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

USDA HURTS RANCHERS WITH GAMBLE ON BEEF

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
USDA HURTS RANCHERS WITH GAMBLE ON BEEF

The writer, of Pleasanton, Neb., is a fourth-generation farmer and
rancher.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns and Rob Robertson of the
Nebraska
Farm Bureau have condemned the federal-court-ordered and U.S.
Senate-ordered
delay of the Canadian border "reopening" that was scheduled for March
7.

Both wonder how we can expect Japan and the rest of the world to open
their
markets to our beef if we don't open our market to Canada.

This is an odd stance. Despite reported cases of Canadian mad cow
disease as
recently as two months ago, we have been importing boxed beef from
Canada
since August 2003.

I have a few questions for Secretary Johanns and Robertson:

(1) We are Canada's largest beef customer. And despite all the talk
about
beef bans, border closure and protectionism, the United States imported
1.06
billion pounds of beef from Canada in 2004. During 2002, pre-bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, we imported 1.09 billion pounds. The delay
in
border reopening doesn't affect this amount.

Since this level of trade commitment has not caused our trading
partners to
reopen beef trade with us, how much more of Canada's beef must we
import to
achieve this reopening?

(2) Given promotion by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of a "unified
North American beef industry" and the fact that Canada's herd is much
smaller than ours, is the proposed border reopening an attempt to
cleanse
the Canadian herd of BSE by flushing that country's problematic animals
through the much larger, BSE-free U.S. market?

(3) Canada is a sovereign country. When did it become the
responsibility of
the United States to find or provide markets for nearly 100 percent of
Canada's beef production?

Both men claim that we must use "sound science" to set trade policies.
But
whose sound science do we use? The standard that the world employs was
set
up by the OIE, a department of the United Nations that was created to
monitor infectious animal diseases.

The OIE's BSE protocol calls for a seven-year ban on the importation of
meat
products from a country with BSE, dating from the last known case.
Unless
Canada agrees to test every animal, it should not be eligible for
reopening
exports until 2012.

The OIE considers the United States to be BSE-free since no cases of
BSE
have occurred in our native herd. The infected cow in Washington state
was
imported from Canada.

The new sound science, which the USDA claims to support, classifies
countries by their level of risk for BSE. Under the new sound science,
Canada is considered low-risk due to steps taken to prevent BSE and is
therefore eligible to export to the United States.

Unfortunately for U.S. ranchers, the rest of the world follows the OIE
and
does not consider Canada to be low-risk. Canada obviously isn't testing
enough, and its feed ban seems suspect. So the USDA's own policies, not
a
lack of trade with Canada, continue to prevent our beef exports from
resuming.

Other than trade sanctions, there are only three ways to get our trade
with
Asia opened up:

(1) Test all slaughtered cattle, which the USDA won't do.

(2) Ban all imports of Canadian beef, which the USDA won't do.

(3) Segregate Canadian beef from our export supply, which, in a
180-degree
flip-flop from its stand on sound science, the USDA will do.

Live Canadian cattle imports are to be ear-tagged and brand- ed with
the
initials "CAN" to make them easily identified at packing houses. This
will
make it very simple to assure our overseas markets that we are only
sending
them 100 percent U.S.-grown beef.

Isn't it amazing how our loudly proclaimed reliance upon USDA's new
sound
science easily morphs into OIE's BSE protocol for our export customers?
And
how country-of-origin labeling (COOL) should be voluntary in the Unit-
ed
States but will be mandatory for our foreign customers?

If Canada's beef isn't good enough for foreign markets, it has no place
in
our own. When it comes to food safety, emotion trumps sound science
every
time. Consider Alar and apples.

The USDA is playing a very dangerous game. By assuming it will be able
to
dilute Canada's BSE problem, cleanse its herd and not cause a disaster
here,
it is gambling with the livelihood of America's ranchers. While the
true
risk of BSE is extremely microscopic, the perceived risks are not.

The USDA needs to be upfront and honest about what it is doing, why it
is
doing it and who stands to benefit the most from its actions. So far,
it has
been less than truthful on the motives behind the border reopening.

The Canadians' BSE problem is theirs to solve. We don't need to make it
our
problem, too, and then solve it for both of us.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Would the writer be willing to impose those same restrictions on the U.S. if Canada's shoe was on our foot?

No exports to Japan until 2012???

R-CULTers are so narrow minded that they are willing to risk more dollars worth of exports than the dollars worth of imports they are trying to stop.

Not too bright!


~SH~
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Quote- "When did it become the
responsibility of
the United States to find or provide markets for nearly 100 percent of
Canada's beef production? "

Ha ha ha!!! Even if the author was not aware of the actual numbers,(Canada exports about 50% of it's production and 70% of that 50% goes to the US) he would have to somehow believe that nearly 100% of Canadian consumers do not eat any beef!!!! :roll:


Quote- "The OIE considers the United States to be BSE-free since no cases of
BSE
have occurred in our native herd. The infected cow in Washington state
was
imported from Canada." ...........Followed by this............ "Unfortunately for U.S. ranchers, the rest of the world follows the OIE
and
does not consider Canada to be low-risk. "

If the rest of the world follows the OIE, why is Japan(which is part of the rest of the world) not accepting USA beef???????? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Another quote from this nameless 4th generation Nebraska rancher......

" While the
true
risk of BSE is extremely microscopic, the perceived risks are not."

