Four Options

[Braveheart]

Do you anti-Tom4CWB people have any free will at all? If you see a posted topic you aren't interested in, don't click on and read. There's no limit to space in Agri-Ville. If markets and marketing discussion is what you want, then start a thread.

While you're thinking about what that discussion should be, consider this: Tom Jackson has started more threads on grain and oilseed marketing than most contributors. He has more knowledge of the Canadian grain marketing, grading and handling system than most producers will ever hope to have. I suspect that's why Tom's discussions inevitably stray to the CWB issue. He knows how much money is being left behind.

I for one want Tom and everyone else uncensored. Censoring opinions on wheat and barley marketing is the territory of the CWB, not Agri-Ville.

[intr3est]

cattleman, what do you mean by "testing everything"

[cropduster]

Great comments Braveheart!And for those that can`t stand the heat.......no one is forcing you to read the threads.....except maybe your concience!!

[kato]

My preferred options would include.

Paying $700.00 for culls, but only for pre-97 born downers. I don't think that encouraging the slaughter of healthy productive animals does one bit of good for the image of cattle producers. This talk of mass slaughter is a knee jerk reaction that only encourages the protectionists in the States. Make no doubt about it, they want us out of business totally and permanently.

No need to test UTM's. The safeguards in place are already good enough for them.

Be allowed to test OTM's if it is requested by the customer. The cost goes to the customer. If they want it, they pay for it. Others who are satisfied that the removal of SRM's is sufficient (which it is) will opt not to test.

Stop the use of all cattle parts of any kind in feed for any livestock.

Finally, the Feds need to quit spouting off about how they are going to help us set up our own packing plants, and actually DO something.

[Cattleman]

sorry intr3est that last line is poor english. What I meant is that it may seem to some consumers that we are admitting our beef is not safe if we implement a policy to test all animals. After that I don't think there is any going back on not testing everything. Look at the problems Japan is having telling their consumers that they are not going to test animals under 20 months.
A policy of testing everything will have long term implications on our industry, and introduce some new costs compared to the status quo. Are we ready to deal with all this?

[chaffmeister]

I can't believe what I'm reading...

Interesting that those complaining about Tom's dominance in postings, are names I don't see here much - if at all.

Something to think about. You seem to rely on someone else to lead the discussion for you but now you're not seeing value in how he's doing it and want to change it. Sounds like the CWB debate. Perhaps you have more in common with Tom that you thought.

Keep up the great contributions Tom. I learn a lot and appreciate it.

[rkaiser]

And how are you dealing with this now Cattleman?
I am not saying that I support testing every animal; I do not. I do support testing if it changes the dysfunctional market that producers of this country live in and opens new markets.

Your comments follow the lines of ABP/CCA, but fall short of discussion and hold a hard line.
Our line has always been,"It's not so much how much it costs to test, but how much it cost us not to test."

Your suggestions about consumer confidence are simply speculation.
One might also speculate that the consumers of this country embrace testing of animals for export to get the damn ranchers out of there pocket.

Like I said before, this stand you take is very much the stand of ABP/CCA which reaks of arrogance, and smells of bowing to the so called harmonization rules of the USDA.

Discussion is what is needed to get on with something other than the dictate of the USDA. But opposition is not allowed under the umbrella of the ABP/CCA. It's their way or the hiway, either your with us or your agin us. The old axis of evil thing.

Good luck

[Cattleman]

I agree there may be a cost of not testing, but will testing guarantee us anything? This thing is so political right now, even if we decide to test, and they find some sort of contamination issue, or any other off the wall reason that our beef is stull unsafe, we still may not open markets. It didn't work CWD. We are way outside of science on this one, I worry more about the politics! We are both making big assumptions in coming up with the results we want. You are assuming testing will fix everything.
You make good points Randy, and I am being a bit of a devils advocate, but I do make my points because they will help us look at all aspects of these different ideas.

[JACKFLASH]

All:

I value Tom's comments very much. He informs us of dark secrets behind the curtain,and we should take note.I also value all other contributions just as well from all participants...

