Court Lifts Injunction Blocking Cattle From Canada
 

Bye Bye ranchers! The USDA only cares about the packers!

Court Lifts Injunction Blocking Cattle From Canada

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- A federal appeals court cleared the way for Canadian cattle to be shipped to slaughterhouses in the U.S., ending a two-year ban, after the government argued the animals don't pose a threat to humans from mad-cow disease.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction that had been blocking a Department of Agriculture plan to allow cattle from Canada, which has had four cases of mad-cow disease, to be sold in the U.S. after being banned since May 2003.

Canadian cattle imports will ease a shortage of slaughter- ready animals that has hurt profits at Tyson Foods Inc., Cargill Inc. and Swift & Co., the three largest U.S. beef packers. Canada normally supplies about 5 percent of the 35 million animals slaughtered each year by the U.S. beef industry.

``This is great news for meatpackers,'' said Tim Ramey, an analyst with D.A. Davidson & Co. in Lake Oswego, Oregon, in an e- mail. Ramey said the added cattle supply will help increase profit margins for meatpackers such as Tyson. Ramey reiterated a ``buy'' rating on Tyson after the court decision.

The USDA ``is already in contact with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to prepare to certify cattle for shipment,'' said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns in a statement.

Order `Effective Immediately'

The court said in a two-page order that the injunction blocking a U.S. plan to lift the ban ``must be reversed'' and said it would issue an opinion later giving its reasons. The court's order is ``effective immediately,'' the judges said.

A federal judge had issued the injunction at the request of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, a Montana-based group representing 18,000 ranchers and feedlot owners. The group, known as R-CALF, argued that opening the border to Canadian cattle would increase uncertainty about the safety of U.S. beef and encourage other countries to shun the meat.

``We are disappointed in today's ruling,'' said Bill Bullard, R-CALF's chief executive. ``The 9th Circuit gave no reasons for their action, so there isn't much we can do until we see those reasons.''

The group hasn't considered its legal options, including asking a larger group of 9th Circuit judges to review today's ruling, said Shae Dodson, an R-CALF spokeswoman, in a telephone interview.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Cebull in Billings, Montana, who issued the preliminary injunction in March blocking the USDA from lifting the ban, has scheduled a July 27 hearing on the R-CALF lawsuit.

`Premature and Unjustified'

R-CALF said in a statement today that it's confident it will be able to demonstrate in Cebull's court that the USDA's actions are ``premature and unjustified.''

Cattle futures aren't likely to fall tomorrow as traders have already anticipated larger cattle supplies, said Donald Selkin, director of equity research with Joseph Stevens & Co. in New York.

``The decline over the past couple weeks has already discounted this ruling,'' said Selkin, who added that it will take some time before Canadian producers are ready to ship animals across the border in large numbers.

Futures

Cattle futures for August delivery fell 0.175 cent to 78.95 cents a pound today on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Futures have dropped 3.9 percent since June 10, when the USDA said it may have found a new case of mad-cow disease. The case was confirmed June 24.

The government had planned to allow Canada to resume shipping cattle less than 30 months old and bone-in beef from younger animals on March 7. The U.S. has allowed imports of boneless beef from Canadian cattle under 30 months of age since August 2003. Cattle that young are thought to be at the lowest risk for mad-cow disease.

Large numbers of cattle from Canada won't be shipped south until the U.S. and Canada agree on procedures, including how to document an animal's age, said Bernard Etzinger, a spokesman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington. ``There are a lot of certifications that are required,'' he said.

`Minimal Risk'

In arguing against the injunction, the USDA, Tyson and meat industry groups had argued that Canada's cattle posed a ``minimal risk'' of spreading mad-cow disease in the U.S.

``This is good news not just for Canadian cattle producers but for those sectors of the U.S. beef industry that have been economically devastated by the disruption in trade,'' said Stan Eby, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, in an e- mailed statement.

Opening the border on March 7, as the USDA had planned, would have allowed more than 1 million cattle into the U.S. from Canada this year, the agency estimated. About 10.8 million head of cattle were being fattened for slaughter in feedlots in the 17 major U.S. cattle-producing states on June 1, down from 11.3 million on Jan. 1, according to the government.

