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

US ends investigation

A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
I seem to remember a letter from the OIE that said it was R-CALF that was misreading the OIE guidelines :wink:

If you whole heartly agree with a country shouldn't import cattle coming from a country affected by BSE because it will only spread the disease then why aren't you and R-CALF demanding that the US STOP EXPORTING BEEF AND CATTLE? Aren't you concerned that the US will spread BSE though YOUR cattle and beef exports? You all were sure worried about it when it was Canada exporting :wink:. Where are all the warnings to the US consumers about US beef that R-CALF was putting out about our beef Oldtimer? What makes US beef safe to eat when our beef presented a risk of contracting the fatal human form of BSE? :???:

Tam- I could care less if the US exports or not...We do not need to export beef to have a viable cattle industry if we don't import from every Podunk country that comes along...But I definitely think we should not be importing from countries with much higher ratios of BSE (Japan- Canada) and countries with unknown reasons for second and third generation POST feed ban infection (Canada)....

If Canadian producers are not proud enough or confident enought with its product to want it labeled and identified for Canadian consumers- thats their problem.....

This is a joke I hope Oldtimer :roll: Ranchers in Canada ID all their cattle right back to the ranch it was born, why doesn't the US ranchers? Could it be because you are not confident in your product and do not want to be held accountable for it? Does your organization have the right to demand we ID back to birth ranch when YOU WILL NOT ID YOUR CATTLE? Will at least one of you R-CALFers answer my question PLEASE.
DOES R-CALF HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND RESTRICTIONS ON OTHER BSE AFFECTED COUNTRIES WHEN YOU DON"T FOLLOW THOSE SAME RESTRICTIONS??????????

Easy to answer- Yes, YES, YES- If you want to ship into OUR country you should have to follow the rules our country sets-- The same reason I have no problem with Japan requiring testing-- Its their country not ours....

And I don't care what piece of paper some President signed or whatever- they have no right to sign away the rights and sovereignty of our citizens forever... And all it will take to convince the majority is a couple more protests by illegal aliens demanding "their" rights and "their" country back- and telling us we have to give them something because of that rag piece of paper...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill said:
OT:
OIE has become like the UN- a worthless organization that means nothing- thanks to countries like France, Canada, Japan, etc. etc....
OT:
if we don't import from every Podunk country that comes along..

A little full of yourself Oldtimer? :roll: I have heard Montana called a Podunk state by people from other parts of the US so I think I know what you mean.

And I proudly and happily accept that definition :D
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Easy to answer- Yes, YES, YES- If you want to ship into OUR country you should have to follow the rules our country sets-- The same reason I have no problem with Japan requiring testing-- Its their country not ours....

We are following your rules though, OT, and international standards are set in place so that a country can't require more stringent standards than they do of their own domestic supplies. This is to prevent artificial trade boundaries and protectionist acts.

I know you don't see it as a US cattle producer, but you do have other industries who rely on exports to survive and those international rules benefit them. And if the Canadian dollar keeps coming up and up, you may see cattle coming INTO Canada, and as a US producer, you too will benefit from those same rules.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Oldtimer said:
Easy to answer- Yes, YES, YES- If you want to ship into OUR country you should have to follow the rules our country sets-- The same reason I have no problem with Japan requiring testing-- Its their country not ours....

We are following your rules though, OT, and international standards are set in place so that a country can't require more stringent standards than they do of their own domestic supplies. This is to prevent artificial trade boundaries and protectionist acts.

I know you don't see it as a US cattle producer, but you do have other industries who rely on exports to survive and those international rules benefit them. And if the Canadian dollar keeps coming up and up, you may see cattle coming INTO Canada, and as a US producer, you too will benefit from those same rules.

