Taking the Bull by the Horns

[Soapweed]

WHAT EXTRA COSTS?

If I was a packer, I wouldn't want it. Just more rigamarole, red tape, and record keeping. Anything that is more of a pain for them and that consumes time will cost money. Time is money. It will be hard to get any more money out of the consumer, so the money that the packer loses on the deal will ultimately be that much less money that they are willing to pay for fat cattle. Feedlots will get less for their end product, which will mean that the backgrounder will get less from the feeder, so they will have to buy calves for less money from the cow/calf producer. It is a vicious circle, and the cow/calf producer (alias rancher) standing on the bottom rung of the ladder will be the ultimate loser. Sandhusker, you can bank on it. :? :wink:

 

[PORKER]

Since 90% of the cow herds in the US are 50 animals or less you have to have a cheap system of data exchange that protects the herd owners from invasion of privacy. Which system will costs them less than a trip to Mickey D's ?

That birth verification is what is going to cost us the most to comply with. The retailer is NOT going to put his credibility on the line and accept the liability involved in labeling without making demands of proof .Texan Quote

The birth is the least cost. The greatest cost will be Commingling of cattle parts at Fabrication and Retail. Its called burger .

 

[RobertMac]

Texan and Soapweed, the cost of MCOOL isn't the problem...neither is the cost of MID. Kato beautifully illustrates the problem almost all cattle producers face...

We probably haven't demanded it[MCOOL] because once you sell something it doesn't belong to you any more. We have no control over what the buyer of our product does or doesn't do to market it.

See, here is the real problem...over 90% of our product, beef, is sold by marketers that also sell poultry and pork. Their net per pound of product sold is more with poultry and pork...if all they do with beef is cover their cost, then they are still making money from the larger percentage market share of the protein market. Promoting beef to the detriment of poultry and pork is not something they are going to support. The best way for them to increase their margins is to pay less for raw product, live cattle. So tell me, how are you going to hold on to the money you are making now?

Remember..."We have no control over what the buyer of our product does or doesn't do to market it."

 

[Sandhusker]

WHAT EXTRA COSTS?

If I was a packer, I wouldn't want it. Just more rigamarole, red tape, and record keeping. Anything that is more of a pain for them and that consumes time will cost money. Time is money. It will be hard to get any more money out of the consumer, so the money that the packer loses on the deal will ultimately be that much less money that they are willing to pay for fat cattle. Feedlots will get less for their end product, which will mean that the backgrounder will get less from the feeder, so they will have to buy calves for less money from the cow/calf producer. It is a vicious circle, and the cow/calf producer (alias rancher) standing on the bottom rung of the ladder will be the ultimate loser. Sandhusker, you can bank on it. :? :wink:

This doesn't have to be difficult and doesn't have to be costly. The packers are claiming it will be difficult and costly to cover their real problem - not being able to source the world's cheapest. That's what this is all about.

Someday, and someday soon, those same packers wailing about costs will be able to get all the South American beef that they need at a price for cheaper than you can produce it for. You want to talk the ultimate loser, there 95% of all producers will be. They won't be just taking a hit on costs, they won't be selling a dang thing. This has happened to different industries already in this country. Now, which is worse?
Soap, I've asked you and others what you will do when this happens. The guys that sell direct will be OK, but nobody else has an answer and you joked with me and said you would sell out (I hope you were joking :lol: ) But really, what are you - what is everybody in this area going to do? I'm deadly serious here, I honestly feel that without COOL, South American imports are going to wreck this whole area. It scares the hell out of me. In my opinion, it is, by far, the single largest challenge we have facing us.

Another thing that nobody is considering is illustrated by that Korean sheep example that I provided. COOL made domestic product worth more! COOL increased the value enough to spawn a wave of cheating! Ask those guys if the cost of COOL was worth it. Same thing with the Alaskan fishermen selling wild salmon. COOL raised the value of their product enough that they don't qualify for government subsidies anymore. Why do you guys choose to ignore these real-life examples? I just don't understand that.

 

[PORKER]

http://www.americansforlabeling.org/

 

[Kato]

:agree:

M-COOL will come with a cost to cow-calf producers. Those costs will be disproportionately greater for the smaller cow-calf producers - particularly those in the south. Write it down.

Maybe someday if the costs become too high, the rest of America's cattlmen can take R-Calf to court. :wink: :wink: :wink: 8)

 

[Sandhusker]

:agree:

M-COOL will come with a cost to cow-calf producers. Those costs will be disproportionately greater for the smaller cow-calf producers - particularly those in the south. Write it down.

Maybe someday if the costs become too high, the rest of America's cattlmen can take R-Calf to court. :wink: :wink: :wink: 8)

I guess then we just ignore benefits, wail about costs, and wait for South America to wipe us out. Heck of a strategy.

 

[MoGal]

The problem I see with taking out "Born in USA" is that trade agreements already in existence with other countries already states that if the beef is in the USA for 100 days (I believe its 100 days, been awhile since I read the article) its considered a USA product. So whether its boxed beef or on the hoof they could hold it for 100 days and sell it as a USA product which is what they do now.

So if we drop born in USA then we essentially have the same thing we have now.

 

[RobertMac]

:agree:

M-COOL will come with a cost to cow-calf producers. Those costs will be disproportionately greater for the smaller cow-calf producers - particularly those in the south. Write it down.

Maybe someday if the costs become too high, the rest of America's cattlmen can take R-Calf to court. :wink: :wink: :wink: 8)

I am a small, southern cow/calf producer. My state has MCOOL. I have a USDA label. It cost me 39 cents and a little time to comply. That is absolute fact...no uneducated guess based on fear propaganda!

 

[Bill]

:agree:

M-COOL will come with a cost to cow-calf producers. Those costs will be disproportionately greater for the smaller cow-calf producers - particularly those in the south. Write it down.

Maybe someday if the costs become too high, the rest of America's cattlmen can take R-Calf to court. :wink: :wink: :wink: 8)

I am a small, southern cow/calf producer. My state has MCOOL. I have a USDA label. It cost me 39 cents and a little time to comply. That is absolute fact...no uneducated guess based on fear propaganda!

Are these the guidelines under which COOL for beef still operates in Miss.?

Beef labeling law

With the signing of SB 2367 during the 2002 Legislature, Country of Origin labeling is now also required on fresh cuts of beef sold in Mississippi. The cuts are designated either "American", "imported", or "blended."


Restaurants are exempt from the law.

The law carries a maximum fine of $500 per offense for violators

 

[PORKER]

Gee Bill , You going to Ship Beef to Mississippi?

 

[Bill]

Gee Bill , You going to Ship Beef to Mississippi?

Who is to say that I don't already?

We ship to Asia.

 

[PORKER]

All of My beef is placed from Mt.Pleasant to the Soo Locks.