Top 10 Reasons Against Mandatory Animal ID

[Econ101]

Conman: "Are you denying that Agman admitted that supply was the main factor in higher prices?"

1. Are you denying that Agman mentioned the importance of demand in current cattle prices?

Conman: "Even with the amount he said was due to an increase in "demand" was shown to also have components of cross elasticity due to poultry supply being depressed."

WHICH IS PART OF THE DEMAND EQUATION YOU MORON.

2. A decrease in poultry supplies has nothing to do with cattle supplies.

Conman: "His increase in price due to "demand shift" did not take this into effect."

3. ANOTHER DAMN LIE!

Agman has the best competitive meat demand tracking information available.

You proved yourself a phony again.

You do nothing but a great diservice to this forum with your constant lies. Your worse than Callicrate.

Conman: "Tyson, to a large degree, had a hand in the reduction of supply in poultry; they are the largest producers, you know."

4. Hahaha! Whatever! I'm casting pearls before swine when I respond to something that stupid.

Conman: "How long did the USDA keep the border closed?

How long did rcalf keep the border closed?"

5. Do your own damn research.



~SH~

1. Changes in supply and demand is always a factor in price determination. I made the case that supply was dominant. Agman backed me up with his own numbers (which I do not certify).

2. Supply of substitutes, especially close substitutes, has everything to do with changes in price. Price has everything to do with changes in supply.

3. Better than Tyson or the same?

4. Tyson has a large position in swine too. Did you want to bring another substitute in the picture? You can not even handle one.

5. Better than that, I have your own words.

 

[Karl]

Or you don't want to take responsibility for your own cattle.

Is that so? You are very wrong here I dont want anyone else to take the responsibility of my cattle away from me. Are you blind or something. I believe that a program like this, if taken away from the producers and given to the government will take this responsibility away from me. You must be from canada or something if you cant understand this. You canadians seem to want the government to do this for you. I sure dont. I just cant understand this.

 

[Tam]

Or you don't want to take responsibility for your own cattle.

Is that so? You are very wrong here I dont want anyone else to take the responsibility of my cattle away from me. Are you blind or something. I believe that a program like this, if taken away from the producers and given to the government will take this responsibility away from me. You must be from canada or something if you cant understand this. You canadians seem to want the government to do this for you. I sure dont. I just cant understand this.

Individual IDing your cattle tells everyone you are the one that raised that beef and should have to take responiblity for it. Many in the US have already said that if someone gets sick the packers will use the ID system to find the producer and lay the blame on him didn't you read the 10th reason that was posted to start this thread. Why should the packer take responibility for someone getting sick if you as the producer was the one that screwed up. Just because they have a little money in their pockets why should they pay for your mistake. That is taking RESPONSIBILITY for your cattle.
And by the Highlighted statement lets all of us just how LITTLE you know about the Canadian system. OUR system was the proactive thinking of the CANADIAN BEEF INDUSTRY LEADERS not our government. It was designed by the Canadian Beef industry and is controlled by the Canadian Beef industry and only auditted by the CFIA. Who is really the ones that want their government to do it for them. All we have heard from you guys is "who will be paying for this ID program". That was R-CALF's may reason for getting it taken out of M'COOL. They didn't want to burden the US produceers with the cost of it. We paid and we control our ID system. IF the US government pays they will control you can bet your last dollar on that. How any of you can look at what happen in the searching out of the BSE infected animal herd mates in the US and think you don't need a better system is beyond me. :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, you've left a question unanswered under "Update for Sandhusker".

 

[Anonymous]

Or you don't want to take responsibility for your own cattle.

Is that so? You are very wrong here I dont want anyone else to take the responsibility of my cattle away from me. Are you blind or something. I believe that a program like this, if taken away from the producers and given to the government will take this responsibility away from me. You must be from canada or something if you cant understand this. You canadians seem to want the government to do this for you. I sure dont. I just cant understand this.