Rod

No one follows International rules or standards anymore- They are a joke just like the UN is a joke... The European Union, Japan, Russia, Canada - about 1/2 the world does what it wants to...And even those that say they do- make up some artificial barrier like GMO's, implants, Anaplas/Bluetongue- which they only drop when its beneficial for themselves :roll: :wink: ....
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The European Union, Japan, Russia, Canada - about 1/2 the world does what it wants to...And even those that say they do- make up some artificial barrier like GMO's, implants, Anaplas/Bluetongue- which they only drop when its beneficial for themselves :roll: :wink: ....

Like BSE? :lol: :lol: :wink:

Sorry OT, couldn't resist. :lol:

Rod
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
The problem with the euro bans on GMO's or implanted meats is they have been very affective in convincing the customer in those countires that tehy don't want these things so even if they were allowed in the products would be facing an uphill battle... Kind of the same with US beef in Japan now.. Even if testing would not reveal prions there is a chance that the people won't want to buy the stuff if it is not tested... As an industry/country you are not just negotiating with the government of the country you are exporting too. You are working on convincing the public of that country that your product is worth buying/safe to buy...You can try to win the minds of the consumer with facts and statistics all you want but if you don't win the hearts of the consumer you might as well forget about it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Sandhusker wrote:
How can your feed ban be effective? Half your cases are post ban! Would you consider a burglar alarm effective if you got broke into three times?


Rod, "I guess what I'm trying to say is that our feedban at least _as_ effective as yours, and the only reason we've found more cases of BSE is because we've inspected a higher percentage of animals than you guys have. Therefore, I feel there is no scientific reason for closing the border to our animals."

"In other words, no-one has proven through actual testing, but rather by working some questionable stats number, that the US's incidence of BSE is lower than ours. And unfortunately, if the USDA goes through with their plans to reduce testing again, we may never know the truth about how widespread the disease is, either in Canada nor in the US. "


I think you're straying off topic Rod. The OIE that some want to follow SOMETIMES stipulates an effective feed ban in place for at least eight years. If you have five year old positives, you don't meet that requirement - it can't get any simpler than that. There's no "yeah, but"s allowed.

I'm also going to accuse you of basing opinions strictly on speculation. Testing a higher percentage won't find any more is there aren't any more to find. I'm not going to say there aren't any more down here and I agree with you that we need to test more instead of less to uncover facts so neither of has to speculate, but you're only guessing more will be found and then saying there is no scientific reason to close the border based on that guess. Science has to be based on facts and not guesses. Unfortunately, the USDA will only allow for guesses by either of us.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Oldtimer said:
The European Union, Japan, Russia, Canada - about 1/2 the world does what it wants to...And even those that say they do- make up some artificial barrier like GMO's, implants, Anaplas/Bluetongue- which they only drop when its beneficial for themselves :roll: :wink: ....

Like BSE? :lol: :lol: :wink:

Sorry OT, couldn't resist. :lol:

Rod

Doesn't Canada have that same "artificial BSE barrier" to other countries as well?

Sorry, Rod, but you're my leader. :wink:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I'm also going to accuse you of basing opinions strictly on speculation. Testing a higher percentage won't find any more is there aren't any more to find. I'm not going to say there aren't any more down here and I agree with you that we need to test more instead of less to uncover facts so neither of has to speculate, but you're only guessing more will be found and then saying there is no scientific reason to close the border based on that guess. Science has to be based on facts and not guesses. Unfortunately, the USDA will only allow for guesses by either of us.

Certainly its speculation, because, as you say and I agree, the powers that be will only allow for speculation. I think all animals over 20 months should be tested, and should a customer request it and be willing to pay for it, under 20 months should be tested too.

