BIG C Meeting June 7th

[rsomer]

I see the best hope for our industry is to build packing plants, not test 100%. In fact we don’t need to hope and wring our hands in despair, building packing plants is something we can make happen. Whether or not the border opens to live cattle, and I think it will, we still need the packing plants. North America is presently our only significant export market for beef so why not focus our energies on doing something that will see our share of that market increase. Testing 100% or even 100% of cows will not see our industry gain more of the NAFTA market. Building packing plants will. I think it will be an uphill battle for North America, much less Canada by itself, to regain lost Asian markets.

I see producer calls for 100% testing will not have the intended effect of forcing the U.S. to open our borders to live cattle. Rather Canadian calls for 100% testing is strengthening Japan’s bargaining position in BSE talks with the U.S. thereby delaying the opening of our border.

I have no idea of how BSE is spread. I am quite sure the incidence of BSE is very, very low in North America. I do think our industry was right to remove the SRMs from all cattle over 30 months and I would even support the removal of potentially infected material from younger animals, brain and intestines. Removal of SRMs provides assurance of food safety, without the delays of testing not to mention the political fallout and media frenzy every time a positive is found.

NAFTA is accepting our beef, so why not provide it to them? NAFTA is committed to more testing and if there is ever a conclusion to the BSE talks between Japan and the U.S. I am sure Canada and Mexico will quickly move to harmonize with whatever measures the U.S. agrees to. I doubt if those measures will ever involve testing younger animals for BSE, there is no sense to that.

Producer calls for 100% testing is a distraction from doing things that would really make a difference. Once we get the packing plants we can look for markets where ever we want but certainly the biggest share of our beef market will continue to be the U.S. even if they are a bunch of SOBs.

[rsomer]

How many times do you need to make your point rsomer? We all know you do not agree that testing will not help open new markets, and beleive it or not, you will never convince some of us. Even your pathetic attempts to blame people who are pushing this notion for delaying the border opening only proove to me your arrogance and ignorance. Why stop at the reserves rsomer, with your attitude you should be leading a group of soldiers in war.

I will honestly be glad when you are right about this border opening soon, and you and your farm survive. You will have prooven that you where right and all of the farms going down now, and in the interm, where simply poor managers.
Or were simply caused to go down by BIG C delaying the process.

[rsomer]

I apologize once again for a reactionary response. Blaming a group of farmers pushing the notion of testing, along with BUILDING PACKING PLANTS, for delaying your border opening simply boils my blood.
I appreciate that the circumstances on your farm depend heavily on the border opening, however, you and all the other ABP folk in your boots that are focused, for private reasons, are overlooking the main push behind this testing issue. We need to reduce our dependence on the American consumer. I find it hard to beleive that you have even read the Cam Ostercamp essay beyond the statement about testing.
Ironically, and almost nonsensically three of the main farms behind BIG C have all concentrated their efforts a long time ago, on developing markets of their own. Domestic markets uninvolved in testing. There are lots of oportunities in these areas as well. ABP and rsomer have focused on the border opening to save their farms, and to hell with the rest. The rest need new market help. Pound your thoughts down on your keyboard some more rsomer. Try to convince me that I am wrong.

[rsomer]

I am not trying to convince you one way or another. My comments are directed towards the beef producer in general who reads these threads.

You say we need to reduce our dependence upon the American consumer. I say we need to reduce our dependence upon the two American packing plants.

The U.S. and Mexico has been and remains our number 1 market for beef. Prior to BSE 90% of our beef exports went to the U.S. and Mexico. Canada’s beef exports to non NAFTA countries before BSE was not significant and a lot of that was offal and tripe and tongue. Our market for meat products was NAFTA.
Sure we are all real frustrated with the U.S. and their totally unfair and protectionist treatment of Canada. But the U.S. and Mexico remain our only export market for beef. We need to capitalize on that.

You say "Rsomer has focused on the border opening to save their farms, and to hell with the rest." I think a lot of producers are heavily dependent upon the border opening to see their farms through this year as more packing plants offer a longer term solution. I don’t know where you come up with "to hell with the rest". We are all in this together. And since we are all in this together we would have more chance of seeing change take place if we could collectively focus on the one or two things that would see our industry through. That is continue working to get the border open to live cattle but leave no stone unturned to see Canadian packing plant capacity built immediately so we can take advantage of the markets we really do have. Testing 100% offers no solutions for our industry.