Individual IDing your cattle tells everyone you are the one that raised that beef and should have to take responiblity for it. Many in the US have already said that if someone gets sick the packers will use the ID system to find the producer and lay the blame on him didn't you read the 10th reason that was posted to start this thread. Why should the packer take responibility for someone getting sick if you as the producer was the one that screwed up. Just because they have a little money in their pockets why should they pay for your mistake. That is taking RESPONSIBILITY for your cattle.
And by the Highlighted statement lets all of us just how LITTLE you know about the Canadian system. OUR system was the proactive thinking of the CANADIAN BEEF INDUSTRY LEADERS not our government. It was designed by the Canadian Beef industry and is controlled by the Canadian Beef industry and only auditted by the CFIA. Who is really the ones that want their government to do it for them. All we have heard from you guys is "who will be paying for this ID program". That was R-CALF's may reason for getting it taken out of M'COOL. They didn't want to burden the US produceers with the cost of it. We paid and we control our ID system. IF the US government pays they will control you can bet your last dollar on that. How any of you can look at what happen in the searching out of the BSE infected animal herd mates in the US and think you don't need a better system is beyond me. :roll:

Tam-If a sickness breaks out and people die- like the ecoli outbreaks of the past- and the packers get sued you can bet your biffy they will be looking for someone down the chain to pass responsibility and liability off on...

And who do you think stands the best chance of winning in a lawsuit- Tyson with its cribsfull of attorneys or the little rancher and/or feeder in Montana or Saskatchewan that talks to an attorney once every few years :???: ....

Can you afford to hire a fleet of attorney's to defend yourself everytime some feedlot feeds the wrong product/ or some Packer cuts corners and contaminates meat that includes a portion that originated on your place?...

Will the Packers/retailers start trying to pin financial responsibility and liability on regular meat recalls?
What affect will this have on ranch liability insurance rates?

I would have liked to see some of these questions answered and holes plugged before the mandate......

 

[Tam]

Is that so? You are very wrong here I dont want anyone else to take the responsibility of my cattle away from me. Are you blind or something. I believe that a program like this, if taken away from the producers and given to the government will take this responsibility away from me. You must be from canada or something if you cant understand this. You canadians seem to want the government to do this for you. I sure dont. I just cant understand this.

Individual IDing your cattle tells everyone you are the one that raised that beef and should have to take responiblity for it. Many in the US have already said that if someone gets sick the packers will use the ID system to find the producer and lay the blame on him didn't you read the 10th reason that was posted to start this thread. Why should the packer take responibility for someone getting sick if you as the producer was the one that screwed up. Just because they have a little money in their pockets why should they pay for your mistake. That is taking RESPONSIBILITY for your cattle.
And by the Highlighted statement lets all of us just how LITTLE you know about the Canadian system. OUR system was the proactive thinking of the CANADIAN BEEF INDUSTRY LEADERS not our government. It was designed by the Canadian Beef industry and is controlled by the Canadian Beef industry and only auditted by the CFIA. Who is really the ones that want their government to do it for them. All we have heard from you guys is "who will be paying for this ID program". That was R-CALF's may reason for getting it taken out of M'COOL. They didn't want to burden the US produceers with the cost of it. We paid and we control our ID system. IF the US government pays they will control you can bet your last dollar on that. How any of you can look at what happen in the searching out of the BSE infected animal herd mates in the US and think you don't need a better system is beyond me. :roll:

Tam-If a sickness breaks out and people die- like the ecoli outbreaks of the past- and the packers get sued you can bet your biffy they will be looking for someone down the chain to pass responsibility and liability off on...

And who do you think stands the best chance of winning in a lawsuit- Tyson with its cribsfull of attorneys or the little rancher and/or feeder in Montana or Saskatchewan that talks to an attorney once every few years :???: ....

Can you afford to hire a fleet of attorney's to defend yourself everytime some feedlot feeds the wrong product/ or some Packer cuts corners and contaminates meat that includes a portion that originated on your place?...

Will the Packers/retailers start trying to pin financial responsibility and liability on regular meat recalls?
What affect will this have on ranch liability insurance rates?

I would have liked to see some of these questions answered and holes plugged before the mandate......

I ask again if YOU AS THE PRODUCER was the one that was proven to have screwed up why should the rest of the industry pay for your screw up. Investigations are done to see who was liable and if the Packers can prove he wasn't, and the feeder can prove he wasn't why shouldn't they have the right to see who really caused the problem and hold them responsible for it even if it was a producer trying to cut corners.

