Bill 19 reform

[kato]

I think we might be part-time Wacko's. We've been cherry picking different management tools from all over the place if they would work for us.

Traditional management is.. We still start calving in February. BTW, the first three calves born in the "nice" weather of April caused us more grief than the previous 120 combined. We still raise Continental breed cattle.

New Age managemement is. We don't use implants. Quit that a long time ago. We graze corn until a week before said early calving. Even under our so called conventional management, our herd spends a little less than 100 days in the yard, not the 200 days most people use to compare the costs of the two methods. The Continental breed cattle we raise are moderate framed, and easy fleshing.

I think you have not be afraid to be a Wacko when it makes you money. But you have to remember that not every idea works on every operation, and pick your options carefully.

My husband was at the auction last week when some so called holistically raised calves came through the ring. One little guy was so weak and run down from "living naturally" that he collapsed and had to be dragged out. As for the profitability of this particular operator, there were a couple of guys in suits in the stands writing down the prices, so I bet we can all guess who they were.

Some guys just aren't doing it right, and if it's not done right it ain't going to work, no matter how cutting edge and progressive it sounds.

[per]

Randy, I would be interested in a BBQ taste test in June or July. Could be lots of fun.

[vagabonddreamer]

I will bring a west coast salmon because it is SO much more healthy than toxic red meat...(grin)..vs

[rkaiser]

I like yer style Vagabond... A little salmon never hurt anyone ---- unless of course it was raised in one of them farms ---- Lots of problems in that industry as well.

It would be fun to have a Barby with all the boys on Agriville. Poor old FS would have to wear a mask of course....LOL

I hear your story about the ones who go too far Kato. Ran into that a few times with our cattle breeds. Folks who buy them because they function on less but they bloody well take it too far. Efficiency is not about starvation. Almost called the SPCA ona fellow Galloway breeder one time --- and he was a lawyer.

Have fun folks, I am not hear to argue every point like the old rkaiser. That was then --- now is now. Good luck to all you hormone pushers... I'll take the folks who are fed up with the excuses and so called science that
says it is all fine.

[grassfarmer]

Yeah I would come to your BBQ Randy, I think we could make F_S a disguise - one of those white sheets with the eye holes cut out like the Klan wear - topped of with an ABP cap of course! Oh and I promise there won't be any lynchin' or burnin' happening ;o)

[Sawbones]

FS I know you do your research but here's an article to add to your collection
" U.S. sets sights on EU beef market: report
By Tom Johnston on 10/6/2008
http://www.meatingplace.com/Ad/ClickThroughRedirector.aspx?info=2976-4221-25547024-http%3a%2f%2fwww.australian-beef.com%2fmpc
U.S. beef producers are catering to the distinct taste that Britons and Europeans have for hormone-free beef, according to a report by the Guardian.

So set on eating only hormone-free beef are the British and Europeans that the rift between the United States and the European Union over restrictions on U.S. beef exports, to some extent, has become irrelevant. U.S. beef producers acknowledge that regardless of whether Washington prevails after 10 years of fighting the EU ban, meateaters across the pond will not eat meat produced with growth-enhancing hormones.

Already motivated by a growing domestic market for hormone-free beef, many U.S. cattle farmers are reconfiguring production practices to cater to both markets.

According to the U.S. Meat Export Federation, the EU imported 7,761 metric tons of US beef in the first half of 2008, a 179 percent increase from 2,786 metric tons in the same period of 2007.

"Within three to five years Europe will be the second or third meat importing market in the world," USMEF Vice President Thad Lively was quoted as saying.

U.S. beef producers believe their grain-fed product will give them a competitive edge in Europe, but entering that market requires more than delivering a hormone-free product. The EU requires third-party verification of all claims, as well as identification and traceability standards and an annual audit.

Tough standards
Leann Saunders, the president of third-party verification company IMI Global, was quoted as saying EU standards are the world's most stringent, but the market is still attractive to producers who already comply with USDA's non hormone-treated cattle standard. Nearly 180 cattle producers and packers have been certified, an increase of more than 100 since spring. "The cow calf producers have gone through this intensive process so they could approve cattle for the EU," Saunders told the Guardian.

As with other foreign markets, Europe provides an opportunity for U.S. producers and packers to sell cuts of beef underutilized in the United States.

Some of the excitement, however, might be tempered by an EU regulation named the Hilton quota, which allows only 58,000 metric tons of beef to be imported from the United States and other countries before tariffs apply.
CCA and CFIA have been the main obstacles in trying to access the EU market and if it isn't stramlined soon we'll once again be watchin from the sidelines
Keep on pushing Randy

[grassfarmer]

Good post Sawbones. Times have changed in the EU - the Hilton tariffs were set up when they were still exporting beef from Europe. There will undoubtedly be opportunities for increased exports to the EU and they will quickly do away with the Hilton to feed their population.
As Sawbones says you've got to be in to win. Is it a coincidence that the US are trying to gain access and the CCA/CFIA are trying to block access for Cdn producers? I would suggest not.