[whiteface]

Rsomer, while you go to great lengths to provide what may be convincing arguements, another person who is much like youself just may go to the same great lenghts to argue why border opening or packing plant idea alone won't work any better than where we are now either. I'm not an extreme argumentalist but I will remind you very briefly, as has been pointed out on this forum more than once that simply opening the border does NOT protect us from a fallout with another case, when, and it certainly will happen. Absoutly nothing stops the entire last year from repeating itself when more are found if we have done nothing to change our situation as it was before BSE was found. Those who do not learn from they're mistakes are destined to repeat them. I'm really sorry, rsomer, WE are better than that. The packing plant idea, while is necessary IN CONJUNCTION with other solutions, by itself, as has been pointed out in here, may have a tough time with no leverage against larger plants for competition. This is where we must be givien permission to test. The big boys don't want to and that suits me just fine. Give a specialty plant just that, freedom to compete with the prices paid for slaughter cattle becuase they aim to please an entirely different market. The market that you rsomer do not believe is there, beit consumers or offshore markets or simply the leverage to compete with the US who right now are using it against us big time. So they don't test, who cares? WE do this to solve our own problem and save our own butts. You write like we need permission from them to breathe. And if I might rsomer, point out that if you really believe that Japan will not take meat from any country with a BSE case regardless of test, why are the states even entertaining the possibility of trying. Or us lobby the stes for imports for that matter? Why not just forget it altogether and lobby the government for a buyout of all these cows so we can go into the city and get "real jobs." I will say that your tenacity is admirable, just to bad for us you're not on our side, the one that absolutly needs a change of some kind because otherwise the US will contiue to own us. That can't be something you want either, rsomer, you'd just HAVE TO realize we need more than an open border and a new plant or two. What the hell stops this situation from recurring over and over again? Hope? Hope that the US won't slam 'em shut when another case is found, when R-calf gets pissy again, when we have our hair parted the wrong way? No thanks, I would like us to own our own problem and take resposibility for our own lives, and I'd really like you to be on our side rsomer, you can sure argue.

[grassfarmer]

rsomer, "Rather Canadian calls for 100% testing is strengthening Japan’s bargaining position in BSE talks with the U.S. thereby delaying the opening of our border." I find that a remarkable statement in your ABP quest to get the US border to open (or to keep it closed and help your friends at Tyson and Cargill). Japan is really improving their bargaining position with the US on the strength of a new movement from grassroots producers? So Japan is totally ignoring the Canadian Government, ABP, CCA the packing plants that will kill the cattle? Seems unlikely, but I hope Randy gets satisfaction from the success his campaign to test is having.
So you concede Europe is not testing 100% of their production - kind of negates using that argument to prove that Japan won't buy our beef even if we do test it.

[pandiana]

I am not against 100% testing in principle, although my reasons may differ. However, I agree that this option has nothing to do with the science as determined by OIE rules. We don't count every fish in the ocean to determine the population but by taking a statistically significant sample we can extrapolate population density from there. If enough tests are done to determine a high degree of probability that a positive test would show up, then this should satisfy the curent science. There would be no guarantee that there were no incidences but only that the incidence would be very, very small.

It should be noted, however, that the current tests available only detect BSE in animals 24 months or older. This does not mean that under 24 months are not infected but only that the test is not sensitive enough to pick it up in low levels. There is some evidence to suggest that baby calves are infected with the causative agent from milk replacer.

On the other hand, there is some logic in testing all from a market perpective.

Firstly, we would quickly determine whether or not the incidence of BSE was endemic in our cattle such as was found in UK. Secondly, even though there would be increased probability of finding another positive animal we could assure our market that even though BSE could be found, the animals offered for sale were assured to be BSE free. Thirdly, we need every advantage to restore our export partners that our product is BSE free, regardless of the so call 'science'.

All the above should be seen in the context that science really does not have a clear picture of the causative agent or how this pathology is transmitted.