 

[Anonymous]

Individual IDing your cattle tells everyone you are the one that raised that beef and should have to take responiblity for it. Many in the US have already said that if someone gets sick the packers will use the ID system to find the producer and lay the blame on him didn't you read the 10th reason that was posted to start this thread. Why should the packer take responibility for someone getting sick if you as the producer was the one that screwed up. Just because they have a little money in their pockets why should they pay for your mistake. That is taking RESPONSIBILITY for your cattle.
And by the Highlighted statement lets all of us just how LITTLE you know about the Canadian system. OUR system was the proactive thinking of the CANADIAN BEEF INDUSTRY LEADERS not our government. It was designed by the Canadian Beef industry and is controlled by the Canadian Beef industry and only auditted by the CFIA. Who is really the ones that want their government to do it for them. All we have heard from you guys is "who will be paying for this ID program". That was R-CALF's may reason for getting it taken out of M'COOL. They didn't want to burden the US produceers with the cost of it. We paid and we control our ID system. IF the US government pays they will control you can bet your last dollar on that. How any of you can look at what happen in the searching out of the BSE infected animal herd mates in the US and think you don't need a better system is beyond me. :roll:

Tam-If a sickness breaks out and people die- like the ecoli outbreaks of the past- and the packers get sued you can bet your biffy they will be looking for someone down the chain to pass responsibility and liability off on...

And who do you think stands the best chance of winning in a lawsuit- Tyson with its cribsfull of attorneys or the little rancher and/or feeder in Montana or Saskatchewan that talks to an attorney once every few years :???: ....

Can you afford to hire a fleet of attorney's to defend yourself everytime some feedlot feeds the wrong product/ or some Packer cuts corners and contaminates meat that includes a portion that originated on your place?...

Will the Packers/retailers start trying to pin financial responsibility and liability on regular meat recalls?
What affect will this have on ranch liability insurance rates?

I would have liked to see some of these questions answered and holes plugged before the mandate......

I ask again if YOU AS THE PRODUCER was the one that was proven to have screwed up why should the rest of the industry pay for your screw up. Investigations are done to see who was liable and if the Packers can prove he wasn't, and the feeder can prove he wasn't why shouldn't they have the right to see who really caused the problem and hold them responsible for it even if it was a producer trying to cut corners.

Tam the investigations are done by the USDA...From past history I have little faith in them ever finding fault with the Tyson/Cargils/Swifts of the world...Easier to pawn it off on the little guy....

Look what they did in the Miles City fiasco....

 

[Tam]

Any excuse not to take RESPONSIBILITY for the problems YOU MAY HAVE CAUSED right Oldtimer. I'm surprized you would back the M"COOL" rules as if it is beef that is labeled US Beef that causes a problem you will not beable to pass it off as an imported problem anymore will you? Oh I forgot all meat related problems in the US are imported aren't they. :wink: If you think that Oldtimer why not show us how much you trust the meat you produce and ID it. :???: Don't go to a Tyson plant Oldtimer they may misstake you for the chicken you are and can you. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Any excuse not to take RESPONSIBILITY for the problems YOU MAY HAVE CAUSED right Oldtimer. I'm surprized you would back the M"COOL" rules as if it is beef that is labeled US Beef that causes a problem you will not beable to pass it off as an imported problem anymore will you? Oh I forgot all meat related problems in the US are imported aren't they. :wink: If you think that Oldtimer why not show us how much you trust the meat you produce and ID it. :???: Don't go to a Tyson plant Oldtimer they may misstake you for the chicken you are and can you. :lol:

Tammy-- How many times must I tell you mine are IDed and have been for many many years...I just think the proponents of this have not looked far enough at the problems that can/may arise when all are.....

And I can tell you where my cows originated- I don't have any contraband cattle in my herd- How did that happen anyway- with your miracle ID system and all? :???: :lol:

 

[Tam]

Tam, you've left a question unanswered under "Update for Sandhusker".

Do you mean this one Sandhusker

Can you honestly say that CU has gone out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in anyway that they could?

Talk about sneaky way of telling someone not to eat beef. First they get quoted saying

Quote:
Consumers Union says that consumers who want to minimize any possible risk of exposure to mad cow disease can buy organic beef, which cannot be fed any animal by-products, since mad cow is spread through feeding animal-based protein supplements to cattle.
Consumers Union also said that the cuts that are least likely to contain the infectious agent are solid cuts of beef with no bone in them. The riskiest materials are brains, followed by cuts like hamburger and sausage, which, if not properly handled in the slaughterhouse, may contain central nervous system tissue, the part of the animal where the infection occurs.

Then this week this comes out

Quote:
Consumers Union told readers of its Consumer Reports magazine last week that many products labeled "organic" aren't worth their premium prices or aren't worth buying at all.