If , "the true risk of BSE is extremely microscopic", then WHY all the hysterics, fear mongering and legal actions????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! :D :D :D
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
The International Committee composed of the Delegates of the OIE Member Countries adopts a list by Resolution of countries recognised as 'free' and 'provisionally free' from BSE.
(Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 25 May 2004)

List of countries recognised as provisionally free from BSE
Argentina
Iceland
Singapore
Uruguay

I couldn't find a list anywhere for countries BSE free in the OIE web site can any one tell me where the OIE has a list saying the U.S is BSE free last I read the international committee that reviewed the US investigation said the Washington cow could not be considered in isolation of the U.S. herd as she was only one of millions of cattle and tons of feed from Canada that had been imported into the U.S. They also mentioned the UK connection and said that infected material was likely rendered and fed back to the US herd. Sounds like minimal risk to me. The USDA has been saying that all along and the R-CALF bunch just doesn't want to admit it.

Yes the US is accepting our beef but by not accepting the cattle it is showing your export markets you don't trust your processing system to process the same cattle and if you don't why should they?
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Sounds like minimal risk to me. The USDA has been saying that all along and the R-CALF bunch just doesn't want to admit it.


Ncba is backing R-calf on this one.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
the U.S. herd as she was only one of millions of cattle and tons of feed from Canada that had been imported into the U.S

Tam, do you have the numbers on exported amounts of feed to the US? Does it make sense to label Canadian Feed as unsafe and then expect your trading partners to import beef fed from this feed?

R-calf does more to question the safety of US beef everyday!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rancher: "Ncba is backing R-calf on this one."

NCBA isn't backing R-CULT on anything. NCBA makes their decisions based on truth, facts, and science.

R-CULT has no influence on NCBA.



~SH~
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
Rancher: "Ncba is backing R-calf on this one."

NCBA isn't backing R-CULT on anything. NCBA makes their decisions based on truth, facts, and science.

R-CULT has no influence on NCBA.



~SH~

That is so funny SH, glad you got your humor back. R-calf has influenced lots of change lately to NCBA.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rancher: "R-calf has influenced lots of change lately to NCBA."

What's the biggest issue on the table right now?

The opening of the Canadian border.

Did NCBA support R-CULT's position on that issue? NO!

The NCBA supported opening the Canadian border based on certain conditions being met first. Nowhere did NCBA say they supported keeping the Canadian border closed to live cattle under 30 months of age. They are not that ignorant.


R-CULT stands alone on their ignorant short sided lawsuit and consumer "fear mongering".


Here's R-CULT's official position for the record Rancher:

SRM removal, Increased BSE surveilance, The ruminant feed ban, and seperation of UTM cattle DOES NOT ASSURE CONSUMER SAFETY


Those are the conditions you R-CULTers will live with in the event that a domestic case of BSE is discovered here. I can assure you that you will not be able to slither and slime your way around it if that time ever comes.



~SH~
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Those are the conditions you R-CULTers will live with in the event that a domestic case of BSE is discovered here. I can assure you that you will not be able to slither and slime your way around it if that time ever comes.

SH, don't forget that R-calf has also attacked the ability of the USDA,FDA and APHIS to protect the consumer from Food Saftey concerns. What is safe to eat now, in the US, if this is the case?
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
R-calf says to test, but USDA and NCBA says no. Who is hiding?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rancher: "R-calf says to test, but USDA and NCBA says no."

R-CALF says to test what?



~SH~
 

mlsfarms

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Location
North Dakota
Test it all, label it all. Let the consumer decide, as long as the labeling is correct. Not some situation where the packer is allowed to bring it across and then it becomes US in origin. OOPS, under the present Administration and USDA rules this would never happen!?!?!?!?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
If it was all tested what would it matter where it came from? Food Safety perspective.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mlsfarms: "Not some situation where the packer is allowed to bring it across and then it becomes US in origin. OOPS, under the present Administration and USDA rules this would never happen!?!?!?!?"

This wouldn't happen under the flawed "M"COOL law that R-CULT calls a "good law" that prohibited the means to enforce it.

Source verification and "M"COOL are not one in the same.

Oh don't worry, Byron Dorgan will make sure to keep sending tax money your way.



~SH~
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Murgen said:
the U.S. herd as she was only one of millions of cattle and tons of feed from Canada that had been imported into the U.S

Tam, do you have the numbers on exported amounts of feed to the US? Does it make sense to label Canadian Feed as unsafe and then expect your trading partners to import beef fed from this feed?

R-calf does more to question the safety of US beef everyday!
The US import this from Canada
2000 imported $24,136,000 worth of animal feed
2001 imported $25,618,000
2002 imported $26,450,000
2003 imported $16,348,000
2004 imported $14,756,000
So far this year imports are down but they still have imported $1,161,000 worth of misc. animal feed

for a five and a quarter year total of $108,469,000 dollars worth of misc animal feed.

These figures were taken from the USDA Foreign Agruiculture Service web site.

look to me as if there was a problem with our feed the US better watch out.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Mike said:
Do these figures have to be complete rations? They might grain for cattle feed.

These were misc. animal feed there is a whole other list of feed grain imports. I also looked up the amounts imported from the EU, UK and Japan.

in the same time period as the Canadian imports the US imported $37,005,000 worth from the EU
$1,842,000 worth from U.K.
and $1,385,000 worth from Japan.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Hat said:
Mike said:
They might grain for cattle feed.

I guarantee you that that is what makes up the bulk of the imports.

Well according to FAS you imported $4,929,730,000 worth of mics. feed grain besides the Misc animal feed. from Canada
 

Latest posts

Top