Shall we speculate a bit?

[kato]

Check out usda.gov. Read the transcript from the January 27 technical briefing.

My take on this is...they are almost ready to wrap up their investigation. They say..several days to several weeks. They are going to quit before finding the full 81 cows. They seem to have the support of the international panel in this.

The international panel has been looking at the investigation, and are supposed to have a report in two weeks. The Americans expect a favourable report.

They are also touting their beef safety due to the measures they have taken to deal with the BSE finding. These measures are similar to what we have done, but not more stringent than ours. To gain any credibility in the international community, they cannot go about bragging on how safe theirs is, while saying ours is not.

Therefore, what is there to keep the border closed?

Only blatant protectionism, which will not help them have borders opened to their beef. In order to have other countries treat them fairly, they will have to set an example by treating us fairly.

We can hope.

[rsomer]

Heard on the news tonight that the U.S. is banning blood from ruminant feed. Canada is not. Canada says the risk is too small to warrant banning blood but if we are going to harmonize with the U.S. then why not meet their ban and raise the bid by pointing out that Canada slaughtered over 2000 animals after May 20 to verify our minimal risk status. The U.S. has not met the OIE minimal standards for culling and testing potentially infected animals.

[cowman]

We have heard again and again how the science says only the SRMs can pass on the BSE prion...only place they are found! And we've heard again and again how we must just go with the science. So what does this mean? The science was a lie? Or the science actually is that there can be prions in the blood? If there can be BSE prions in the blood there can be prions in the meat? Has to be.
How do you think the consumer should percieve this? Do you think they will buy the idea of "minimal risk"?

[cowman]

Oh also rsomer, when they say they are banning the use of bovine blood from ruminant feed, did they mention anything about banning it from human feed? The blood from cattle is collected and spun through a centrifuge to take out the red corpuscles. It comes out clear and sticky...blood without the color. It is then boxed up and frozen and off to Cambells soup for soup stock! The blood for ruminant feed is what spills on the grated floor and into a holding tank.
I would think if it wasn't safe to feed to another cow, it shouldn't be safe to give it to people?
Now I believe your average steer would have around 50 lb. of blood in him. In the early eighties it was worth 60 cents or about $30/animal. Don't know what it is worth today but that $30 would pay for a BSE test? Maybe those Japs aren't so stupid?

[rusty1]

If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times. This BSE issue is PURLEY trade protectionizm, THEREFORE the only way to deal with it is through Trade action.
And It's high time to get serious with some trade blockages like closing the ports to computers and cars, and shutting the gas down and power. You'd see some serious OBJECTIVE negoiating in a heart beat. If you stuck the politicians out side today, and told them to use some cowboy logic before they can come in - you know how long it would take.
Furthermore we have been using these by-products for how long? Maybe the last 200 years. I for one remember having brains mixed with scrambled eggs for breakfast - probably back in the 50'. I'm sure all you're parents never left much of the carcass to the crows at butchering time.
It's my guess but I'll bet if the truth were known, we've had BSE around for alot of years. If not we have messed up our eco system somewhere with to many antibiotics or hormones or chemical sprays or chemical fertilizers or somthing that has mutated animal material to cause health risks.

[cowman]

Rusty: To a certain extent I agree with you. I think right now we need to wait awhile to see if the Americans are going to take us along for the ride? If we don't see that border opening or a definite date in place then I agree we need to start playing a little rougher. A big part of our problem is we don't produce anything high tech here anymore, so it might have to be fairly subtle? Also I doubt the Canadian consumer would be willing to give up the foreign goodies just to help a bunch of dumb farmers?
And I don't think it would be a good idea to shut off the gas or power! After all why cut off our nose to spite our face(and besides I have a bit of gas royalties and I'm not all that keen on giving it up!)? But I do think a few stiff tarriffs on some American goods might prove helpful. Might give us something to bargain with?
Did you know that we actually sold just about as much beef last year(2003) to the US as we sold in 2002? When the border opened up to muscle cuts we really flogged them down there. So you see we need to handle the Americans with kid gloves or they might just shut the door again!
We really are caught between a rock and a hard place. Basically we have to be pretty diplomatic with the Americans. They truly do hold just about all of the cards. As for Japan they really couldn't care or less about us. We aren't worth the bother as far as they are concerned.
Definition of diplomacy: Saying nice doggy, nice doggy...while you look around for a club!

[rusty1]

My policy in life has always been "not to push any harder than I had to". However you all should live done here in feedlot alley and see firts hand the fear in the eyes of producers here.
What I'm saying in the previous post is that, if we threatened or even did what I'm purporting, I believe it wouldn't last a week and the powers that bee would have the whole posturing mess cleaned up.

[rsomer]

rusty1: You mentioned the fear in the eyes of producers in feedlot alley. I have been told by people who should know that 80% of the calves in finishing lots are owned by the packers. I was also told that over 60% of weaned calved were bought by the packers. What you are saying suggests more feedlot ownership. What is you view on numbers - packer ownership versus feeder ownership?