The U.S. has lost about 7,800 beef packing industry jobs as a result of the cattle embargo, American Meat Institute President Patrick Boyle said today in Ottawa. The Washington, D.C.-based AMI represents Tyson Foods and other large meatpackers.

Earlier this year, both Tyson Foods and Cargill Inc.'s Cargill Meat Solutions, the two largest U.S. beef packers, announced plans to expand beef processing in Canada, to take advantage of lower processing costs.

Cheaper in Canada

The USDA, in an economic analysis released in December, said the cattle ban had created a situation where Canadian meatpackers had been able to buy cows for as little as 17 cents a pound and sell the processed beef in the U.S. for about $1.23 a pound, while U.S. packers were buying similar animals at 55 cents a pound.

Mad-cow disease is a brain-wasting livestock illness that scientists say is spread in cattle by tainted animal feed. It has a rare but fatal human variant that has been blamed for the deaths of 150 people in the U.K., where it was first reported in the 1980s.

The U.S. imposed its ban on cattle from Canada in May 2003 after the first Canadian case of mad-cow disease, which is clinically known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. Since then, three other animals born in Canada were diagnosed with BSE, including the cow found in Washington state in December 2003, which prompted dozens of nations to ban U.S. beef. The U.S. confirmed its first native-born BSE case last month.

The case is Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v U.S. Department of Agriculture, 05-35264, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=abqsihkz8j4o

Do we ship our cattle to other countries?

If we do ship out cattle to other countries, then I guess allowing others to ship in is fair. A truly slippery slope if we only want to ship ours everywhere as being good business but refuse to accept that other countries are trying to stay in business too.

What about no imports OR exports-we eat what we grow, we grow what we need. Would that help out the farmers?? I've never asked for anyone's opinion on that idea before but that may solve the problem. :confused:

Assuming it was a level playing field it would be one thing, but it's not. Why would a packer buy US feeder cattle @.60/lb when they could buy it in Canada for .17? Land in SA is $100/acre, antibiotics that cost .60/dose here cost .10 there. They have a year round growing season. With CAFTA being pushed through that price per pound drops to practically nothing. At least with US cattle we have the psuedo-security of USDA inspections. The USDA does test for BSE. Not so in these other countries. They don't have BSE because they don't look for it. Foot and Mouth is in every country below the Panama Canal, it will be here soon.

The dept. of Agriculture couldn't care less about Family Farmers and Ranchers...or the American Consumer.

What about the idea of only using or selling what is US grown-no imports or exports-wouldn't that keep the supply and demand even after a short adjustment period and bring prices into line?

Not arguing, just wondering why we would export our cattle and then import others.

The name of the game is supply and demand, they are not in the business of feeding people with beef products. They are in business to make money with the most profit to keep in their pockets. Selling beef products is the name of the game.

They by it cheep from places like Mexico, Canada, etc. and they sell some to countries that will pay more than the U. S. people will pay.

This way they can buy cheep and sell high. More profit - very simple.

OH by the way look for cattle prices at the sales to start falling down to lower prices now that the supply will greater.

Prices are never brought in line to please the consumer ! ! !

They control the market not ( us ) the public ! ! !

bumpus

Not arguing, just wondering why we would export our cattle and then import others.

Pretty soon we won't have ANY livestock to export. International Agribusiness owns the USDA lock stock and barrel.

from the link above

In the US, between 1950 and 1999, the number of farms decreased by 64 percent to less than two million, and farm population has declined to less than 2 percent. Ninety percent of agricultural output is produced by only 522 000 farms [5]. Canadian statistics similarly reveal that farm numbers have decreased by 10 percent between the 1996 census and 2001; there were less than 247 000 farms in the country in 2001 [6].

This relentless process of consolidation drives the heart out of the countryside, causing social and economic decay, and replaces it with an intensive industry that cares nothing about plant or animal diversity, quality or compassion in farming, but is solely interested in bringing down prices [1,7].

‘Free trade’ policies made by and for the rich countries of the North not only destroy the livelihood of small-farmers at home, they also encourage the dumping of subsidized goods (selling at less than the cost of production) from the North onto the markets of the poor South, distorting local markets, and leaving farmers in developing countries also unable to compete [1, 7, 8].

