Mike
Well-known member
"Japanese imports of U.S. beef running at just 1.4 percent of the pace of 2003 shipments because of shortages of eligible U.S. age-verified cattle"
Source: CattleNetwork
Source: CattleNetwork
US Imports to Japan
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Mike said:"Japanese imports of U.S. beef running at just 1.4 percent of the pace of 2003 shipments because of shortages of eligible U.S. age-verified cattle"
Source: CattleNetwork
Again-- Thank You USDA and NCBA-- I didn't need that $175 per head we again pissed away anyway :wink:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Mike said:"Japanese imports of U.S. beef running at just 1.4 percent of the pace of 2003 shipments because of shortages of eligible U.S. age-verified cattle"
Source: CattleNetwork
Dang good thing we didn't cave into unnecessary deceptive testing. This is a much better deal. :roll:
Mike
Well-known member
Cattle Industry News
Unintended Consequences
By Terry Stokes
CEO, National Cattlemen's Beef Association
December 23, 2003, was a day each of us will never forget. Our industry has changed and we are struggling to define "normal" in a post-BSE world. What does "normal" mean? Does it mean there are simple answers to complex questions? Does it mean we should maximize short-term gains while sacrificing long-term opportunities? Does it mean questioning the safety of beef to keep from resuming trade based upon sound science? Finally, does it mean keeping our borders closed to trade for short-term profitability for our cattlemen? There are some within our industry who think so.
This short-sighted approach to defining "normal" in a post-BSE world will have unintended consequences for our industry. First, it will result in a decline in consumer demand due to the loss of consumer confidence in the safety of beef. Consumer confidence in the safety of our beef is at an all time high. Nine out of ten consumers believe that our beef is the safest in the world. Since 1997, consumer confidence is 21 percent higher and beef demand has increased 25 percent. This has resulted in an additional $200 per head for our cattlemen.
Are we willing to let recent accusations by a faction of our industry, including a misinformed judge, affect consumer confidence in our product and sacrifice this $200 per head? Today, we have firewalls in place to ensure the safety of our product. Science clearly shows that the removal of central nervous system tissue protects our consumers from BSE. This is not a food safety issue.
We have a cattlemen's activist group within our industry which is risking consumer demand by litigating science to protect their short-term economic interest. There has been no other time in history where a group of our own people disparaged our product for personal gain. The risk is $200 per head.
Secondly, keeping the border closed from Canada will result in continued loss of export markets. We lost $175 per head to our cattlemen when our trading partners halted trade on Dec. 24. Fed cattle prices were $93 cwt. before December 23rd and fell to $78 cwt. afterwards. This occurred because of the loss of export markets. Many of these markets remain closed because of protectionist attitudes within those countries. We are taking the same approach with Canada. Is this the example we want to set for the rest of the world?
A couple of weeks ago, a resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives for sanctions against Japan for not basing trade decisions on science while the Senate passed a resolution to not resume trade with Canada without any basis in science. This is the ultimate hypocrisy. This type of action increases the difficulty of reopening our export markets and regaining the $175 per head we lost December 23rd.
Actions like these clearly have unintended consequences. If we lose the beef demand we have gained in the last eight years by destroying consumer confidence, we will lose $200 per head. If we are unable to regain export markets because we don't make decisions based upon science, we will not regain the $175 per head. Short term we may experience higher prices, but longer term we will experience lower prices and reduced profits.
These unintended consequences jeopardize our future and the future of the next generation of cattle ranchers. Loss of demand means lower prices and fewer cattlemen. Loss of export markets means lower prices and fewer cattlemen. More regulation means more concentration, increased costs and fewer cattlemen. I don't think this is what we want for ourselves or for our children. We want a growth industry that comes from increased demand for our product both here and around the world, which means more cattlemen, higher profits, and a brighter future.