Another point everyone in North America needs to think on is the type of product they want in Europe. The demand will be for grain fed beef (you won't compete on price with their other grassfed suppliers)- but it must be lean, think "Laura's Lean" specs. You can't sell fat in Europe - even marbling fat except to a few resteraunts maybe. Might hit the demand for Angus cattle and boost sales of Limo/Blondes!

[farmers_son]

What rubbish. Lets get real here... CCA has been sending people to Geneva for the WTO talks for years trying to get trade open with the EU and the world. It is not CCA's fault the WTO talks fell through.

But it needs to be pointed out that our Federal government steadfastly refused to budge on reducing Canada's tariffs protecting milk and eggs and this lack of resolve to open trade was a contributing factor in the talks collapsing. But if we are going to play the blame game the U.S. Europe, India and China were mostly to blame for the failure of the crucial WTO talks.

See:
http://www.rediff.com/money/2008/jul/29wto2.htm

Also see the India perspective:
http://www.blonnet.com/2006/07/02/stories/2006070202900300.htm

"Meanwhile, the rich nations are bickering among themselves. For instance, even as the EU agreed to drop farm export subsidies by 2013, "the US, where Congress is fiercely opposed to agriculture liberalisation, believes that Europe's move does not go far enough to merit a reciprocal reduction in its own subsidies," as www.eupolitix.com informs in a report dated June 29. The EU, for its part, wants focus on freer trade in services such as IT, finance and transport. It is argued that subsides by the rich nations to their farmers can "promote poverty in developing countries by driving agricultural prices below what third world farming industries can compete with," as http://en.wikipedia.org notes.

Though subsidies are a drain of taxpayers' money, subsidy cuts are a vexing problem even for the developed world. For, any move to do so can result in a backlash from the local farmers. Ditto with tariff cuts."

It needs to be noted that there is a large black market trade within Europe for cattle implants. While officially hormone free the reality is quite different.

It also needs to be noted that the EU is actively discussing new trade barriers involving animal welfare. So even if we produce the hormone free steer the EU will simply find another way to block trade from North America.

[Sawbones]

FS It may just be that the EU are not trying to block imports but actually want beef that can be verified hormone free and raised humanely.
My main beef (sorry for the pun) with CCA is that you can't legislate someone into buying your product. That's the same fault with ABP and their 5 million dollar slush fund to fight MCOOL. Let the feds look after the political legal matters and maybe we should concentrate on getting a high end product to potential consumers who are willing to pay for a better product.

[farmers_son]

I thought I would follow through on my statement that there is a large black market for hormones in the EU by including a link that backs up that statement:

http://www.bsas.org.uk/about_the_bsas/issue_papers/hormone_growth_promoters_in_cattle/

Begin of Paste

"Effectiveness of the Ban:

Opponents of the ban [on hormones in cattle] argued that controlled use of implants was preferable to the black market that would inevitably follow a ban. So it has proved. A criminal black market in hormone products developed from bases in Belgium. Unscrupulous farmers implanted cattle in unusual sites, e.g. under the skin of the tail, to try and conceal the implants. This raised the risk of whole implants inadvertently entering the human food chain.

Worse still, farmers turned to other undesirable products, notably ?agonists such as clenbuterol administered as a feed additive. These products have a legitimate role in veterinary medicine but are not licensed in the EU for growth promotion.

The ?agonists have remarkable effects on the lean content of the carcass to an extent that conformation becomes more muscular which raises the sale price per kg of carcass. However, ?agonists have the highly detrimental characteristic of making beef tough and powdered formulations present risks to operators, and there have been reports of toxicity in consumers caused by residues in beef liver.

Illegal use was probably never significant in Great Britain but was rampant in European feedlots and in Ireland clenbuterol gained the doubtful sobriquet 'angel dust'. It is uncertain to what extent illegal use persists but it is probably much less now than in the years immediately following implementation of the ban.

There is no pressure within the EU to reverse the ban. The matter has passed beyond science into consumer and trade politics."

[grassfarmer]

F_S, could you provide a date of publication of that article you posted and what time period it was debating?
I remember the clenbuterol feedlot in Ireland scandal and it was around 1990 if I remember right.

[farmers_son]

The article was prepared for British Society for Animal Science by Dr David Allen, Beef Industry Consultant. I believe it would have been written in 2008. If you note the article does say the problem was never prevalent in the UK although certainly was prevalent in the rest of Europe. While illegal use persists it would likely be less prevalent today.


I point I was trying to make is the hormone bans were at least partly based on protectionism. In fairness the attitudes about hormone use in Europe were also partly based on some bad experiences with DES which I remember we used on calves when I was a kid and it was a bad product.