Swampthing, I'm not sure where you get your facts but Canada does test for BSE and our testing his highly effective. Feeder cattle are not selling for .17/lb, crock cows and balogna bulls are but they really aren't worth anything and way too old to cross into the US in boxes on the hoof. Good cows are still selling for for fair price but not outstanding. I'm unclear on how you arrived at your value for meds but I do think you are out on that as well. Are you also aware that a lot of the cattle owned up here are actually owned by Americans and our two main slaughter houses (in Alberta) are totaly American owned? Are you also aware that the kingpin of R-CALF invested a huge sum of money in Canadian cattle after BSE was discovered up here? His original thought was that the border would reopen soon and he'd make a killing on his original investment. Were you also aware that large numbers of American cattle have come into Canada over the years? It isn't a one way street. Are you also aware that the loss of those Canadian cattle have put a lot of US citizens out of work as slaughter plants have been closing down? I can also assure you that if you have found one case of BSE, you can expect to find more.

It's high time the border was reopened for cattle. Some of the lastest government dealings with Canada have been more about politics over Iraq than about health and economics down here. Closing the Canadian border to any kind of legal trade hurt's US citizen as much or more than the Canadian.

I hope the court ruling holds. It can only help the Canadian beef producer, and bring some degree of normalcy to the Us beef market. When a US dairy farmer will look a person straight in the eye and ask $3 a pound for day old Jersey bull calves I'd say we're having a rationality problem.

Is that how much they're going for now?? Wow; when we bought ours back in the mid 80's they were $25 to $30 at 5 days old from a Grade A dairy!

Holsteins were even cheaper!!

Sorry WR these floks don't support your statement

http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/Roundtable%20remarks.pdf

http://www.r-calfusa.com/BSE/053105%...on%20Paper.pdf

and your attempt to discredit r-calf without evidence is falling on deaf ears.

The discovery of a BSE-infected cow of Canadian origin in the United States caused dozens of countries to close their borders to U.S. meat
and imposed many millions of dollars of losses on the U.S. livestock
industry. Now imports from Canada are allowed back in and we won't even have contry of origin lableing.

Are you saying Canada is BSE free?

Ya'll are being short-sighted, niave and gullible.

The problem isn't just Canada, it's agricultural imports from the rest of the planet! International Agribusiness (which is married to the USDA) is using Canada and Cafta to shove .50/lb hamburger meat from feeder cattle that were fattened up on gm corn and laced with antibiotics outlawed here down our throats! Food-bourne pathogens, disease, and parasites from the 3rd world we only read about, our children and grand-kids will live with.

All the livestock will be raised somewhere else.

The prices will be lower but at what cost?

This isn't good for American Ranchers framers or the consumer.

If the truth were know we the United States export large quanities of Beef and Pork to Canada and Old Mexico ever day of the week.Figure a average load at 40'000# of beef or pork and multiply that by about 200 loads per day to each of those two countries times 7 days I am not counting the exports to China and Japan, and other pacific rim countries that get over 200 loads per week each , now figure the live weight of the animal in question. and the packers ,are shipping a huge amount I mean Mega Tons per day ,And Canada and Mexico Imports are just a drop in the bucket, Now figure in breeding Stock sales to Say Sweden and Denmark of certain breeds.Also Australia and new Zealand get large amounts of breeders from the United States.I know live cattle sales are just less than 10% of the total sales every year. This is just a F Y I .

Of course we have BSE and we are likely going to find more, so is the US because there are cattle alive that predate the current feed regulations and morons that feel they all sorts of alternative feeds to cattle. I do recall that the cow found to have BSE in Washington originated from Canada and crossed into the US at a fairly young age but I've also seen no proof of where she became infected and I do not recall anyone with your labs suggesting anything either way. Did you also know that one of the cows in Alberta found to be infected was born out of our country? What is your ag background? Now, if I'm following your train of thought correctly, you would like none of our livestock (dead or alive) to cross the border but in order for your farmers and ranchers to stay viable, you would like it very much if we continue to ship as much oil and gas as possible at a price less than other countries are willing to pay or would you rather pick that up at home too? My point is that people like yourself are very short sighted, you only want trade with other countries on your own terms but forget the big picture.

