Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Sandhusker can you say COUNTERVAIL?
Big Muddy rancher said:Sandhusker can you say COUNTERVAIL?
Shaft said:Interesting chart in the May 2008 Beef Watch (Cattlemen magazine). It shows the Alberta v. US slaughter cow prices in Canadian dollars for the period June 1998 to January 2008. In the pre-May 20, 2003 period the prices are virtually identical. After that there is a discrepancy that continues to this day with Alberta cattle slaughter prices being significantly lower.
I though R-CALF was complaining that packers were buying Canadian cattle cheaper pre-BSE, but this graph belies that argument. It seem that the truth is that the spread in prices, while driven originally by BSE, is now being driven by something else. You R-CALFers might want to look down to check that you still have both feet. I suspect you have blown at least one of them clean off, but just haven't noticed yet. You will.
Here's another word for your lexicon. Pusillanimous. As in pusillanimous pinhead - someone who hides behind semantics and nitpicking in order to obscure the truth because he hasn't the courage or intelligence to face up to it.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
Go look that up.
Shaft, tell what happens to USA cattle producers if we open, unfettered, our market globally to anyone that want to ship beef or cattle into the USA?
Shaft said:Safe product? Like chickenshit-fed beef perhaps? Yummy!
Sorry, can't do that. Canada outlawed the feeding of chicken litter to cattle years ago.
Safe product? Like grinding downers and contaminating thousands upon thousands of tons of beef with E. coli? Not particularly interested in that either, thanks.
What most R-Calf types don't seem to understand are three simple concepts:
1. When you slag Canadian beef as unsafe, you are actually slagging all North American beef in the minds of the majority of US consumers. Do you really think US consumers believe the US to be BSE free?
When Canada continues to find BSE and we continue to import Canadian beef...Do you really think US consumers believe the US beef supply to be BSE free? No doubt BSE is driving consumers away from beef, unless they know where it comes from(as in large packers)...I know because they are my customers!!! Both countries have failed at successfully addressing BSE issues, but that has created an opportunity for producers to connect with consumers. Some of us are taking advantage!
2. The competition is not Canadian beef. The competition is pork and chicken. You drive consumers away from beef with scare tactics, you lose them for a lifetime. Look at Wade Boggs, for example.
If poultry and pork are our competition and the two largest sellers of beef also sell poultry and pork, how aggressive are they going to be promoting beef if it take away their market share of poultry and pork???
3. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The US has many practices that are more unsafe than Canadian practices. The feeding of chicken litter is just one example. Publicizing issues of the safety of beef drives away US consumers. See #1.
Then why do Canadians fear COOL?
You are correct that we have to supply a safe product to attract consumers to beef. Not addressing BSE won't do it...not addressing saturated fats won't do it...not addressing hormones and antibiotics won't do it...not preventing E.coli won't do it. E.coli is a large packer problem...that comes from an inspector that worked in a high capacity plant. It will take five years of no recall to correct the E.coli issue. The problem is the industry supports too many of the issues that are driving consumers away from beef!!!!
If COOL actually results in an increase in the consumption of US beef in the US, I will be duly impressed, but I doubt it.
Fearmongering drives consumers to alternate sources of protein, particularly if those alternate sources are cheaper, and especially if economic times are tough.
Looking to blow off whatever may remain of your feet, SH? Just keep up the good work.
'Nuf said! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:Sandhusker said:I don't undershand . . . .
Keep in mind how many of your cases up there that were blamed on one feed mill making a little mistake.
If you lie to consumers, look how they react, Japan, for example.
Kato said:Got that duck quacking while I was out cleaning pens I see. :wink:
So you don't want unfettered access to American markets by foreign beef? How come it's so important then to have unfettered access to foreign markets by American beef? :roll: :roll: :roll: I don't think many people in the U.S. realize some of the strongarm tactics that have been used by your country over the years to gain access to foreign markets. Things like slapping countervailing duties on all kinds of imports to force third world countries to accept American cigarettes for a start. You've never been on the receiving end of U.S. policy, so you really don't know what it's like out there.