The down-side of course is how finding another BSE case or more would affect public opinion. Again, based on OIE science, two positive BSE cases would indicate that there are probably around another 150 cases North American wide considering an integrated market. The fact that US has eliminated the slaughter of downer cows would skew the probability of finding another case. There is no doubt that public concern over BSE would soon disappear if there are no more cases found. There are plenty of other things for the public to worry about.

Notwithstanding the above, I still have some questions regarding how testing could be implemented.

If the government relented and allowed 100% testing to go ahead tomorrow, what kind of effect would it have on the backlog of the now estimated million cull cows? Do we have the laboratory facilities available? Do we have the storage facilities for refrigerating carcasses while waiting for the test results?

Or, if government instigated a policy for mandatory testing of 100%, would the government be able to force our US packers to test every animal?

If we had our own packing facilties and where allowed to test all animals then the choice would be ours.

I agree with those that feel we should be concentrating our efforts initially on getting funding for packing facilities for both OTM and under. Testing can be worked out by the time these facilities are on line. We need to get our cattle moving immediately.

[pandiana]

Another thing that has me puzzled is what happened to Russia and Korea, markets that we heard were moving to accepting Canadian Beef?

It would seem that despite the bargain basement prices of our cattle, we are unable to entice new markets by offering low prices? In most markets, price has a big effect on sales. Would NAFTA preclude our selling below market cost to Russia or other non-NAFTA countries?

[pandiana]

I do not know what has happened to the Russia thing but I beleive it has everything to do with pricing. There is no bargain basement price for Slaughtered and Boxed Canadian Beef. There is only a bagain basement price for those stealing the cattle.
All of the ABP advertising money in the world will not sell beef to anyone but the US with the current market situation there. It still bugs my ass that we advertise and promote for Cargil and Tyson with our money.(another story)

Thank you grassfarmer for recognising the importance of standing up for ourselves. We could sit patiently and wait for the border to open while more producers go down, or we could push whatever ticket we have available. I claim the opposite scenerio to rsomer. I beleive that by making some noise, we are actually helping to get the border open.
Japan's approach is not only consumer freindly, it is also disproving the hyperinfectious theory as we speak. Had a chat with a CFIA vet yesterday who agreed with this idea, and could find no arguement for testing except for costs.

This is not a short term solution pandiana, except for the fact that it is very likely going to speed up the border opening.
This is an idea beyond testing of cattle for BSE. It is about finding new markets and decreasing dependence on the AMERICAN CONSUMER (who the hell do you think cargil and tyson sell to rsomer).
It is about saving beef producers like cowman who have lost hope, from years of low profits, not just the BSE crisis. Easy for guys like cowman to jump on the rsomer bandwagon and dismiss any idea other than an open border. The slightist upswing will have him gone. That upswing will come with an open border, but the captive market will not.
Lots of hurdles to cross, but if we truely all got together on this issue we can and will cause positive results.

[cowman]

Well it is so nice of you, rpkaiser, to do my thinking for me! I wonder if you too, will have some wise "younger" man to do your thinking for you, when the day comes for you to quit? Or maybe you never will? I see all those old broke down men in the mart every week. Poor you.
Here are the facts: We are a part of NAFTA. Nafta says we HAVE to follow certain rules. If we don't want to follow those rules then we need to be out of NAFTA. So the question is this...Do we trash the best trade deal in the world for cows? Boys, it just isn't going to happen. Do you have any concept of the numbers involved?
Now I do understand, that by making a lot of noise, you might get someone to take notice and that is probably a good thing. But I doubt it will make the "powers that be" sit up and take much notice?
We also need to realize that rsomer is entirely right when he says the only real game in town is the US and Mexico. Really think about that? Europe doesn't want or need our beef and Japan is in reality a miniscule market...even at the best of times? Their domestic market is way more important, politically, than any special deal for Canada!
We've made our pact with the devil...he holds all the cards...and we better hope he decides to have some pity on us.
While I don't like the ABP, I do realize some of the people who represent us are not idiots and they think the ONLY way that border is ever going to open is if we play ball with the US. And I suspect they know more than I do? It is nice to know we have so many people here who know better than the ABP delegates...maybe they should have considered running in the last election?