Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

I've been staying out of the recent fray about COOL being waged by NCBA, AMI, R-Calf, and USCA. I've been really busy and haven't wanted to deal with the situation. The law is here and I have to pay the costs of it, so why argue about it. R-Calf and USCA are very aggressively pushing for it and AMI doesn't want it and NCBA is lukewarm about the situation. Google around and you can find out about the battle going on if you really want. What I wanted to do was talk about my take on this situation.

If you've read here very long you will know I reluctantly support COOL. I support it because the public has the right to know where their meat comes from, but reluctantly because it is going to cost the producers and consumers of beef a lot of money to do this. The consumer will be paying more for the information provided and I as a producer will relieve less money for my critters and have to provide some amount of ungodly amount of information to the supply chain to prove the cattle were born in the US. These in my opinion are fact.

I know people will say that it will bring me money. They base this on the fact that consumers in surveys say that if they had the choice, they would buy US Beef. Sorry,I don't buy it. What consumers do and what they say they will do can be two different things. Fine they say they would purchase US Beef, but what would they do when confronted with the situation? Say you had some consumers in your average Wally World looking at the meat counter at some ground beef. Half of the ground beef prominently displays a label, US Beef, and the other half displays a label of Country Of Origin, Unknown. Now these consumers look at the beef and there is absolutely no visual difference in the beef, they look the same to the untrained lay persons eye. Then they look at the price. They see the price of the US Beef is say 20 cents a pound more expensive than the Unknown beef. This is a reasonable number for cost due to the massive amounts of paperwork that is going to be required by the government or meat packing plants for COOL. So here we have consumers faced with meat that looks the same to them but that has a significant price difference do to a little sign that says where it comes from. What would the majority of US Consumers do when faced with this situation? You got it, buy the cheaper product. Remember, these are the people shopping at Wally World where price is way more important than quality and that equals a lot of people in the US. I believe that the large majority of consumers will base their buying decisions this way. So it will be no significant help to the US Beef industry and just make a paperwork nightmare for us.

Let's go beyond on the example I gave you. Let's place our selves in a higher end grocery store, in this area that would be an Albertsons. They usually have higher quality produce, meat and seafood. So, with COOL in effect you go up to the dispaly of chicken looking to buy a chicken with the government approved, Product of the US on it. You look around and can not find a single label proclaiming this. Why is this? That's simple, the COOL law we are talking about exempts chickens in the US. So all the people out there claiming cool will make our food supply safer, how does this do that when the largest source of protein in Americans diet is exempt from the law? Can anyone please answer this? I know that not much chicken is imported but why are we exempting the really big agri-business product, chickens? So beef and pork producers are going to have a burdensome paperwork requirements because of COOL yet chickens are exempt. Hell, it looks to me like the chicken industry did this to us to drive the cost of their main competitors products up and make chicken price seem relatively cheap to the average consumer. How's that for a conspiracy theory?

Let me ask you another question. What percentage of meat consumed in the US is bought over the meat counter? I don't have the time nor energy to find this out but I guarantee you it is less than 50%. The large majority of meat consumed in the US is in the food service industry. Fast food, restaurant, cafeterias and so on. Is this meat required to be labeled for COOL? NO!!! So they can use any meat they want and have no COOL requirements at all. Again I ask you people, how does this make our meat supply safer? It doesn't.

Everybody here knows my problem with NAIS. They tell us NAIS will stop a disease. I've made my sticking point on this all along, an ear tag never stopped a disease and this is true. The same thing goes here. How does a law that exempts the biggest source of protein in the American's diet and exempts the largest area of consumption of meat in the American diet, make the food supply in the US safer? It doesn't. It just cripples the industries they are requiring to do it. This whole COOL argument is based on making the food supply safer which it doesn't. I will add, just because meat is from the US, doesn't automatically make it safer. It can still get contaminated at the slaughter plant with e-coli or other things so a US label in and of itself does not make the food supply safer. People are operating under a false assumption here.

I will again say at this point, the American consumer has the right to know this information. As long as this information is available at all levels on all products I will remove my reluctance from my support for COOL. This requires a change in the law which I have not heard anything about. All the arguments going on is about the beef industry doing this and how good, or bad it is. I even note that the Government has opened the rule making for COOL up again, comments can be left here (I never could get this site to work with Firefox, only internet explorer). This won't change the law. Only Congress can do that. All we can do is comment on the rule making for the law and maybe the record keeping requirements for it.

When it comes to record keeping for COOL I have a question. Why is it that US producers are going to be burdened with all the paperwork for COOL and imports are not? Since this is the US why not require all meat coming over our borders be permanently marked as foreign and if it doesn't have this mark, assume it is US. No costly paperwork requirements and little to no cost to consumers at the end of the supply line. Instead of there being a 20 cent difference in my example of earlier, there would be at most 1 or 2 cent price difference in the price of the US product and the non US product. Then I can see consumers buying US Beef willingly. The way it is now, it's only going to hurt me and consumers.

I hope I have explained my stance on COOL succinctly. In brief, it will not help the beef industry, will cost the consumer more and will not perform its primary function of making our meat supply safer, but is the right thing to do. How's that for screwed up?

Knowledge is power. Francis Bacon

Anybody who has read me for a while knows I talk about R-Calf USA sometimes. I have also been following the recent upset in the R-calf ranks which has led a large number of the founding members to leave the organization and start another new organization, United States Cattleman's Association (USCA). A while ago the USCA website was up and running but there was not much information on it and there still isn't. I have been waiting but nothing appeared to be happening.

