• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stressed-Out Cowboy When:

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Interesting comments re: M-Cool giving consumers a choice. International trade in beef is not driven by consumer demand rather it is and it needs to based on science, recognizing that the science is interpreted by politicians.

    Look at Japan. I notice that Japan resuming trade with the U.S. does not revolve around a mandatory law identifying U.S. beef in Japanese meat coolers so the consumer can choose.

    The consumer needs to be assured that all beef is safe. Consumer confidence in beef will be eroded by segregating product according to country of origin thereby forcing nation against nation as inevitably each country makes inferences that the other countries’ product is somehow not as safe or nutritious or tasty as their domestic country's product.

    Whether we are talking U.S. beef, Canadian beef, Australian beef or elsewhere, before it gets to the retail cooler it all passes through the hands of a few multinationals such as Cargill or Tyson. Just think about how these pirate companies could pit each nation’s producers against another nation’s producers in order to drive down the price of live cattle.

    Let’s face it, when it comes to making a living raising cattle those packers are the problem, not producers in Canada or Australia. There is more to be gained by North American producers and Australian/New Zealand producers finding ways to work together to break the monopoly of the big packers than producers will ever realize from country of origin legislation. COOL just plays into the hands of the multinationals. My opinion.

    Comment


      #12
      Hey intr3est! You from the Brantford area in Southern Ontario??!! I go there sometimes and just noticed the area code on your cell phone #! What have you got for cattle? If you're already on the plane for Calgary, we'll visit later...

      Comment


        #13
        Interestingly tho, it is my understanding that Japan, like many of the European nations, has COOL. I know that after the May 2003 cow and before the Washington cow, when Japan was requiring the US to segregate off US beef, all beef going to Japan was being marked and sold as a Product of USA.

        Comment


          #14
          any of the real r-calfers wouldn't back off if there was suddenly a feasible, enforcible cool law. they are protectionists, straight and simple and regard government intervention to restrict foreign competition as their reason to exist. right now they have the totally insupportable health issues and cool as a fallback but they will always find a reason to want to restrict competition. if the border opens we will see a raft of trade actions trying to paint the canadian cattle industry as unfairly subsidized. what's happening now is the future. these guys are loading up with money and will be a pain in the butt for years to come.

          Comment


            #15
            It was my understanding that the U.S. and Australia successfully won a WTO ruling against South Korea for its dual beef labelling law (MCOOL) in 2000-01.

            See: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm
            click on beef, Korea.

            Korea had passed a MCOOL law that would have seen U.S. beef labelled as such. The U.S. successfully challenged that law. I am not aware of what the situation is in Japan but I imagine the U.S. would not tolerate MCOOL used to discriminate against its products in Japan any more than it would have in Korea.

            Comment


              #16
              Well said farmers_son (your 2nd last post) packer control is the biggest problem facing us all. We can waste a lot of time debating whether r-calf will keep the border closed, or if a a few ncba members touring Canada will open it. In reality the border being open or closed to live cattle per se is not the problem. We only seek it to get out of a short term bind caused by the current packer monopoly.
              Since day 1 (May 03) this whole deal has been about packer profiteering in a captive market - beef prices did not crash for consumers they went up, the financial blows ranchers and feeders have taken was because money was removed from the production chain unfairly. I wish people would see that and act - politicians will not admit it, ABP/CCA will not admit it. So we muddle along wasting taxpayer money bailing out a production chain that needs regulation not subsidisation.

              Comment


                #17
                Well said, Grassfarmer, but, do you have any idea what type of regulations would do any good to try and alleviate this problem?

                Comment


                  #18
                  Cedar, An obvious starting point is limiting the percentage of packer owned cattle they can slaughter. This does not take money it takes political will.
                  ABP passed a resolution seeking a 10% cap on packer ownership - we'll see if this gets taken seriously by the Government.
                  Another is to take a long term view of the industry by backing initiatives like that of Cam Ostercamp - to allow primary producers to "buy back" control of their slaughter capacity. Far better than the short-term bailouts we have been getting.
                  I read the Cattlemen magazine today and was amazed at their coverage of the ABP AGM last month. First they make the mistake of thinking "ABP" speaks for Alberta beef producers - it doesn't.
                  Delegates voted down a proposal to limit packer ownership of cattle to 14 days and the article states that
                  "feeders generally are in favour of this move whereas ranchers are against it as it limits the numbers of calf buyers at the auction." Well no one asked this rancher - we do not need packers buying calves - they are only going to get them custom fed anyway so ranchers would be far better off if the feedlot operatives turned up and bought the calves before selling fats to the packers. We must break this monopoly situation or we are all in dire trouble.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Whiteface, snowed in Hamilton, have to fly out tommorow. Drifts were as high as my chaps, put it in 4 low to get in a psrking space, no kidding! They could not keep up wiht thw snow, I'll ask them (Westjet)for an extra day on this trip! What's your ph #, I'll give you a call, Randy listen up, I'm going to visit you too. have a case ready!

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Not sure where I got the name of Nethubasand, but anyway, It's MURGEN, I'm on someone eles computer. Damn keyboard it''s not like mine either, keep printing wrong letters, must be a charolais thing.

                      Comment

                      • Reply to this Thread
                      • Return to Topic List
                      Working...