So whats the deal on these old cows?

[cowman]

I caught a little blurb on the radio where some guy was saying the OTM beef deal should be solved by March? Is that possible?
He didn't say OTM cattle could move then...just the beef in a box!
Now shortly before Christmas I stopped in at the local auction mart and about 36 cents/lb. was about as good as it got for good beefy young cows! Seemed like the majority of useful butcher cows were in that 25-29 cent range? Bill Shultz, the Lakeside buyer, seemed to have a cutoff point of $29.50...so Lakeside definitely wasn't setting the pace!
If a cow came in a bit skinny, or fairly old, or lame or lumpjaw it was basically a joke! 7,8,9 cents and not a nickel more! They even passed a few which means the local scoundrel abbatoir got them...which effectively means about 4 cents/lb...if you are lucky!
Now I wondered what kind of dumbies are sending these kinds of cows to the mart? Maybe no one told them if they shoot them the government will pay you $225! If a cow isn't worth $225 she shouldn't be fit to eat, in my opinion!
Besides with all the snow it is hard for a coyote to make a living this winter...and he just might enjoy some tasty Alberta beef!

[grassfarmer]

"what kind of dumbies"?? - the kind that spell dummies with a B, LOL, sorry Cowman couldn't resist that one!

The cow situation is most unfortunate and looks like it will continue to be that way in the year ahead. Largely it is caused by a captive market situation and a closed border. If more markets were to open to OTM beef in a box the captive market would remain so I wouldn't look for any relief there. On top of this I feel that this cow monopoly is being used to manipulate the fat cattle price, any time fats looking like getting up in price the packer can swing onto killing cows instead.

As far as producer options go there are very limited ways out particularly with poorer type cows. Unless your vet is dishonest he will not be killing cows for BSE testing unless they are in extremely poor condition. There are quite a number of lame, one eyed and lump jawed cattle out there and none of them would qualify for testing under the 4D scheme. Hasn't the scheme in fact been tightened up to allow only cattle exhibiting neurological symptoms? I thought I read of such a change last year.
So the producer is faced with shipping them to auction and taking what he is offered or shooting them at home and either paying to dispose of them or dumping the carcase on his property. Either way they are not great options yet they are the ones forced on producers so I don't think anyone should be called a dummy for sending poor cows to town, maybe they were in a desperate financial situation?

The current market is of course seasonally overloaded with cull cows - perhaps the best a producer can hope to do is aim to market at times of higher prices before cows get into too poor shape. We averaged 36 cents with all the culls we sold last year and 20% of them were quite lame due to arthritis.

[15444]

A March opening is a plain lie. If you follow the timelines that are set in place to go through the entire comment and rule making process, the earliest you would see boxed or live OTM over the border would be early or mid-summer. There was no separate rule for boxed OTM beef. The rule now going forward is for both live and boxed OTM.

[Willowcreek]

And the live cattle is going to be what makes it a big battle again...I haven't talked to one cattle producer in my area - no matter if they are R-CALF, NCBA, or whatever group- that wants to allow the opening to live cattle and take the risk from finding another positive cow in the country or the risks involved with the SRM's removal and disposal...

With the new Congress, USDA is going to be having a big enough battle with just trying to keep their jobs as overseers of meat safety, than to put up the image of allowing in higher risk product....Many want to do away with USDA's meat role and give all food to the FDA..

I don't see the new head of the House Ag committee, who is a staunch pro consumer activist, allowing USDA to do anything...And the new Senate Ag Chairman is a very big supporter of USA agriculture and has backed the US interests before...

[rkaiser]

Almost responded to you again Oldtimer - but deleted my post. You are so lost that it is not worth the bother.

[Willowcreek]

[In any case, there are still many steps to come, Ted Haney, chief executive of the Canadian Beef Export Federation tells Meatingplace.com. Once the Rule is published, it will be exposed to a comment period of 30 to 90 days, then another waiting period while USDA examines the comments, then another review by OMB, and finally possible Congressional action. "With the change to a Democratic Congress, it's impossible to predict what the reaction will be," Haney says.]

["We are hopeful that the (new Democratic-controlled Congress) will intervene with USDA to prevent adoption of this rule," Bullard tells Meatingplace.com. He adds that both Canada and the United States have at some point proposed strengthened feed bans, and that to resume trade in live animals before stronger feed bans are in place would be "irresponsible."]

