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

THAT'S ALOT OF BEEF

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
There was hope the U.S. Department of Agriculture would publish a new rule this fall that would pave the way for renewed shipments of older cattle and breeding stock starting next year.
Now the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and other groups are warning producers not to expect the border to fully reopen until some time in 2007 -- four years after mad-cow disease was discovered in an Alberta cow.
There were more than 900,000 surplus OTM cattle across the country as of last July, according to Statistics Canada.
Industry experts say the USDA wants to be extra careful in developing the new trade rule to ensure it can withstand lawsuits from protectionist groups such as R-CALF USA.
This year, R-CALF, which represents about 18,000 U.S. ranchers, went to court and temporarily derailed the USDA rule that eventually led to the border reopening in July to Canadian cattle under 30 months of age.
"USDA is very aware of the fact that R-CALF will probably direct litigation at this new rule and they are trying to make it as perfect as they can," said Darcy Davis, chairman of Alberta Beef Producers.
Canada's push for the second rule is based on the same premise that supported the current rule allowing the trade in young cattle to resume: risk factors for bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Canada are no different than in the United States.
John Masswohl, director of international relations for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said he expects the USDA to conduct careful risk assessments before publishing its new rule, probably some time next summer.
With some U.S. beef processing plants laying off staff or shutting down due to a shortage of supply, re-establishing the full cattle trade with Canada would make dollars and sense.
See more articles and news on cattle
Track news on cattle at MeatFactor.org.

I bet packers have already got a plan for manipulating the markets with these OTM's, ...................good luck
 

Jason

Well-known member
Are you back to complaining about that phony 900,000 number? Do you think those cows just stand around forever?

Plants here were short of fed cattle so cow slaughter increased dramatically this past year.

Prices for cull cows just passed the 40 cent mark this week, showing strength and a lack of cows coming to town.

Based on US prices, there isn't much reason to ship cows South even if the border was open. The Canadian dollar keeps climbing and the price is nearly the same, freight takes all the room the dollar still offers.

I do see the article has R-laff numbers stagnant..wasn't it you that predicted 30,000 members by this summer?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Canada's push for the second rule is based on the same premise that supported the current rule allowing the trade in young cattle to resume: risk factors for bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Canada are no different than in the United States"

The foundation for that arguement has crumbled. The US has found 2 cattle out of 90 million, Canada 8? out of 13 million. Canada has found 4 post ban cases, the US none. You want to try to tell an odds maker or insurance underwriter that the risks are the same? On top of that, we're not supposed to even have the same strain of the disease.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
"Canada's push for the second rule is based on the same premise that supported the current rule allowing the trade in young cattle to resume: risk factors for bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Canada are no different than in the United States"

The foundation for that arguement has crumbled. The US has found 2 cattle out of 90 million, Canada 8? out of 13 million. Canada has found 4 post ban cases, the US none. You want to try to tell an odds maker or insurance underwriter that the risks are the same? On top of that, we're not supposed to even have the same strain of the disease.



Yea your strain of BSE is contagious isn't it Sandhusker? :wink:

When you talk about how many animals found in our respective herds you should also compare how hard we both looked for them,and who used the right test.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Contagous or not, it's not the same. It seems that one of the big arguements coming from you house was that "we're in the same boat, you've got it, too". Well, we don't have what you have - we're not in the same boat. You were wrong and that arguement goes out the window.

And then more hypocracy. You doubt the USDA's handle on our BSE, but you rant and rave at R-CALF because we doubt the USDA's handle on your BSE. You claim R-CALF picks and chooses what we believe from the USDA, and here you are doing exactly what you blame us for. Not real impressive, BMR.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Jason said:
Are you back to complaining about that phony 900,000 number? Do you think those cows just stand around forever?

Plants here were short of fed cattle so cow slaughter increased dramatically this past year.

Prices for cull cows just passed the 40 cent mark this week, showing strength and a lack of cows coming to town.

Based on US prices, there isn't much reason to ship cows South even if the border was open. The Canadian dollar keeps climbing and the price is nearly the same, freight takes all the room the dollar still offers.

I do see the article has R-laff numbers stagnant..wasn't it you that predicted 30,000 members by this summer?

