovered the established protocol would be expensive for certain folks. Notice how protocol can be changed, and it doesn't even take a change in the original fear to do it? Big money holds a hand of trumps.

If you followed the corn price advance last year with a $.15 cent stop how could you get filled within $.15 of the high when there were several times before the high was ever attained that had corrections greater than $.15 which would have activated your stop well before the high was attained -just curious. You are not trying to hood wink myself and the other readers are you? Did you think I would not check the price action from last year?

Thanks for finally admitting that you do not know of any protocol issued by Japan that they would accept tested imported beef. You finally got a fact correct; they never issued one. Why do you keep harping about that when you now admit you have no proof of one. Are you just trying to be honery? Were my contacts wrong or were you wrong all along?

Has our knowledge of BSE not increased since the first case of BSE was discovered? I believe so. According to you we should stay mired in the past and ignore any new findings, is that correct? Should we still keep borders closed for seven years per the original protocol. Now who is looking out for the producer, you or me? I believe I am looking out for producers.