[R-CALF's Bullard seizes on just that issue, pointing out that allowing live animals and particularly older live animals, as well as beef from those animals, compromises U.S. hopes to gain international status as a "region of negligible risk" for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. To gain such status under current standards, no BSE case from an animal born in the previous 11 years can be on the record. The youngest such case in the United States would have turned 11 in February 2006. "Possible commingling of Canadian cattle, where a recent case was from an animal born in 2002, could jeopardize our negligible risk status, and cause serious harm to cattle producers," Bullard says.]

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15679

[cowman]

1544: I don't think you read all of Haneys remarks? He stated that the OBM had approved the "rule 2", but was not sure if that meant OTM cattle or boxed beef? I suspect if it comes down to "boxed OTM beef" the USA will not be able to keep it out, or will be open to trade penalties?
I think it is important for the Canadian government to be very firm on not allowing the US to violate the trade deal on this one?
I would even think some appropriate trade retaliation might be in order if the USA breaks the law? Perhaps a export tax on oil and gas to collect money to be distributed to the Canadian cattle industry, might be in order, to make up for the punitive protectionism and breaking of NAFTA laws?
The science says boneless beef from OTM cattle with the SRMs removed does not pose a health threat and the USA has agreed that is correct? So no way can they keep out OTM beef...not so sure about OTM cattle?
Get ready Willowcreek...you are about to start learning all about our 20 cent cows and how your R-CALF buddies screwed you!

[Willowcreek]

I guess we will have to wait and see what the rule actually says-- But the rumor on the street from those that supposedly have an in with the Bush administration is the same as what 15444 said-- It's an all or nothing proposal, combining both boxed beef and LIVE cattle in the same proposal-- and that will make it dead on arrival when it gets to Congress....

Also the fact that the US has applied for "negligible" BSE status, which Canada can not by the rules achieve until 2013, will be a big sticking point that will be interesting to see how they handle-- as the Canadian product would have to be kept segregated and labeled and out of the generic beef product if the US is to keep that status....

I look for Congress to postpone the rule until at least the USDA implements a complete M-COOL law and the FDA and CFIA closes some more of the feedban loopholes....

[mb_rancher]

Willowcreek,

I think they should take that big stick you talk about and give all you r-calfers a good crack across the @ss. It might bring you fellas into the real world.

[Willowcreek]

CN_Today 1/4/2007 12:01:00 PM


R-CALF USA Talking Points Regarding USDA’s OTM Import Rule





1. The U.S. should not give additional access to the U.S. market until the U.S. fully regains the share of the global export market it has lost since 2003.



Allowing over 30-month (OTM) Canadian cattle and beef into the U.S. will further harm the United States’ ability to fully restore lost export markets. After three years of allowing access to the U.S. market, by a country where BSE is known to have circulated years after implementation of a feed ban, the U.S. market share of the global beef market has fallen from 18 percent in 2003 to an estimated 7 percent in 2006. The export markets that have reopened have imposed stricter conditions on U.S. beef exports than what the U.S. requires on Canadian imports, and several export markets continue to ban U.S. exports that contain beef from Canadian cattle.



2. The U.S. should not further relax its already lenient import standards until it can be scientifically documented that BSE is no longer circulating in Canadian feed or in OTM Canadian cattle and there is international acceptance for such a conclusion.



The full magnitude of Canada’s BSE epidemic is still unfolding, but it is already much greater than what USDA has asserted and assumed. Canada has now detected 9 cases of BSE in Canadian-born cattle, 4 of which were born after Canada implemented its feed ban and three of these were born years after the feed ban, providing evidence that Canada’s feed ban was not effective in preventing the spread of BSE in either its feed system or cattle herd.



3. The U.S. should not allow the importation of OTM cattle or beef, which are known to be of higher risk for transmitting BSE, particularly now that the disease is known to have been circulating in animals born years after the Canadian feed ban.



Cattle over 30 months of age that originate in a BSE-affected country have an inherently higher risk for transmitting BSE. As recently as January 2005, the USDA stated that the two most important factors in determining risk were the age of the cattle and the effect of the feed ban. Now that the feed ban is known to be ineffective, the 30-month age limit remains as the most important factor in minimizing the risk of introducing BSE into the U.S. from Canada.