i'm in canada too. our local feeder price is.94-105 a pound ,this is the catagory that is alowed into the us. cull dairy cows run at .17 cents ,these are not allowed to cross the border at all. our country lacks slaugther capacity. even when our cows were band and we had a glut of slaughter cattle we still imported beef to meet cosumer demand . part of that was american beef heading north . before the ban canada imported feeder cattle from the us, with the ban this trade dryed up .dairy cows, buffalo, cervids, sheep and goats as well as cattle over thirty months are still band . as wr said the beefer that started all this was owned by an american and its origin was never known . this is not the first time that the border has been shut down ,first i can recall was 73 when it was closed due too tb and brucelosis both now wiped out here .at that time we had a tracking system that allowed all animals to be tracked ,now there is an even better tracking system in place .

That's the point I have been making all day. This is exactly why I feel Canadian beef should stay in Canada. Are the Japanese buying it?

Stick to facts, a Canadians recollections are suspect in this arguement.

You are supporting my point. I don't want beef from anywhere else in the world to be sold in the US! We have always had the highest inspection standards and now we are lowering them to meet the demands of CAFTA! Beef from Brazil will be sitting there in the grocers meat shelf right next to American beef and no country of origin label! Consumers think it's the same, it's not.

Not that it's any of yor business--7700 acre ancestorial farm in Mississippi Delta, Tippo to be exact. Soybeans, corn, Cotten, milo. Lost due to Jimmy Carter. Grew tobacco here in Kentucky for a number of years, Bill Clinton took that away. I currently keep 56 head downstate.

BUT I EAT!

One doesn't have to be shot to know it's no something you want.

Why are you selling us that oil and gas cheaper than you can get on the world markets? It's because of NAFTA. Now I rant and rave about CAFTA and your crying about how NAFTA has shafted your oil and gas exports? Let me let you in on a little secret...there's a provision under the oil and gas section of NAFTA that increases the amount of oil and gas exported year over year to America...even if Canadians have to do without.


Yes I am. I want the highest quality food for my family, if it's not then I want it labeled accordingly.

The big picture is if Canada had been testing for BSE all along and could certify their herd to be BSE free in a meaningful way this all would be a moot point, right?

The even bigger point is that the latest case of BSE in the US is homegrown so can't be blamed on Canada. It did not originate in Canada or any other country.

Did I ever say that I was upset about oil and gas revenues? Not once, I asked you simply why you would expect to take selectively from a country simply in order to keep costs for your citizens down. My statement indicates nothing about acheiving greater money for the same product at all. Where can you find that I did indicate we should get greater $ for product.

You meat is only as safe as your inspectors, if you want to export to Japan, for example, they require 100% testing, not just testing on ill cattle. In testing only ill cattle, do you feel your testing is effective? Do you realize or know that there is an incubation time before symptoms and do you realize that Japan stated that in using your (American) testing techniques they would have found less than half of the infected animals? The Japanese WILL buy Canadian and US beef ONLY if we agree to 100% testing. Are you also aware that the US and Canada had the same feeding techniques and incorporated the new feed regulations at exactly the same time thus allowing a certain number of older cows that very well could be infected.

I'm sorry you feel that my recollections could be flawed, a small herd of cattle came from England from a herd found to have BSE, ALL were destroyed (fact not recollection) and one of the cows found infected in Alberta was in FACT born in the US but an animal can be infected at any point in their life so you don't hear us carrying on an whining like infants about who MIGHT have made our life difficult. As for the cow in Washington, what FACTS do you have that I don't have. She was born in Canada, immigrated to the US as a heifer and turned up as an infected cow at approx. 9 years old. THat's a lot of living and it could have easily occured on either side of the border based on FACTS, being the lax feed regulations during her early years that were legal on BOTH sides of the border.

The real big picture is far simpler than you make it, if Canada AND the US had 100% testing, this whole matter would be a moot point, we already have processing plants in place that are readying to ship to Japan based on that little detail that people like you forget. It isn't the BSE that has Japan bugged, it's the poor quality testing. Ask any American cattleman or scientist and the will tell you that where there's one case, there is surely more cases of BSE to be found. You can either work diligently to prove you don't have it or work diligently to prove you're doing something about it.