Im thinking the 900000 number is low,remember this was last July,it could be well over 1000000,by now, remember your slaughter capacity is still lagging...........good luck
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Contagous or not, it's not the same. It seems that one of the big arguements coming from you house was that "we're in the same boat, you've got it, too". Well, we don't have what you have - we're not in the same boat. You were wrong and that arguement goes out the window.

And then more hypocracy. You doubt the USDA's handle on our BSE, but you rant and rave at R-CALF because we doubt the USDA's handle on your BSE. You claim R-CALF picks and chooses what we believe from the USDA, and here you are doing exactly what you blame us for. Not real impressive, BMR.

You say your for fair trade but want to put tougher restrictions on Canadian beef then you want to live with your selves. Heck we have tougher restrictions then you do to start with, R-CALF talks about safe beef ours is safer. You should as cattle industry people be saying look at the great job Canada is doing and be trying to catch up to us.

We have M'ID we have expanded feed bans, we don't process downer cows. You guys are not there yet and are even looking at going back to processing downers. As a industry you should be leading the way on M'ID not dragging your asses. Come on Mr Bank /show calf man lead the way .
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Contagous or not, it's not the same. It seems that one of the big arguements coming from you house was that "we're in the same boat, you've got it, too". Well, we don't have what you have - we're not in the same boat. You were wrong and that arguement goes out the window.

And then more hypocracy. You doubt the USDA's handle on our BSE, but you rant and rave at R-CALF because we doubt the USDA's handle on your BSE. You claim R-CALF picks and chooses what we believe from the USDA, and here you are doing exactly what you blame us for. Not real impressive, BMR.

You are right on sandhusker,the last thing we need down here is two strains of BSE,and if not for R CALF, chances are we would already have them,then canada's statement about the USA having a higher risk would be true,no until these two strains of BSE are understood and controlled "NO OTM Cattle should ever cross into the USA, from any country not just canada............good luck
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I don't believe in this rediculous notion that everybody has to be treated equal - because the reality is everybody is NOT equal. In lending, you price risk. People exposing your depositors to less risk get a lower rate, as they should. Somebody who has worked hard and has proved that they can manage money wisely should not be treated the same as somebody who spends all their off-time in the bar. We should have higher restrictions on Canada because statisicly, your BSE problem is much worse than ours - pricing risk.

You talk about your tighter feed bans and what not - and I applaud Canada for that - but while that is SUPPOSED to make your beef safer, you've still got a higher rate of positives and all those post ban cases to explain. What is SUPPOSED to happen doesn't always.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
If you fellas still think that we have a huge problem up here maybe we should cut some precious commodities off to you that are rolling across the border everyday. Could just see it now, gas 5.00 a gallon. You boys would really be whining!! Maybe the dinosaurs that died to create the oil reserves up here now had "Mad Dino Disease" Time to close that border R-laff!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
If you fellas still think that we have a huge problem up here maybe we should cut some precious commodities off to you that are rolling across the border everyday. Could just see it now, gas 5.00 a gallon. You boys would really be whining!! Maybe the dinosaurs that died to create the oil reserves up here now had "Mad Dino Disease" Time to close that border R-laff!!!

It looks to me that you're adopting the USDA's method of trade negotiations; you'll buy from us what we want to sell or we'll beat you over the head! :lol:

The other side to not selling oil to us is not getting a check from us. Do what you need to do.
 

don

Well-known member
sandhusker: The other side to not selling oil to us is not getting a check from us. Do what you need to do.

do you suppose china's cheque would be as good as yours?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
If you fellas still think that we have a huge problem up here maybe we should cut some precious commodities off to you that are rolling across the border everyday. Could just see it now, gas 5.00 a gallon. You boys would really be whining!! Maybe the dinosaurs that died to create the oil reserves up here now had "Mad Dino Disease" Time to close that border R-laff!!!

With all due respect MR. You are saying exactly what has embarrassed me about our congressmen and senators. They were threatening to put trade sanctions on Japan for not taking our beef.

The rules of trade should be according to standards of the recipient/receiving country, not the other way around. This BS of letting the OIE set the standards is a crock.

If everyone is in agreement to the standards that the receiving country sets. It should be a "Full Go Ahead".

But don't threaten them. That's the 3rd grade way to approach it.

My 2 cents.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Just watched a sale where kill cows were up over .40 for decent cows.