Now after all the fear they have put out there about the risk from beef, what do you think any of their readers are going to do Sandhusker? If they are now being told not to even trust organic beef?

Just because you can't understand plain english doesn't mean I didn't answer.

If they tell their readers to minimize any possible risk of exposure to mad cow disease they should only buy organic beef then tell them that the organic label isn't worth their premium, what do you think the consumers are going to do???????? :???: I asked you and you failed to answer. Thanks for pointing out you didn't answer me I almost missed that. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Just because you can't understand plain english doesn't mean I didn't answer. "

"If they tell their readers to minimize any possible risk of exposure to mad cow disease they should only buy organic beef then tell them that the organic label isn't worth their premium, what do you think the consumers are going to do???????? I asked you and you failed to answer. Thanks for pointing out you didn't answer me I almost missed that."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to you, does that qualify as going out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in anyway that they can?

 

[Tam]

Tam, "Just because you can't understand plain english doesn't mean I didn't answer. "

"If they tell their readers to minimize any possible risk of exposure to mad cow disease they should only buy organic beef then tell them that the organic label isn't worth their premium, what do you think the consumers are going to do???????? I asked you and you failed to answer. Thanks for pointing out you didn't answer me I almost missed that."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to you, does that qualify as going out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in anyway that they can?

You never asked my question if their readers see them say the only way to protect yourself from the risk of mad cow is to eat organic beef and then they tell them the organic label is useless what do you think consumer will do??? Come on Sandhusker give us your best guess and stop skirting the question. Will their readers eat beef at all if they trust what CU has been telling them? Or will they stop eating even organic so they don't risk Mad Cow?

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Just because you can't understand plain english doesn't mean I didn't answer. "

"If they tell their readers to minimize any possible risk of exposure to mad cow disease they should only buy organic beef then tell them that the organic label isn't worth their premium, what do you think the consumers are going to do???????? I asked you and you failed to answer. Thanks for pointing out you didn't answer me I almost missed that."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to you, does that qualify as going out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in anyway that they can?

You never asked my question if their readers see them say the only way to protect yourself from the risk of mad cow is to eat organic beef and then they tell them the organic label is useless what do you think consumer will do??? Come on Sandhusker give us your best guess and stop skirting the question. Will their readers eat beef at all if they trust what CU has been telling them? Or will they stop eating even organic so they don't risk Mad Cow?

Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Oldtimer you want to talk about ID and contraband cattle, Those cows do have a Montanat tag in their ear so I guess ear tags work. They also were bought before the CCIA program was up and running.

I have also ran about a dozen Montana bulls over the years that were all imported legally from Montana. bet you guys didn't know the border let cattle go both ways.

 

[Tam]

Tam, "Just because you can't understand plain english doesn't mean I didn't answer. "

"If they tell their readers to minimize any possible risk of exposure to mad cow disease they should only buy organic beef then tell them that the organic label isn't worth their premium, what do you think the consumers are going to do???????? I asked you and you failed to answer. Thanks for pointing out you didn't answer me I almost missed that."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to you, does that qualify as going out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in anyway that they can?

You never asked my question if their readers see them say the only way to protect yourself from the risk of mad cow is to eat organic beef and then they tell them the organic label is useless what do you think consumer will do??? Come on Sandhusker give us your best guess and stop skirting the question. Will their readers eat beef at all if they trust what CU has been telling them? Or will they stop eating even organic so they don't risk Mad Cow?

Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

Will they eat beef or will they refrain from even eating organic beef?

 

[Sandhusker]

You never asked my question if their readers see them say the only way to protect yourself from the risk of mad cow is to eat organic beef and then they tell them the organic label is useless what do you think consumer will do??? Come on Sandhusker give us your best guess and stop skirting the question. Will their readers eat beef at all if they trust what CU has been telling them? Or will they stop eating even organic so they don't risk Mad Cow?

Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

Will they eat beef or will they refrain from even eating organic beef?

Is my question too uncomfortable to answer? Could it be that it would show that even you don't agree with Dittmer and would actually agree with an R-CALFer? :wink: I think so, Tam. I don't think even SH in his wildest haze could say CU has "gone out of their way to decrease the consumption of beef in any way they can".

I think someone who fits that description would say, "Don't eat beef, you'll get mad cow" or something similar. I don't think they would beat around the bush. I think if you are honest, you'll agree with me.