While it may be speculation, it is speculation based on observation and what I feel is sound logic. Some of those observations are:

1) Intermixing of Canadian and American animals for the last 100 years or so. We've swapped critters back and forth so much that the bloodlines, especially along the border, are virtually identical. Back when I was thinking about entering PB Angus breeding, I toured some operations in Montana and North Dakota and was very surprised at how the conformation of the animals closely mirrored those at home. I spoke with many cow/calf commercial operators who grass their livestock in Canadian pastures during the summer, then have them custom fed in Canuck lots in the winter as it was cheaper than trying to do it at home. I've even got a couple half american critters in my herd (they're always whining its too cold though, so I suspect they come up from Cali :lol: )

2) Similar feeding practices. Ruminant remains have been fed on both sides of the border, and in similar amounts (on a per cow basis that is). Sileage and hay are fed on both sides of the border. Oats, barley and corn are fed on both sides. Alot of the feed corn in Canada comes out of the US.

3) Similar animal health products. Virtually every drug available in Canada is also available within the US and vice-versa. When Headstart colostrum (A Saskatchewan product) isn't available in the store, I use Immustart-50, a product out of Colorado. My preferred milk replacer is Purina, a product of the US if I recall correctly (don't have a label handy).

4) Similar husbandry practices, especially in the northern states and dairy operations (where most BSE animals have come from). Intensive livestock operations in Montana, ND, or SD are virtually indistinguishable from intensive livestock operations in Saskatchewan or Alberta.

Sandhusker said:
Doesn't Canada have that same "artificial BSE barrier" to other countries as well?

Also bear in mind that I'm equally outspoken against anything that Canada does thats unfair to other countries, just maybe not on this forum. I haven't had a chance to look into OT's claims about bluetongue, but it hasn't been forgotten either. Canada closed their border to Japanese beef quite a few years back, and I can't remember the exact reason, but it was, in my opinion, a garbage call. I bellared out against the ban with my MLA and MP.

I can honestly say, and I hope that I have enough integrity on this forum that I will be believed, that if the situation were reversed between the US and Canada, and we were the ones not allowing US cattle in because of similar BSE incident rates, that I would be bellaring every bit as loud as I am today.

Sorry I got a little off-topic here, but I tend not to pay a whole big bunch of attention to the OIE, or any other government regulatory agency for that matter, at least in so far as BSE is concerned. As I've said before, its obvious that BSE is transmitted in feed, but I also feel certain there are other ways its spread, so I don't feel that our feed ban has been ineffective.

Rod
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Rods Quote, I think all animals over 20 months should be tested, and should a customer request it and be willing to pay for it, under 20 months should be tested too. *****Add in ,If a rancher or farmer pays he should have the right to have his WHOLE HERD TESTED FOR BSE with the test of his choice TOO!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
I'm also going to accuse you of basing opinions strictly on speculation. Testing a higher percentage won't find any more is there aren't any more to find. I'm not going to say there aren't any more down here and I agree with you that we need to test more instead of less to uncover facts so neither of has to speculate, but you're only guessing more will be found and then saying there is no scientific reason to close the border based on that guess. Science has to be based on facts and not guesses. Unfortunately, the USDA will only allow for guesses by either of us.

Certainly its speculation, because, as you say and I agree, the powers that be will only allow for speculation. I think all animals over 20 months should be tested, and should a customer request it and be willing to pay for it, under 20 months should be tested too.

While it may be speculation, it is speculation based on observation and what I feel is sound logic. Some of those observations are:

1) Intermixing of Canadian and American animals for the last 100 years or so. We've swapped critters back and forth so much that the bloodlines, especially along the border, are virtually identical. Back when I was thinking about entering PB Angus breeding, I toured some operations in Montana and North Dakota and was very surprised at how the conformation of the animals closely mirrored those at home. I spoke with many cow/calf commercial operators who grass their livestock in Canadian pastures during the summer, then have them custom fed in Canuck lots in the winter as it was cheaper than trying to do it at home. I've even got a couple half american critters in my herd (they're always whining its too cold though, so I suspect they come up from Cali :lol: )

2) Similar feeding practices. Ruminant remains have been fed on both sides of the border, and in similar amounts (on a per cow basis that is). Sileage and hay are fed on both sides of the border. Oats, barley and corn are fed on both sides. Alot of the feed corn in Canada comes out of the US.