If gas went that high or higher sandhusker you would have to get one of those smart cars to drive to work. :wink:
 

nonothing

Well-known member
why dont both countries work together and adopt a plan that works for both sides...its north america,desease knows no border....Niether side should hold the other hostage with trade sanctions and threats.....If our canadian beef is so much inferior to yours,then help us better our product....if its not and can be consider equal,then let it stand on its own together....why not have a North American standard?It seems to me beef sells.its not like one will get stuck with cattle no country will buy..Or maybe I am way off here...It is an open market in both countries,keep it that way and let each sell wherever they get the best price.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
sandhusker: The other side to not selling oil to us is not getting a check from us. Do what you need to do.

do you suppose china's cheque would be as good as yours?

It's your option to find out.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
nonothing said:
why dont both countries work together and adopt a plan that works for both sides...its north america,desease knows no border....Niether side should hold the other hostage with trade sanctions and threats.....If our canadian beef is so much inferior to yours,then help us better our product....if its not and can be consider equal,then let it stand on its own together....why not have a North American standard?It seems to me beef sells.its not like one will get stuck with cattle no country will buy..Or maybe I am way off here...It is an open market in both countries,keep it that way and let each sell wherever they get the best price.....

The reason I don't think it wise for the US to buddy up too much with Canada is because teaming up with you is detramental to US producers. You produce way more beef than you can consume and most of that beef gets ran down here. The packers are trying to get everybody to drink this "North American Industry" kool-aid, because they profit more under that scenario. Meanwhile, it hurts US producers because the packers use you to increase supply down here (and usually at strategic times) and we know what happens to price when supply goes up.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
nonothing said:
why dont both countries work together and adopt a plan that works for both sides...its north america,desease knows no border....Niether side should hold the other hostage with trade sanctions and threats.....If our canadian beef is so much inferior to yours,then help us better our product....if its not and can be consider equal,then let it stand on its own together....why not have a North American standard?It seems to me beef sells.its not like one will get stuck with cattle no country will buy..Or maybe I am way off here...It is an open market in both countries,keep it that way and let each sell wherever they get the best price.....

The reason I don't think it wise for the US to buddy up too much with Canada is because teaming up with you is detramental to US producers. You produce way more beef than you can consume and most of that beef gets ran down here. The packers are trying to get everybody to drink this "North American Industry" kool-aid, because they profit more under that scenario. Meanwhile, it hurts US producers because the packers use you to increase supply down here (and usually at strategic times) and we know what happens to price when supply goes up.




Do you mean like when the border opened to live Canadian cattle and your market continued to RISE?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
nonothing said:
why dont both countries work together and adopt a plan that works for both sides...its north america,desease knows no border....Niether side should hold the other hostage with trade sanctions and threats.....If our canadian beef is so much inferior to yours,then help us better our product....if its not and can be consider equal,then let it stand on its own together....why not have a North American standard?It seems to me beef sells.its not like one will get stuck with cattle no country will buy..Or maybe I am way off here...It is an open market in both countries,keep it that way and let each sell wherever they get the best price.....

The reason I don't think it wise for the US to buddy up too much with Canada is because teaming up with you is detramental to US producers. You produce way more beef than you can consume and most of that beef gets ran down here. The packers are trying to get everybody to drink this "North American Industry" kool-aid, because they profit more under that scenario. Meanwhile, it hurts US producers because the packers use you to increase supply down here (and usually at strategic times) and we know what happens to price when supply goes up.




Do you mean like when the border opened to live Canadian cattle and your market continued to RISE?

How much would it of risen if the border was closed?

If you're trying to argue that greater supply does not have a negetive effect on prices, let's hear more.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
The reason I don't think it wise for the US to buddy up too much with Canada is because teaming up with you is detramental to US producers. You produce way more beef than you can consume and most of that beef gets ran down here. The packers are trying to get everybody to drink this "North American Industry" kool-aid, because they profit more under that scenario. Meanwhile, it hurts US producers because the packers use you to increase supply down here (and usually at strategic times) and we know what happens to price when supply goes up.




Do you mean like when the border opened to live Canadian cattle and your market continued to RISE?

How much would it of risen if the border was closed?

If you're trying to argue that greater supply does not have a negetive effect on prices, let's hear more.

I am saying that it's not the only factor and that the percentage of your market that the Canadian beef fills isn't that large.
 
Top