Again, please explain how killing every animal in Canada to prove the absence of BSE will help the US in any way. This last case is your very own, you could have worked around the cow found in Washington, as we did the cows from England but once you find you are the country of origin of even one case, the world changes. I also ask you why you would worry about Japan, you state that you want no trade either way, just home grown feeding home.

I sure am glad I just bought a beautiful 4 yr old Simmental Cow/Calf pair and an extra 5 mos old calf. These coupled with my sheep (Cal Reds), rabbits, chickens and local deer make me just about completely independent of the USDA meat process all together.

WR my last comment to you, you have hyjacked this thread with your own agenda. The original post was about the USDA abandoning small farmers and ranchers in favor of International agribusiness. Since you are not American I don't understand why you comment on this. You are using "I recall" to blur the facts...


If it were about anything other than money then country of origin labels wouldn't be out of the question. Given a choice, Americans would choose American Beef hands down and International Agribusiness knows this.

No Thank you, You can keep your mad cows up there.

I've copied you dis-info and sent it to the Canadian Cattlemans Assoiciation, you should be getting paid.

Please state what part of my information is not factual and please show research to show such because I can back my facts, can you?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...x_050715172606

Ranchers celebrate reopening of US border to Canadian beef Fri Jul 15, 1:26 PM ET



OTTAWA (AFP) - Canada's ranchers and government were delighted that the US border will finally reopen to Canadian cattle exports after a two-year ban prompted by a case of mad cow disease.

A US federal court authorized the resumption of trade on Thursday, overturning an injunction issued in March by a Montana court in Montana on imports of cattle under 30 months old.

"We are very pleased that the court has overturned the preliminary injunction," Canada's Agriculture Minister Andy Mitchell said in a statement.

"The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the government of Canada have long argued there is no basis in science to keep the border closed.

"We will be working with the Canadian livestock industry and the USDA in the next few days to act on the decision."

Canadian ranchers are also relieved that the US court rejected fears expressed by some US counterparts that mad cow disease would spread if beef trade resumed.

A Montana judge had blocked the US agriculture department from reopening the border in March saying there was a "potentially catastrophic" risk of the death of Americans from mad cow disease and devastation of the US beef industry.

"This is another positive step on the road to normalizing cattle and ruminant trade in North America," Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen said in a statement.

"The ruling lifts some of the burden from our producers, and will benefit both our countries."

"We're still facing the hearing for the permanent injunction to be held in Montana July 27, but this recent decision is good sign", British Columbia Cattlemen's Association general manager David Borth told the National Post newspaper.

The border closure has cost the Canadian beef industry about seven billion dollars (5.8 billion US dollars) since May, 2003 when the first Canadian case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( BSE) was discovered in Alberta province, ranchers estimate.

Before the ban, the United States took 80 percent of Canadian beef exports.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050...NqBHNlYwM3Mzc-

Canadian cattle producers remaining cautious about open border BILL GRAVELAND
16 minutes ago



CALGARY (CP) - It will look more like a trickle than a flood when the live cattle trade finally resumes over the U.S. border, say industry officials who are only cautiously optimistic about the latest court decision in their favour. And once the border opens permanently, Canadian cattlemen say the live animal trade will likely be only half what it was before BSE was first discovered in Canada.

"We've seen a number of negative things in the past, and until all the roadblocks are removed and there is a credible movement of livestock, there will be an unease," Stan Eby, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said Friday.

He was commenting on Thursday's appeals court ruling in the U.S. which overturned a temporary injunction that has been keeping the border closed to live animals.

"Once all litigation is behind us, we will see a normalized movement, but that could take months."

Eby is attending the Five Nations Beef Conference along with representatives of the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Mexico being held in conjunction with the Calgary Stampede.

The cattle leaders are anxiously awaiting a July 27 hearing where Montana judge Richard Cebull, who originally sided with the protectionist group R-CALF and granted the injunction, will decide whether a permanent ban is warranted.

Jim McAdams, a cattle producer from Adkins, Texas, and president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, supports the full resumption of trade.

"We are encouraged that progress has been made," said McAdams.

"We feel this process has been moved forward and we're ready to move on."