3) Similar animal health products. Virtually every drug available in Canada is also available within the US and vice-versa. When Headstart colostrum (A Saskatchewan product) isn't available in the store, I use Immustart-50, a product out of Colorado. My preferred milk replacer is Purina, a product of the US if I recall correctly (don't have a label handy).

4) Similar husbandry practices, especially in the northern states and dairy operations (where most BSE animals have come from). Intensive livestock operations in Montana, ND, or SD are virtually indistinguishable from intensive livestock operations in Saskatchewan or Alberta.

Sandhusker said:
Doesn't Canada have that same "artificial BSE barrier" to other countries as well?

Also bear in mind that I'm equally outspoken against anything that Canada does thats unfair to other countries, just maybe not on this forum. I haven't had a chance to look into OT's claims about bluetongue, but it hasn't been forgotten either. Canada closed their border to Japanese beef quite a few years back, and I can't remember the exact reason, but it was, in my opinion, a garbage call. I bellared out against the ban with my MLA and MP.

I can honestly say, and I hope that I have enough integrity on this forum that I will be believed, that if the situation were reversed between the US and Canada, and we were the ones not allowing US cattle in because of similar BSE incident rates, that I would be bellaring every bit as loud as I am today.

Sorry I got a little off-topic here, but I tend not to pay a whole big bunch of attention to the OIE, or any other government regulatory agency for that matter, at least in so far as BSE is concerned. As I've said before, its obvious that BSE is transmitted in feed, but I also feel certain there are other ways its spread, so I don't feel that our feed ban has been ineffective.

Rod

You and I see eye-to-eye on a lot, Rod. However, I'm still going to say the only thing we can really act on is what we know.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Add in ,If a rancher or farmer pays he should have the right to have his WHOLE HERD TESTED FOR BSE with the test of his choice TOO!!

Point well taken. Agreed. Although I would be concerned about "their choice of test" and change that to "third-party verified tests" or something along those lines. There are just too many companies out there willing to put junk on the market, and I don't feel that _all_ of the BSE tests are as accurate as they claim. However, there are many other tests, not USDA or CFIA approved, that other countries feel work just fine, and I certainly wouldn't have a problem with these being approved for use. I think its North American arrogance that says we know more about BSE and testing than others do.

Sandhusker said:
You and I see eye-to-eye on a lot, Rod. However, I'm still going to say the only thing we can really act on is what we know.

I agree with that. I think its just what we know that we differ in opinion on. As a Canuck, I think our incidence of BSE just isn't that much different than the US's, however I understand your point of view as well. This is one of the reasons I rarely ever get involved in these BSE border closure arguements, as the same old arguements have been rehashed a dozen times and there will never be a winner, just hard feelings when things get emotional.

Rod
 

Tam

Well-known member
Got a question for you about the producer wanting to test his herd Rod. If a producer VOLUNTARILY tested his herd he should expect to recieve a PREMUIM for his cattle, right if not why do it. If a producer VOLUNTARILY age verifiies his cattle he should expect to get a PREMUIM for his cattle isn't that why large selfish producers want that system kept voluntary so they can reap the rewards over small producers. If a Producer Voluntarily enters into a contract for the purchase of his cattle he does so because he recieved a premuim for his cattle over what he felt he would recieve at the stockyard. Where is my question Rod, if the CFIA was to agree and allow producers to test their herds for the premuim like we can age verifiy and contract for a premuim NOW how long would it be before you would be on here suggesting that that VOLUNTARY MARKET OPTION be either ban or made manditory so no premuim is paid? You seem to have a history of wanting to limit producers market options that don't beneifit you but here you are wanting to give some producers a voluntary market option that will again give some producers (larger producers) with the cash to take advantage of testing their herds an advantage over those that can't afford to (smaller Producer) or just don't want to like in the case of age vertifing.
 

Latest posts

Top