Someone once said, "Every now and then, somewhere, someplace, sometime, you are going to have to plant your feet, stand firm, and make a point about who you are and what you believe in." It is time for us to stand for resuming trade based upon science. It is time to stand for the safety of our product and reprimand those who disparage it. It is time for us to stand firm for who we are and what we believe. Most importantly, it is time to plant our feet and stand firm for solutions that ensure the future of our families and our legacy. - NCBA
Unintended Consequences
By Terry Stokes
CEO, National Cattlemen's Beef Association
December 23, 2003, was a day each of us will never forget. Our industry has changed and we are struggling to define "normal" in a post-BSE world. What does "normal" mean? Does it mean there are simple answers to complex questions? Does it mean we should maximize short-term gains while sacrificing long-term opportunities? Does it mean questioning the safety of beef to keep from resuming trade based upon sound science? Finally, does it mean keeping our borders closed to trade for short-term profitability for our cattlemen? There are some within our industry who think so.
This short-sighted approach to defining "normal" in a post-BSE world will have unintended consequences for our industry. First, it will result in a decline in consumer demand due to the loss of consumer confidence in the safety of beef. Consumer confidence in the safety of our beef is at an all time high. Nine out of ten consumers believe that our beef is the safest in the world. Since 1997, consumer confidence is 21 percent higher and beef demand has increased 25 percent. This has resulted in an additional $200 per head for our cattlemen.
Are we willing to let recent accusations by a faction of our industry, including a misinformed judge, affect consumer confidence in our product and sacrifice this $200 per head? Today, we have firewalls in place to ensure the safety of our product. Science clearly shows that the removal of central nervous system tissue protects our consumers from BSE. This is not a food safety issue.
We have a cattlemen's activist group within our industry which is risking consumer demand by litigating science to protect their short-term economic interest. There has been no other time in history where a group of our own people disparaged our product for personal gain. The risk is $200 per head.
Secondly, keeping the border closed from Canada will result in continued loss of export markets. We lost $175 per head to our cattlemen when our trading partners halted trade on Dec. 24. Fed cattle prices were $93 cwt. before December 23rd and fell to $78 cwt. afterwards. This occurred because of the loss of export markets. Many of these markets remain closed because of protectionist attitudes within those countries. We are taking the same approach with Canada. Is this the example we want to set for the rest of the world?
A couple of weeks ago, a resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives for sanctions against Japan for not basing trade decisions on science while the Senate passed a resolution to not resume trade with Canada without any basis in science. This is the ultimate hypocrisy. This type of action increases the difficulty of reopening our export markets and regaining the $175 per head we lost December 23rd.
Actions like these clearly have unintended consequences. If we lose the beef demand we have gained in the last eight years by destroying consumer confidence, we will lose $200 per head. If we are unable to regain export markets because we don't make decisions based upon science, we will not regain the $175 per head. Short term we may experience higher prices, but longer term we will experience lower prices and reduced profits.
These unintended consequences jeopardize our future and the future of the next generation of cattle ranchers. Loss of demand means lower prices and fewer cattlemen. Loss of export markets means lower prices and fewer cattlemen. More regulation means more concentration, increased costs and fewer cattlemen. I don't think this is what we want for ourselves or for our children. We want a growth industry that comes from increased demand for our product both here and around the world, which means more cattlemen, higher profits, and a brighter future.
Someone once said, "Every now and then, somewhere, someplace, sometime, you are going to have to plant your feet, stand firm, and make a point about who you are and what you believe in." It is time for us to stand for resuming trade based upon science. It is time to stand for the safety of our product and reprimand those who disparage it. It is time for us to stand firm for who we are and what we believe. Most importantly, it is time to plant our feet and stand firm for solutions that ensure the future of our families and our legacy. - NCBA
Sandhusker
Well-known member
If Mr. Stokes wants to talk about hypocracy, he can start by explaining why NCBA says trade needs to be based on science, while supporting the current trade deal we have with Japan that is not based on science.