4.The U.S. should not allow OTM cattle or beef from Canada until both the U.S. and Canada have significantly strengthened their respective feed bans and sufficient time has lapsed to ascertain the effectiveness of any feed ban improvements. Given the known breeches in Canada’s feed ban, Canada must significantly ramp-up its BSE testing so that the effectiveness of its feed ban can be more accurately monitored.





As previously recognized by the Food and Drug Administration, and as recognized by international BSE experts, current BSE mitigation measures are inadequate to address the increased risk associated with OTM cattle and beef from Canada. The Food and Drug Administration, the Canadian Food Inspection Service, and International BSE experts all have acknowledged the need to strengthen the feed bans implemented in both the U.S. and Canada to prevent the spread of BSE. However, neither country has yet implemented improvements to their respective feed bans.



5.The U.S. should not allow OTM Canadian cattle or beef into the U.S. until it additionally obtains firm assurances from all U.S. beef export markets and the OIE that the United States’ BSE risk profile would not be downgraded to Canada’s level if Canadian OTM cattle and beef are allowed into the U.S. market and available for export.



Allowing OTM Canadian cattle and beef into the United States will immediately harm the United States’ international disease risk profile. The United States has a more favorable BSE risk profile than Canada. Canada cannot possibly meet the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) standard for a country with a negligible BSE risk, which requires that the youngest BSE case must be born more than 11 years ago. However, because the U.S. has only detected BSE in two native animals, both born well before the feed ban and the youngest estimated to be 10 years of age on February 28, 2006, the U.S. will likely meet the international standard to be considered a negligible BSE risk if it does not mix Canadian cattle and beef with U.S. cattle and beef.



6. The U.S. should not allow OTM Canadian cattle or beef into the U.S. until the U.S. additionally implements country-of-origin labeling to mitigate the financial harm that will inevitably befall U.S. cattle producers and that will likely be more severe than what USDA will predict.



The financial losses to U.S. cattle producers will likely be severe if the United States allows OTM Canadian cattle and beef into the U.S. market while most export markets remain closed. The USDA grossly underestimated the negative financial impact that actually occurred to U.S. cattle producers following the 2005 resumption of Canadian cattle imports. The USDA underestimated the price decline that U.S. producers experienced in the domestic fed cattle market by a factor of nearly three. Domestic fed cattle prices, that USDA predicted would fall by as much as $6.05 per cwt., actually fell $17.40 per cwt. during the 5-month period December 2005 through May 2006. As a minimum, mandatory country-of-origin labeling must be implemented in the United States so both domestic and international consumers can differentiate beef produced exclusively from U.S. cattle from beef produced from Canadian cattle before any further relaxation of current U.S. import standards is considered.

[Willowcreek]

Manitoba Rancher-- What would you do if you didn't have R-CALF to keep you updated on what is or is going to happen in the world-EH? LOL

Release No. 0001.07
Contact:
Karen Eggert (301) 734-7280
Keith Williams (202) 720-4623

USDA PROPOSES TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL IMPORTS FROM BSE MINIMAL-RISK COUNTRIES

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4, 2007-The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service today announced a proposal to expand the list of allowable imports from countries recognized as presenting a minimal risk of introducing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) into the United States. Currently, Canada is the only minimal-risk country designated by the United States.


"This proposal would continue to protect against BSE in the United States while taking the next step forward in our efforts to implement science-based trade relations with countries that have appropriate safeguards in place to prevent BSE," said Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns. "We previously recognized Canada's comprehensive set of safeguards and we have now completed a risk assessment confirming that additional animals and products can be safely traded. Our approach is consistent with science-based international guidelines."

