Rethinking the testing issue

[cowman]

The fact of the matter is this: Cargill, IBP, Neilsons etc. are not doing anything wrong. They are just taking care of business and making as much money for their shareholders/owners as possible. Isn't this what business is all about?
And then consider what R-CALF is doing? Aren't they standing up for their members...the American cow/calf producer? They are an American organization and quite frankly they don't owe us anything? We might not agree with the things they propose and we might think they are misguided but really that is up to the American producer to decide? And apparently a whole lot of them think R-CALF has the right solution? And consider R-CALFS main goal...American markets for American producers? Is that a bad thing? Why should they have to compete with every third world country around? Maybe we need a Canadian RCALF?
The total blame for this whole sorry mess has to lie with our federal government? Who put in policies that created this massive cow herd buildup in Canada? Who is in charge of food safety? Who created the rules that let these monopolys flourish? Who refuses to step in and make the changes necessary?
Cargill, Tyson, R-calf, and the Bush administration are all doing what is in their best interests. If our federal government refuses to stand up and look out for our interests, how does that make any of the others evil or something?
Cargill and IBP are in a tough, dirty business and they know how to play the game. They didn't get so big by being stupid? If someone hands them an opportunity on a silver platter they will take it? And Canada has held out that platter!

[cowman]

Nothing you have said is wrong cowman, and yes change must come in the form of policy change. First of all, however, our federal government must realize that something is wrong with the situation which seems to be a way from happening yet. Therefore, we must continue to push to expose the real profits that the packers are exploiting at the moment. (Over and above our limited Auditor Generals report. $146.00 is a joke)

Thank you for the reply Oxbow, it seems that my mind and yours are on similar tracks; captialism, with common sense in times of crisis or extreme.

Cakado - Even Japan has not outright declared that they would take beef if tested, have they? No other country holds as high a standard for testing as Japan. Therefore, some of us beleive that by breaking into the Japanese market, even with a pickup load of beef, we could open the doors to the whole of Asia.

I simply cannot understand why we are being held back from testing in any marketing sense other than realizing that none of our current packing capacity needs testing to sell beef at record profits, and they do not want anyone screwing with the current, very workable system. Somebody tell me that that is exactly the case with the USA and Creekstone farms, except that Creekstone sees an opportunity for even greater profits in exports.
No common sense behind not testing to satisfy export markets in either Canada or the USA.
Totally unecessary; I agree, essential to open the market being lost in Japan: you tell me.

[oxbow]

First, let me remind you that Rcalf represents very few in the industry, but they need only be 1 to have standing in the courts. Their injuncton really amounts to fancy lawyering to pervert fairness. You can excuse them for doing their will, but their methoods have taken some cynical turns.

As for testing, creekstone is a small paker that can feasibly hold beef long enough to test it. No real inconveniance. IBP can have trucks, sitting outside, waiting to haul processed beef that is still alive. If they were to have to hang a few day's production waiting on a bse test, they'd be forced to run at perhaps 30% capacity until they built more space (which they could do in 60 days). I'm not surprised that the majors won the testing srandards because they simply have too much political juice.

[cakadu]

Randy, from what I understand, we have had chances to sell to Japan - we just haven't taken them. Several years ago there was a CBEF mission to Japan and the Japanese wanted to buy strip loin - the Canadians wanted to sell the whole beef in a box. Now I don't presume to know all of the details on the deal, but the Canadians walked away because the two sides couldn't agree. The Japanese were mystified because the Canadians appeared not to be interested in what the Japanese were willing to pay or how much they wanted to purchase.

The Japanese market is huge and there are a variety of avenues into the markets over there. Perhaps now we have adjusted our thinking enough to do what it will take to fill the customers needs.

I still maintain that without letters of intent in hand to purchase tested beef, it will be hard to convince any of those that make the decisions to allow for voluntary testing, let alone mandatory testing.

Does anyone have any idea as to what progress, if any, is being made with new or previously untapped potential markets in terms of being able to ship beef?

[kato]

I don't think it's testing, so much as 'being able' to test if necessary that is the issue.

There are enough barriers to trade thrown up in our faces right now from outside the country. To have barriers thrown up within Canada is not needed. If a customer were to ask for testing, we should be able to tell them, "Whatever you like." It's as simple as that. Whether they will ask or not remains to be seen, but just knowing that we can do it if needed helps strengthen the future viability of new plants.

Try this scenario. What if we had the border open, and were shipping to Japan, for instance. We had good contracts and were doing well. Then another cow showed up. Would we rather spend two more years trying to beg our way back in the door, or a couple of months setting up a lab to keep the contract? If the regulations were in place, we could move and move fast.

If our customers knew we would be able to move quickly to maintain the business, they would have more faith in us. It would also enhance our reputation as people who take our food safety very seriously.