R-CALF issued a statement saying the group remains confident that it will be able to convince Cebull to extend the injunction.

Eby said the Canadians aren't taking anything for granted before July 27.

"Until all the litigation is cleared up, we're not letting down our guard."

Even a trickle of trade right now would help, said Manitoba Premier Gary Doer.

"The more we get the open border situation stabilized . . .(and) the less equivocation, the better," Doer said in Winnipeg.

"The more we can implement the court decision, the better the background is for the court case in Montana."

United States Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns indicated Friday it will take a bit of time before the cattle start moving.

"We will move as expeditiously as possible to begin importing Canadian cattle, but we will do so very carefully to ensure the minimal-risk rule criteria are clearly met," Johanns said.

"We are co-ordinating very closely with other U.S. and Canadian government agencies to make certain the correct procedures are in place to properly inspect shipments and verify that our criteria are met," he said.

The criteria are expected to be the same ones agreed upon back in March, when the border was supposed to open. Only cattle under 30 months old will be accepted, each will have to be weighed and tagged, and the trailers that carry them will have to be sealed with a sticker that can only be broken by a federal veterinarian.

Once the border is fully reopened, it will be against a vastly different landscape because meat-packing capacity in Canada has increased over the last two years, said the executive vice-president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

"The economics of sending them south aren't nearly as strong as they were earlier," said Dennis Laycraft. "With the extra capacity here, we fully expect it will be less than half our previous level of (live cattle) exports."

Before the first Canadian case of mad cow disease was discovered in May 2003, about one million live cattle were exported annually to the U.S.

"I think it'll be long term and the sheer volume of live exports will go down because of the extra processing here in Canada," he said.

Laycraft is optimistic that once the border reopens the next step will be to expand the trade to include older cattle.

Producers are largely taking a wait-see attitude.

"Nothing's over until it's over and until the final word and some of the cattle start going across the border," said Doreen Claiter, who has a ranch northeast of Calgary.

"It was just like March 6. Up until that point you were thinking the border would open and then, Wham!"

Trent Beres from Oak Hill Farms in Melville, Sask., said it's going to be a while before things return to normal.

"It's not going to happen overnight. It's probably going to take a month or two before things get rolling again or until they decide to throw another glitch into the system," said Beres, who was showing off his purebred Simmentals at the Stampede.

Canada's trucking industry is doubtful of any quick return to normal trade.

Ed Vanee, a hauler in Fort Macleod, Alta., said he has 35 livestock trailers parked, but there are no drivers or tractors available to pull them. The livestock industry has lost half its trucks due to the BSE crisis, he said, and most drivers have left to work for the oil patch.

"It's going to be very hard, because there's no money in hauling livestock and there's lots of money in hauling oil," Vanee said.

He said some drivers might even be worried about facing hostility if they haul cattle to the U.S. side

"Up till now we've had no threats, but these R-CALF people could end up threatening the trucks if they come across the border. That's a possibility."

Thursday's decision was also praised by Prime Minister Paul Martin and David Wilkins, the new U.S. ambassador to Canada.

In Washington, Frank McKenna, Canadian ambassador to the U.S., urged R-CALF to "take a good look in the mirror" and drop its court case.

"Consumers, the Canadian and U.S. cattle industry all benefit from this decision," he said. "R-CALF's actions have brought much suffering to farmers, workers and feedlot operators in Canada and thousands who depend on the cattle industry in the United States," he said.

"In light of (Thursday's) decision, R-CALF should drop its case that it is bringing forward on July 27 and halt any further damage to the North American cattle industry."

I raise a few head of cattle here in southern MN.

Used to be the USA had a lot of packing plants, and both the USA & Canada raised a lot of cattle.

Canada whould ship their cattle to the USA live, & the packing plants would process both USA cattle & Canadian cattle. From that, much gets consumed in the USA, some in Canada, and some exported to other countries.

Worked well, the USA got more packing jobs from the deal.

That all got blown out of the water with the mad cow deal. Most countries want assurance their meat is pretty safe, and some are very fanatical about it. Understandable.

So, what happens? USA shuts down imports from Canada to try to repair our export market. But, the export market really does not open up again. However, demand for beef in the USA is strong, and with no imports from Canada, we can about use up our own supply of USA beef.