If he is truly concerned about sacrificing long term opportunities, he should realize that is exactly what we're doing in Japan. I'll guarantee him that nine out of ten consumers in Japan don't think our beef is the safest in the world. How we does the USDA address that (with NCBA's blessing)? They tell the Japanese to take our product the way we want to market it and if they don't, we'll start a trade war. The result is offending and alienating our customers and allowing our competitor, Australia, the means of entrenching themselves deeper. Does he really want to talk long term damage?
We've been on the NCBA/USDA/AMI's plan for three years now, and where have we gotten? How long do we have to smell this before we admit it's a pig? The truly sad part is that this thing was sooooooo predictable.
If he is truly concerned about sacrificing long term opportunities, he should realize that is exactly what we're doing in Japan. I'll guarantee him that nine out of ten consumers in Japan don't think our beef is the safest in the world. How we does the USDA address that (with NCBA's blessing)? They tell the Japanese to take our product the way we want to market it and if they don't, we'll start a trade war. The result is offending and alienating our customers and allowing our competitor, Australia, the means of entrenching themselves deeper. Does he really want to talk long term damage?
We've been on the NCBA/USDA/AMI's plan for three years now, and where have we gotten? How long do we have to smell this before we admit it's a pig? The truly sad part is that this thing was sooooooo predictable.
William Kanitz
Well-known member
TODAY:South Korea has found a new reason to reject U.S. beef, this time claiming they found the highly toxic compound dioxin in a U.S. beef shipment, a shipment already rejected earlier this month on the grounds it contained bone chips. American Meat Institute (AMI) President and CEO J. Patrick Boyle told Brownfield the supposed detection of dioxin simply represented another non-tariff trade barrier to U.S. beef by South Korea.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Murgen said:
Glad to hear it! Now you won't need the US market!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandhusker said:
Murgen-- where you been hiding? You must have had that big bong of yours smoked up for awhile with Judiths BC Bud or your dreaming-- as thats one of the best laughs I've had all week.... My Piper Cub could transport all thats going from Canada to Japan :wink: :lol: :lol:
Mike
Well-known member
"Canadian beef exports to Japan have been very slow since Japan opened to Canadian
beef in December 2005, currently averaging 50 tonnes a month. The Federation
expects exports to increase over the next summer as more age-verified cattle start coming to
market. The primary restriction on volumes to Japan is the availability of age-verified
cattle (under 21 months of age). Eight Canadian establishments are currently approved
to export to Japan."
******************************************************
I don't know OT. Maybe they could ship more if they had an ID system. :wink:
beef in December 2005, currently averaging 50 tonnes a month. The Federation
expects exports to increase over the next summer as more age-verified cattle start coming to
market. The primary restriction on volumes to Japan is the availability of age-verified
cattle (under 21 months of age). Eight Canadian establishments are currently approved
to export to Japan."
******************************************************
I don't know OT. Maybe they could ship more if they had an ID system. :wink:
agman
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:Mike said:"Japanese imports of U.S. beef running at just 1.4 percent of the pace of 2003 shipments because of shortages of eligible U.S. age-verified cattle"
Source: CattleNetwork
Dang good thing we didn't cave into unnecessary deceptive testing. This is a much better deal. :roll:
I recently had dinner with an individual who was on the front line in proposing BSE testing. His name has been previously mentioned on this forum. I specifically asked him if he ever had a firm commitment from Japan to accept tested beef. His answer was emphatically, NO, despite what people think they may have read in the press. However, the position he took in support of testing was to force Japan's hand on the issue. We test and accept our product or admit this is just POLITICS and an imposition of a non-tariff trade barrier by Japan. So much for the print media.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
agman said:Sandhusker said:Mike said:"Japanese imports of U.S. beef running at just 1.4 percent of the pace of 2003 shipments because of shortages of eligible U.S. age-verified cattle"
Source: CattleNetwork
Dang good thing we didn't cave into unnecessary deceptive testing. This is a much better deal. :roll:
I recently had dinner with an individual who was on the front line in proposing BSE testing. His name has been previously mentioned on this forum. I specifically asked him if he ever had a firm commitment from Japan to accept tested beef. His answer was emphatically, NO, despite what people think they may have read in the press. However, the position he took in support of testing was to force Japan's hand on the issue. We test and accept our product or admit this is just POLITICS and an imposition of a non-tariff trade barrier by Japan. So much for the print media.