The fact remains that Canada is your biggest trading partner, and I emphasize the word trading. We are also on the other side of the world's longest undefended border, and in essence we watch your back. What would life be like if you needed to build a fence on this border? MMM?? :? But you don't, and don't think that's not important to your government. We also provide about 60% of your energy. We are in Afghanistan trying to clean up the mess there, and are losing soldiers all the time. Do we get thanks? Are we appreciated? Haven't heard.
In spite of all this, some people south of the border don't give a rat's ash about Canada. They don't even know we exist, even though we're probably the best friends you have in this world.
This is why we get offended. With you guys it's a one way street. You can come up here and drive down the street and it looks exactly like any street in the U.S. Burger King on the corner, Holiday Inn just over there, and Sears at the mall.
We've accepted more than our share of American goods, services, and culture. Why Is it so unfair for us to expect that you will reciprocate? Why is it so terrible for us to want to take part in two way trade? Can the thirty million people who live in this country possibly be enough to drive your population of three hundred million to bankruptcy? If so, then we must really be powerful.
Shaft said:Keep in mind how many of your cases up there that were blamed on one feed mill making a little mistake.
Please advise exactly what you are talking about in detail. I am not familiar with this particular line of reasoning.
If you lie to consumers, look how they react, Japan, for example.
I can only presume you are talking about the spines attached to the shipments of US carcasses. If not, please advise.
BSE in North America is not a health issue. It is a fearmongering trade/ packer control issue. In the UK there are on average 806 diagnosed cases of BSE for each diagnosed case of vCJD. You can comment on the numbers any which way you like, including not all the cattle or the humans were diagnosed. True enough, but 806 to 1 is the baseline. Canada has what, 15 diagnosed cases of BSE over 6 years? Not to mention one of the most rigorous testing regimes in the world. Certainly sounds like a strong statistical basis for rabid fearmongering to me. Not.
Or could it just be that there is some other agenda at work here apart from public safety? The worst liars are those who lie to themselves. They are the ones you really cannot trust, because they have forgotten what the truth looks like.
One of the many excuses that I heard was that your cases mostly originated from one feed mill and because of that, we shouldn't get excited about Canadian cattle in general.
So now BSE is no big deal. So a few people die, it's not that many! You've got to die from something someday anyway, right? Do you think the Japanese and/or Koreans share that view?
Perception is reality, and the worldwide perception is that BSE is nasty stuff and because of that perception, you will have to take certain measures that may be costly, or you're out of business.
R-CALF made the argument that BSE was a health risk because that is what science has told us and science hasn't changed.
Shaft said:Perception is reality, and the worldwide perception is that BSE is nasty stuff and because of that perception, you will have to take certain measures that may be costly, or you're out of business.
That would be my point. Glad you got it.
R-CALF made the argument that BSE was a health risk because that is what science has told us and science hasn't changed.
Science hasn't changed? That statement is breathtakingly out of touch with reality. Our knowledge of BSE changes almost daily. I suppose you'll try to tell me next that the sun orbits the earth.
SRMs from BSE infected cattle may be a health risk if ingested, but I know of NO data that indicates that bovine muscle poses a health risk. You may recall that Justice Cebull was overturned by the 9th circuit Court of Appeal on the basis that he bought R-CALF's junk science (what little so-called 'science' that was presented) in the face of overwhelming contrary expert opinion. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal didn't buy the public health issue BS; don't expect me to buy it.
Scientific opinion changes as a matter of course based on further and better information. This may come as a surprise to you, but it appears now that sheep (scrapie) were not the original culprits after all. Try to keep up. The only constant in the universe is change.
What you saw with Creekstone was the refusal of the court to accept a public health scare model. It had little or nothing to do with "the heavy hand of government quashing the free enterprise". Creekstone chose to lead with a public health argument that virtually guaranteed they would lose. I don't know too many judges that would want to take credit for starting a public health panic, particularly one based on little or no hard evidence, and particularly when it would be hardworking cattle producers that would be the ones to bear the economic brunt of that panic. You should thank him for saving you from yourselves. Glad it's not my job; it looks to be full-time.
Had Creekstone stuck with the free enterprise pitch alone, I strongly suspect they would have won. It certainly would have made it a lot tougher for the court to turn them down. Instead they chose to ring the public health alarmist bell loud and long at every opportunity. Bad decision.
Ruling for Creekstone would start a health scandal? Rediculous.