But, Canada is hung out to dry......

Living here in Minnesota, I kinda like Canada. Mostly nice folks. Country never bothers us much. We have a lot of import/ export issues with wheat, hogs, beef, etc. But that's all just turf battles, understandable, & one can see both sides.

I'd rather get along with Canada, & have them as a trading partner.

If we don't allow thier beef back into the USA ever - they are building their own packing plants, & will build more......

Then, we will have a ticked off neighbor north of us, with a lot of cheap beef stockpiled, & plants to handle shipping it out directly.....

As a beef farmer, I do _NOT_ like that future.....

So, I have always hoped things work out between us & we go back to mostly free borders & continue trade with Canada. Again, with a few issues, but nothing all that big.

The problem is, getting that whole deal working again like it used to. If Canada just gets to dump beef on the USA - and beef is pretty cheap in Canada these days - then we cattle raisers in the USA are going to be in a world of hurt for a while. If other world markets remain closed, our packing plants will have no where to go with it, & beef is going to be in trouble for 5-10 years.

I hope smarter people than me can figure that part out.

But, in the end, I think we are much better off partnering _with_ Canada as we were a few years ago, rather than making them go independent on their own. And ticked at us. We are better off together. Getting there again is the hard part. Canada needs us to be together again yesterday. And we in the USA needs it to happen real slowly.....

--->Paul

The first N.A. mad cow scare just happened to be in Canada. Do you really think they are any worse than the US?? The reason we are opening our borders to Canandian Beef again is to try and convince Japan and the like to open to us again. We are not being nice to Canada and we are not assured that Canada or the US has found all the cases of mad cow, it is all about money.

Swampthing is right on the money. The big packers have no allegiance to US cattle producers. They are multinational and want cheaper cattle, no matter what. This decision, coupled with CAFTA, will put the cattle producers out of business, but the big packers will do fine. There is no way US producers can compete with the regulations in this country. I will not buy meat from central or south america. They claim they have no BSE. Problem is, they don't test for it. They still feed bone meal and also feed composted litter out of poultry houses. They use chemicals banned in this country, and some plants get approval to sell to the US and a US inspector is only required to inspect the plant 1 day a year.

Remember that giant sucking sound Ross Perot warned us about? Well the next sound your gonna hear once CAFTA is passed is a STAMPEDE OF CATTLE FROM SOUTH AMERICA!!!! Reversing the canadian ban is opening the door.

North Dakota officials say Canadian beef imports will hurt U.S. exports

JAMES MacPHERSON

Associated Press


BISMARCK, N.D. - Reopening the border to Canadian cattle will hurt attempts to send U.S. beef abroad, North Dakota officials say.

Canadian cattle imports were banned in May 2003 after a cow from Alberta was found to have mad cow disease, which can be fatal in humans. A U.S. federal appeals court Thursday overturned the ban on cows younger than 30 months old.

"This decision makes our efforts to regain export markets a steeper hill to climb," North Dakota Farmers Union President Robert Carlson, who has a farm near Glenburn, said Friday. "You don't back up the trailer and let more cattle into the pen when you're trying to repair the fence."

Japan, historically the biggest importer of U.S beef, has refused shipments since late 2003, when the brain-wasting ailment was found in a dairy cow in Washington state. Japan now imports most of its beef from Australia.

Other countries also have refused imports of U.S. beef, including Taiwan and Egypt. Carlson said those countries were set to begin importing U.S. beef this summer, but kept the ban in place after a cow born in Texas tested positive for mad cow disease last month.

Gov. John Hoeven said a better effort is needed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reopen U.S. export markets, especially in Japan. He said a "go-slow approach" is needed for Canadian beef imports.

"It's an issue of fairness to our own producers," Hoeven said. "Cattle is very important to our country and our state. We need to make sure we are opening our export markets at the same time we're allowing Canadian imports - it's a trade principle that needs to be utilized across the board."

The state Farmers Union also called for tighter feed ban regulations and testing on Canadian cattle.

Carlson said there are U.S. beef producers willing to test cattle for mad cow disease, but the USDA won't allow it.

"They're afraid it would establish a precedent that would demand that every animal would have to be tested," Carlson said. It costs about $75 per animal to test for mad cow disease, the common name for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, he said.