Despite what you've been trying to tell us, we know Japan was asking for testing. Why would they not accept what they were asking for? It is no surprise they never gave a firm commitment to accept tested beef when we wouldn't even consider it. What would be the use?
How can you call testing a trade barrier when they required it of their own product? What would be the purpose of a trade barrier against us? Trade barriers are protectionist, but they're obviously not being protectionist as evidenced by the record amounts of beef Australia is sending them. Your story doesn't add.
A
Anonymous
Guest
agman said:
Even that would have been a much better position to take then the USDA/NCBA's arrogant "over our dead body--those dumb furriner folk can eat what we give them" position.... :roll:
agman said:Sandhusker said:Mike said:"Japanese imports of U.S. beef running at just 1.4 percent of the pace of 2003 shipments because of shortages of eligible U.S. age-verified cattle"
Source: CattleNetwork
Dang good thing we didn't cave into unnecessary deceptive testing. This is a much better deal. :roll:
I recently had dinner with an individual who was on the front line in proposing BSE testing. His name has been previously mentioned on this forum. I specifically asked him if he ever had a firm commitment from Japan to accept tested beef. His answer was emphatically, NO, despite what people think they may have read in the press. However, the position he took in support of testing was to force Japan's hand on the issue. We test and accept our product or admit this is just POLITICS and an imposition of a non-tariff trade barrier by Japan. So much for the print media.
One thing is for sure. If the Japanese are looking for non tariff bariers and small excuses to prevent importation of US beef, at the rate we have at eliminating these excuses, we will have to wait a looonnngggg time before having a rebound in trade to the pre bse levels.
agman
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:agman said:Sandhusker said:Mike said:"Japanese imports of U.S. beef running at just 1.4 percent of the pace of 2003 shipments because of shortages of eligible U.S. age-verified cattle"
Source: CattleNetwork
Dang good thing we didn't cave into unnecessary deceptive testing. This is a much better deal. :roll:
I recently had dinner with an individual who was on the front line in proposing BSE testing. His name has been previously mentioned on this forum. I specifically asked him if he ever had a firm commitment from Japan to accept tested beef. His answer was emphatically, NO, despite what people think they may have read in the press. However, the position he took in support of testing was to force Japan's hand on the issue. We test and accept our product or admit this is just POLITICS and an imposition of a non-tariff trade barrier by Japan. So much for the print media.
Despite what you've been trying to tell us, we know Japan was asking for testing. Why would they not accept what they were asking for? It is no surprise they never gave a firm commitment to accept tested beef when we wouldn't even consider it. What would be the use?
How can you call testing a trade barrier when they required it of their own product? What would be the purpose of a trade barrier against us? Trade barriers are protectionist, but they're obviously not being protectionist as evidenced by the record amounts of beef Australia is sending them. Your story doesn't add.
I will take the word of the man directly involved and wanting to test before I believe what is in the print media. You have previously praised his efforts now you conveniently elect not to accept or question his own word. paraphrased... Something truly does not add up - your own words.
The amount imported beef from Australia does not cover the deficiency left by the absence of U.S imports. Thus, the decline in per capita consumption which is also reported in those press releases you read.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
It doesn't add up, I don't care who said it. Is this is the same guy who told you the Japanese never asked for testing?
There has been a decline in per capita consumption. However, that hasn't been because of lack of supply.
There has been a decline in per capita consumption. However, that hasn't been because of lack of supply.