[cowman]

Oxbow: You say R-Calf represents very few in the industry? So who does represent the American cattleman?
R-calf claims their membership is growing by leaps and bounds. Is this true?
I wonder how the cow/calf producer in the USA views the NCBA? Do the majority believe that they are looking after the cow/calf guys interests?
No matter R-Calfs methods, the fact is they challenged the USDA when they tried to do an end run around the regulations? And subsequently have probably single handed kept the border closed? Or am I wrong?
The day that border opens and these cheap Canadian calves flood the US market, is the day the gravy train ends! If I was a US cow/calf producer I'd be joining R-Calf...because they would be looking after my market and contributing to my bottom line!
A lot of people up here like to bash the hell out of R-calf but if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be right in there doing their best to keep the American calves out!

[oxbow]

Cowman, "Oxbow: You say R-Calf represents very few in the industry? So who does represent the American cattleman?"

RCALF membership is 1500 vocal members. RCALF supporters are committed and vocal - all counted. NCBA has 27,000 dues paying members, but many passive supporters.

CM, "r-calf claims their membership is growing by leaps and bounds. Is this true?"

Well, if you go from 1 to 2 that's 100% growth, but no RCALF peeled off their contingent the first few years - now their growth may be negative.

CM,"I wonder how the cow/calf producer in the USA views the NCBA? Do the majority believe that they are looking after the cow/calf guys interests?"

Most RCALF members come from the cow/calf sector, but I'd say your orientation toward RCALF vs NCBA is related to your politics and education as well as narrowness of focus. I am trroubled by some of NCBA's priorities, and I'm long time NCBA.

CM, "No matter R-Calfs methods, the fact is they challenged the USDA when they tried to do an end run around the regulations? And subsequently have probably single handed kept the border closed? Or am I wrong?"

You got it exactly right, and so they got all liquered up in their new strength. Lawyering a rules procedure is ankle biting though (i'm sure not minimizing the harm the tricky little rules lawyering has caused up north), but getting this one verdict doesn't indicate any real juice. USDA wasn't trying to do anything wrong, RCALF just found some rules violation. We all support individual protections, but these protections are often misused in our courtt system.

CM, "The day that border opens and these cheap Canadian calves flood the US market, is the day the gravy train ends!"

Well sure there is some pent up supply, and the longer RCAL gets their way, it gets worse. I was hoping the border would reopen in the spring intime to feature any extra beef during the grilling season. We'd have choked it down in a couple months. BUT NOOOO, RCALF got the border closed, so the beef stayed up north, we had high beef prices during the grilling season thus moving pork and poultry instead of beef, and since feedlot replacements are so expensive, feeders are overfeeding to keep their pens full. If US carcass weights increase a mere 30 pounds, the tonnage exceeds the mountain built up in Canada. Furthermore, everyone knows the beef is stacking uo in Canada, so it provides a negative pressure without even crossing the border. If the US Canadian border opened at the same time as all the other borders opened to Canadian and US beef, the result would be upward pressure on beef prices.

CM, "If I was a US cow/calf producer I'd be joining R-Calf...because they would be looking after my market and contributing to my bottom line!
A lot of people up here like to bash the hell out of R-calf but if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be right in there doing their best to keep the American calves out!"

I hope I've shown the RCALF way is misguided and shorrt sighted, but none the less, RCALF is honestly trying to help producers.We all can be short sighted;it doesn't make us evil, but it is counterproductive. We are all better off with free trade, but sometimes it's tempting to try to block outthe competition.

[cowman]

Well oxbow it is your country and your cattle organizations, so I guess you should know. I wonder how come we were hearing claims of R-Calf growing by 500 members a month, when in fact you say they are shrinking? Are we hearing faulty information?
How does this NCBA membership thing work and how do they collect the money to operate? Is it a voluntary thing or what? I always assumed there was a checkoff? I believe NCBA always collected a mandatory checkoff on live Canadian cattle entering the USA?
You state you are a longtime member of NCBA...It would be interesting to hear the other point of view from an R-Calf member?
As you might know we have a new group here called BIG C who are challenging some of the things the CCA(probably fairly close to what your NCBA is)promotes. They were basically formed because they believed the CCA wasn't working in the cattlemans best interests...I wonder if they are our R-Calf?

[cowman]

Cowman. I guess that the big difference between RCALF and BIG C is that we have no reason whatsoever to be protectionist. Other than possibly challenging supplemental import quotas at a time when we can't give away our own cows of course.

The main goal of BIG C is to lessen our dependence on the American market, and use Canadian initiative to do just that.
There is no need for Canadian beef in the USA, but we will always be an exporting nation. The only way to continue producing at the rate we are is to find new export markets.

Don't want to burst your bubble cowman, but BIG C is out to correct very little, and will more than likely close up shop once these few goals are accomplished. I beleive that the ABP is the place to make changes that need to be made, and if enough people come forward, change can and will be accomplished. None of us agree with everything, and none of us really find fault in everything. ABP is established, and is not going to go away. There is a democratic process that can and will be used, and beleive me, lots of producers standing and coming into the fold at ABP are upset with government, packer arrogance, and, to some extent, lack of grassroots involvment in decision making.

[Willowcreek]

Just to clear things up- According to the July issue of The Cattlemans Newsletter (R-CALF publication) new membership in April was 270 and in May was 742. Over 11,000 members- none of which were forced to become members like NCBA practices.