U.S. cattle producers have enjoyed higher beef prices since the Canadian ban took effect. But Carlson said prices began to slide about a year ago when boxed Canadian beef was allowed to come over the border.

The addition of the live Canadian cattle imports may cause "a sharp, negative reaction" on prices, Carlson said.

State Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson also thinks beef prices will fall once Canadian cattle comes across the border.

"The USDA made a major mistake," Johnson said. "This will make it harder, not easier, to get our export market back."

He said he expects Canadian beef to enter the U.S. within a few days, but it may not have as much of an effect as some think.

"I certainly expect the impact to be negative, but I don't expect it to be enormous," Johnson said. "The price cycle had probably peaked and was heading down. This will add downward pressure on the price cycle."


http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandf...s/12145015.htm

U.S. court lifts ban on Canadian cattle
By LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press
7/16/2005

WASHINGTON - Paperwork is all that prevents truckloads of Canadian cattle from rolling into the United States now that a federal appeals court has lifted a ban related to mad cow disease, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Friday.


http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial...16/1049841.asp

Cornhusker, I don't feel you will see the amount of cattle cross the border as there were before. Alberta has set up some new plants that are quite interesting, they are already working on consent from Japan for contracts for our beef based on 100% testing rather than the testing methods both our countries are currently using. Taiwan is back on side and ready for our beef and a few other countries are back accepting or in the process of accepting our beef. I aslo feel that it was the crazy high cattle prices that causes the unwell cattle to be sold at auction rather than put down at the farm. Folks have had to pay crazy prices for brood stock so they feel the need to recoup whatever they can, even if it's only canner prices. I feel that it was a great thing that we worked directly with US, EU and Japanese vets when the initial case was found. Our liablilitly was the same as your recent case, it's hard to explain to the public how there could be such a long span between the first test and final confirmation. I also feel that with the heavy emphasis on young cattle going to slaughter and the affected trade issues leaves too many older cattle out there and that increases our odds of finding more cases. With no real way to utilize the older cows and bulls and the fear of being the rancher that owns the next case, people keep breeding, not that genetics plays any role in BSE but it sure does weaken bloodlines. Canada has discovered a method of testing that involves a no kill method that is in place, patented and ready to go. Let's hope it sees some use across North America and is used in conjunction with standard testing methods to prove it's worth to the world. It would be a godsend for both our countries.

Based on our trade agreements with Canada we have no legal (or honest) objection to having cattle come in from Canada. Also, I don't think we could have a more reliable trading partner or better neighbor.

Can you imagine ANY other country with which you'd like to share such a long border?

I doubt that testing in the US is as good as in Canada and we've got our own home grown BSE anyway. The disease probably originates autochtonously but rarely among herds but on a worldwide basis.

I don't believe we should import foodstuffs from anywhere in the world without their being good quality control and reasonable inspections BEFORE cattle, etc. leave ports. Canada already responsibly accomplishes this.

Now, if we want to ditch so-called open markets and so-called "free trade" I'm open to it. I perfer bilateral agreements but I sure we'd have them with Canada anyway. It just makes sense.

Besides Canada risked the lives of its diplomats back in Iran in 1978 to protect our own. They have been a very good neighbor to us.

:soap:

Decisions about the beef industry must be science-based and not based on fear, disinformation, and misinformed opinions. Check out the facts from reliable sources. Please do a little research.

One of the best sources of information about the beef industry in general is the NCBA-National Cattlemen's Beef Association. (www.beefusa.org). They are the primary organization that represents the interests of the thousands of ranchers large and small and generally have a good understanding on what is good for the industry including food safety. They support inports from Canada.

I seriously question statements by R-CALF (www.r-calfusa.com) and I feel that they do a great disservice to the industry and the public with their claims (I will now bite my tongue till it hurts). R-CALF claims to represent cattle producers, but check them out carefully before you buy into any of their "claims". The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation (www.agribusinessfreedom.org) is a good watchdog to balance the claims of R-CALF.

I ran across a Mad Cow Facts web site (www.mad-cow-facts.com) and though I have not completely checked out, it appears to be factual.

Dale (DH of Mary, TX)