The proposal expands upon a rule published by APHIS in January 2005 that allowed the importation of certain live ruminants and ruminant products, including cattle under 30 months of age for delivery to a slaughterhouse or feedlot, from countries recognized as minimal-risk. In the rule announced today, APHIS is proposing to allow the importation of:

Live cattle and other bovines for any use born on or after, March 1, 1999, the date determined by APHIS to be the date of effective enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada;
Meat products from cattle born on or after March 1, 1999;
Blood and blood products derived from bovines, collected under certain conditions; and
Casings and part of the small intestine derived from bovines.
As part of the proposal, APHIS conducted a thorough risk assessment following guidelines put forth by the World Organization for Animal Health, or OIE, and found that the risk associated with these commodities is minimal. This assessment evaluated the entire risk pathway, including mitigations in place both in Canada and the United States. The assessment included evaluating the likelihood of introduction of BSE via imports, the likelihood of animal exposure if this were to occur and the subsequent consequences. All of these were combined to give the overall minimal risk estimation.

It is important to note that BSE transmission is prevented in bovines by a series of safeguards, including; slaughter controls and dead animal disposal, rendering inactivation, feed manufacturing and use controls, and biologic limitations to susceptibility. These layers of protection work together to prevent spread of the disease.

In the United States, human health is protected by a system of interlocking safeguards that ensure the safety of U.S. beef. The most important of these safeguards is the ban on specified risk materials from the food supply and the Food and Drug Administration's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. Canada has similar safeguards in place.

The risk assessment concluded that for all the commodities considered under the current proposal, the risk of BSE infectivity is minimal and the disease will not become established in the United States. The proposed rule will be published in the Jan. 9, 2007 Federal Register and is available on our Web site at www.aphis.usda.gov .

APHIS invites comments on this proposed rule. Consideration will be given to comments received on or before March 12, 2007. Send an original and three copies of postal mail or commercial delivery comments to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, Md. 20737-1238. If you wish to submit a comment using the Internet, go to the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov , select "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service" from the agency drop-down menu; then click on "Submit." In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0041 to submit or view public comments and to view the proposal and the supporting and related materials available electronically.

Comments are posted on the Regulations.gov Web site and may also be viewed at USDA, Room 1141, South Building, 14th St. and Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C., between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. To facilitate entry into the comment reading room, please call (202) 690-2817.


#
USDA News
oc.news@usda.gov
202 720-4623

[rkaiser]

What is it that you are truly scared of Oldtimer? Your babble about subsidy advantage in Canada and the shirt tail thing are simply hogwash and you know it. Why don't you jump on your little pony and ride up to Mr. Wilson's neck of the woods and see how much help the Saskabush government actually gives him, or sit back and watch how he continually progresses with the environmental challenges that you Montanites barely see for a few weeks of the year.

In other words Oldtimer, are you and the Rcalf boys simply scared to make any changes in the way you do business? And please don't deflect this into a packer issue for a moment. You know that I can't see much good in Oligopoly control of any industry which is one of a few areas that we actually agree.

What scares you about Canada and her progressive minded cattlemen? Are you as scared of individuals in your home town who challenge your way of thinking (or lack of)?

[Willowcreek]

rkaiser- My main problems with this proposal is that it comes at a time when we have not got a lot of our export markets back, especially the Asian- and the Canadian issue is one that has previously complicated that, and may stall it further...We need to get our export market up and running before we begin importing---

then their is the question of safety- which if you follow CFIA/USDA's BSE transmittal theory puts both the US cattle herd and the US consumers to a much higher risk...The 2 countries do not even have matching feedban rules and neither has what the private industry scientists recommend to protect the public and the US cattle herd...You of all people, should know all the gaps and holes in the BSE theory ---

thirdly is the fact that this beef/cattle is being passed off to consumers as a US product- which it definitely is not, which not only is unethical, and leaves the US consumer without the ability to make an informed choice, but I'm convinced the comingling without labeling will definitely affect US consumer confidence and demand....

There are several more concerns I could list but these are my primary ones....

[Willowcreek]

rkaiser-- The best way to sum it up for US cattlemen is-- is the risk worth the gain?

Answer me this--

What does the US cattleman gain from this rule or any imports of beef/cattle from Canada? - while at the same time they are greatly increasing the risk to the US cattle herd and potentially the entire longterm viability of the US cattle industry...

[rkaiser]

I've answered your question before Old guy - you just don't read those kind of things. And obviously you read very little with your continual babblegab about risk to the virgin American cow herd. You are a very lost sole Willow Creek - a very lost sole.

Debated if that should be sole or soul for only about 2 seconds.