[bulltipper]

I've been told by a large feeder down here in the SW corner of the province that the Gruesome Twosome control 60% of the cattle on feed at this time, just enough to have a measure of control on pricing IE. slaughter their own cattle when the price is up, slaughter everyone else's cattle when the price is lower.

Apparently the Gruesome Twosome didn't like it much when the feeders held back slaughter cattle on purpose last summer and drove the price up by controlling supply.

The impression I was left with was that a few of the larger feeders have been blackballed or are in danger of being blackballed.

[cakadu]

Competing interests - that's what the problem is. We all have to balance our own needs with those of the collective good.

I tend to agree with rusty in that if we want to be taken seriously, we might just have to play some hard ball. Is it the Canadian way - no - and other countries know that. Is it something we may have to consider - maybe.

I often wonder what would happen if we started to squeeze the U.S. on those things that they are beginning to rely on us quite heavily for such as power and water. Water is going to become an even BIGGER issue for many parts of the U.S. in the future.

They also need oil and gas - both of which we have plenty of - for the moment.

Now I am all for a person looking out for their own needs (and I am trying to keep in mind that profit is not a dirty word), but sometimes we have to look at the bigger picture and the greater good.

Cowman, your royalties are important to you and I can understand and respect that. What I wonder is if you would loose them entirely if we shut the tap off a little bit? Wouldn't you still get them if we serviced our own supply?

I am well aware that if you get into these games, you have to be prepared to defend your actions (and with our defense system and budget that could be a little tough). However, we're never going to be taken seriously if we keep handing over what we've got and never mind the long term consequences or effects.

Balancing competing interests is never easy and I understand that - but we cannot keep taking away without giving something back either.

[rodb]

Maybe we should put an export tax on raw products such a oil and gas to compensate for softwood lumber, beef and pork and a few other things that tend to have the free trade table tipped the wrong way. They still need the oil and gas and there isn't enough ocean capacity to keep them supplied, I think they might come around to seeing things a little clearer. Either that or we take it on the chin every second year when they have elections.

[cowman]

We tend to get this idea that we are important in the big picture. This is far from the truth! Do you really think Ralph Klein would want to cut the oil and gas to the States? Not going to ever happen.
The US is making the move to tap into the Alaskan gas fields and build a pipeline. When that happens we'll see just how worthless our gas can become.
The fact of the matter is Canada relies heavily on the US for trade. If we restrict the things they want they could basically destroy us. What do you think would happen in Ontario if they shut down the auto-pact? Do you think the people in the heartland would sacrifice their industrial trade for western beef farmers? Not going to happen.
For better or for worse we are tied to the guys. I guess we should have listened to all the old wackos like Hurtig and Maude Barlow?

[rsomer]

Actually we are very important in the big picture. Canada is the United States number one export destination, with 23.2% of American exports coming into this country, Mexico is second 14.1%, Japan a distant third 7.4%, and America's best friends the UK is way back at 4.8% (2002). Imports? Again Canada is the number one source of imports entering the United States. Canada is number one at 17.8%, Mexico is second here also at 11.3%, China a surprising third 11.1%, Japan trails China in fourth place at 10.4%, Germany is fifth 5.3%. America's best friends the British aren’t even on the radar screen, Aussies are not important either. So the fact of the matter is the U.S. heavily relies on Canada for both exports and imports.
A lot of people do not know that the Auto Pact has been gone since 1999. See: http://cbc.ca/stories/1999/10/14/autopact991014 and http://www.jama.ca/default.htm?/lib/news/news4.htm
The Auto Pact was heralded as a Canada’s most successful trade agreement, an effort at selective trade liberalization. The success of the Auto Pact would have been one of the driving forces behind the implentation of NAFTA. NAFTA effectively rules out the possibility of restricting oil and gas exports to the U.S. so yes, for better or worse we are tied to the U.S. NAFTA should have prevented the border closing to our cattle once we had taken the steps to minimize the risk of BSE by slaughtering the cows from Marwyn Peaster’s Wanham, Alta. herd and therein lies the problem. NAFTA is only working one way.

[lonewolf]

MAYBE IT IS TIME TO ASK OUR POLITIANS TO PUT THE US ON NOTICE THAT IN 6 MONTHS WE ARE OUT OF NAFTA.

[cowman]

rsomer: I was talking about our beef industry not being very important in the big picture. It certainly isn't worth getting into a major trade war over...at least not to most Canadians.
NAFTA has been good to us. The Canadian government has been the problem. Why no challege when the US violates NAFTA as I think they are doing with the beef? They challenged soft wood lumber(and lost) they challenged how many times over the CWB(and won). They challenged over the tariff on live cattle a few years ago(and won) and pork before that.
The Americans are always going to push the limit, I believe it is their nature? But why didn't our government slap a tax on all the imported subsidized corn last winter? Win or lose wouldn't have mattered, it would have stopped the flow! This was definitely blatant dumping of a product with a huge loss to our grain farmers. It just wasn't fair.