[rkaiser]

Thanks Cattleman, and you are very right about discussion on all angles.
What frustrates me is the fact that our industry leaders and government will not even entertain the idea of discussion. They simply keep throwing the negatives like some of your earlier posts.
Has anyone from our government simply asked the Japanese government to confirm the fact that they will take beef from Canada if it were tested for BSE?

[Cattleman]

If I remember correctly, we had asked Japan what we had to do, to meet their standards, and they said test everything...Then if we turned around and asked if we tested everything, would they open the border, they seemed to dance around it a bit and not give us a guarantee. That is my recollection of what was portrayed from reports on negotiations. I am a little fuzzy here.
But all I want is everyone to take time to absorb these new developments, and see what unfolds , in the next little while, becuase it will certainly take quite a lot of time and investment to test everything.

[Cattleman]

Just one more thing, is that we have been fighting and fighting for science to prevail, and the US has drafted rules based on science. Now we are all talking about throwing that all the way and start testing everything, which is not based on science....I think this is a big part of my frustration

[WoolyBear]

For my 2 cents worth, I would NEVER support an option #1. For any politician to suggest an out right killing field culling of cows born pre 1997 must have scerosis of the brain...... (oh I forgot it WAS Klein!). I would be more likely to support option #2, with the government paying for the testing. #3 is out, and so is #4 as thats what hasn't worked now.

[WoolyBear]

Hopefully the comments made by the Premier haven't done too much damage. I think that we in Alberta are getting to the point where we let his comments go in one ear and out the other. It is unfortunate that the media pays any attention.
I think that Darcy Davis made some good points in his response to the Premiers comments. He said that cattlemen were playing by the rules !

[TOM4CWB]

Lakenheath, Almoy, and Katoe;

For the last three days I have been directly working to liberate; hurt, downtrodden farmers in Saskatoon.

This obligation has not been fun, easy, or simply being “Negative for the sake of being Negative”.

When my neighbour hurts, I hurt.

I will never apologize for bringing foreword the plight of my neighbour who is being hurt, I really hope you would not expect me to do so.

Lakenheath:

The CWB is us.

If we were to begin following our own laws, today, I would not need to post one more “negative” comment about the “single desk”.

Therefore it is our CWB itself that requires me to continue objecting, primarily on behalf of those farmers who have been personally abused, most times both economically and emotionally.

I hope an open frank discussion can bring a constructive resolution to real problems in the real world, this is certainly my objective.

WHEN my neighbour hurts, I hurt. If this offends you, you need to ask why.

The CWB election was an opportunity to bring the plight of my hurting neighbour to you and everyone else on CWB issues.

I do not discriminate in the plight of those who are hurt, so as you will see, I will work on whatever problem exists, whoever creates the problem, I will seek a resolution from them. I will use passion, logic, and truth in these battles.

I will never give up until my last breath is taken, this pledge I give to you.

THIS IS MY RESOLUTION.

Thank you for your help in bring it to the attention of everyone!

Almoy:

You most certainly expressed you opinion here, as you had every right to do.

Thank you, I respect your right to that opinion.

Katoe:

I spent January 13th, in Saskatoon, working on the issue of security and payment issues around Special Crops and Pulses.

I have been just as disappointed as you have been,(possibly more so) that this issue has not been dealt with for the 15 years I have been involved in it. I estimate this issue alone has cost my family a year of my life, literally.

In Saskatoon on Thursday it appeared we will make major steps foreword this time to resolve this very issue.

If our pulse marketers will in good faith take opportunities being offered by the Canadian Grain Commission, and the CGC fulfills it’s commitments that were given on Thursday to us as producers of special crops and pulses; I believe there is a great opportunity to take a large step foreword that will resolve the majority of this problem. I will address this issue on a special topic today on Agri-ville.

It will also be addressed at our annual meeting of the Alberta Pulse Growers in Edmonton at Farm Tech January 27th, 1-2:30pm at the Ag Industry Showcase Exhibit.

www.farmtechconference.com

I Hope to see all of you there, I would appreciate an opportunity to personally discuss your problems, and help out where ever I can!

Sincerely,
Tom Jackson