Finally I have found something, an interview with Jon Wooster, the head of USCA. It's an interesting interview if you are at all interested in this new organization. A couple of things that really struck me were the information on the lobbyists they have retained in Washington and the comments on animal id and COOL being linked.

R-Calf all but has no representation in Washington. That was what caused the split in R-Calf. Militant R-calf members wanted to only use litigation to advance their cause and the new leaders of USCA wanted to present their ideas to Congress through Lobbyists to get the point across without expensive and fruitless litigation. Knowing that USCA is forging ahead with representation in Washington is nice to know.

Now the answer to linking animal id and COOL was to say the least, sparse. Jon points out some advantages of COOL and then tells how producers are opposed to NAIS but he doesn't give any solutions to the dilemma. I feel he needs to offer Congress alternatives to linking the two together. How can COOL be run that doesn't require animal id? That needs to be answered instead of just pointing out nobody likes NAIS.

It really looks like USCA is taking off. I am glad to see this. As I have stated, I was never sure about the R-Calf method of using the courts to try to solve their problems. Representation in Washington is more effective and cheaper in the long run. I will keep an eye on the USCA to see what happens. It looks promising.

What's important is promising something to the people, not actually keeping those promises. The people have always lived on hope alone. Hermann Broch

March 12, 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

The implosion of R-CALF occurred in large part as a result of the most ferocious power grabs I have ever witnessed. The effort started more than a year ago with a concerted effort to rid the organization of Leo McDonnell, myself, and others. A letter written to Chuck Kiker, the President of R-CALF, and sent by Bill Bullard says that Bullard was having trouble working with the former President (Leo McDonnell) since Leo wanted to work on other issues rather than the litigation effort alone. Bullard mentions that this “inherent conflict worsened in 2006.” Thus the stage was being set for Leo’s expulsion. I fought hard to prevent this outcome, but in the end I failed and for that I apologize.

The effort continued to oust the founders since many of us felt that though it is very important to prevent the importation of Canadian cattle, and particularly cattle over 30 months of age, continued litigation was not the proper course. We lost the original case and all knew further litigation had only a remote chance of succeeding. Consequently, I felt asking producers to continue to fund a losing effort without disclosing the long odds of success was immoral. Instead, many of us thought trying the case in the arena of public opinion and in the Congress was the proper course and could be done at far less expense. Producers need to be told that further litigation will cost over a million dollars and offers only a glimpse of hope. This policy debate, however, was only incidental to the power grab that occurred on February 8. It was on this date that Chuck Kiker and Leo were expelled.

The full letter of resignation was sent to Swift Horses and can be found here. It is really sad to see that the whole founding group of R-Calf has now resigned. I felt the move to a lobbying group in Washington was the right thing to do and continuing to litigate was getting them nowhere. Denis explains all this in the letter very well and R-Calf members need to sit up and pay attention.

Dennis alludes to a new organization being formed called UNITED STATES CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION to carry on where R-Calf has left off in Washington. I have no more information on this organization but I am interested to see some information come out about it. Hopefully Swift Horses will have more information as it comes along.

Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal. Arthur Schopenhauer

I see that the US and Canada might get `Controlled-Risk' Status for BSE. The article claims this status might help us get some of our lost export markets back. I'm not so sure. South Korea has indicated that no mater what status we get from OIE, they are going to continue their official/unofficial trade barrier to our beef. Maybe in other markets, like Japan, this will help since the change in status indicates meat from animals under 30 months of age is safe but Japan has arbitrarily set 20 months as their standard to prevent to much US beef from coming in, but I doubt it.

I wonder how this move will affect R-Calf's continued pursuit of shutting down the US border to Canadian beef? They are always quoting OIE statistics to support their position that BSE has compromised their herds and the cattle need to be held out, but if the OIE gives them `Controlled-Risk' Status, their objections will kind of become hypocritical. With the meltdown at R-Calf though they will probable just ignore this and move on as if it never happened. Bulldoze ahead no matter what. Quite the philosophy.

Do not trust all men, but trust men of worth; the former course is silly, the latter a mark of prudence. Democritus

I've always been a somewhat supporter of R-Calf. They do some very good things and then they turn around and do other things I don't understand. It is almost like they have a split personality.

My understanding of R-Calf was they were going to use their growing influence among producers to become a influence in Washington D.C. to support cattle producers. Yet over and over again they seem to fail to do this and revel in bringing lawsuits against the government over one thing or another. I never could figure out why the insisted on being so litigious. Getting the respectability to sit at the tables with the big boys to support cattle producers is not going to happen by being litigious.

I now have some answers to this. Swift Horses

Over the last few months, R-CALF USA has been an organization in turmoil. As members, we have been in limbo, trying to understand what circumstances led to a division within our organization and what the recent change in leadership means for the future of R-CALF. But as we searched for honest answers to our questions, we were confronted with half-truths, rumor, speculation, false accusations and downright lies.

This website, Swift Horses, was created to counter the misinformation and provide the truth to the members who have committed their time, money and energy to protecting the future of independent cattle producers. We endeavor to make the facts accessible to you by providing a meticulous and factual timeline of events corroborated by verbatim documents. We will continue to update the timeline as events unfold.

The need to establish this site is regrettable, but the grassroots members who make up the core of R-CALF USA deserve access to the most complete and accurate information available. We believe that every member should consider this timeline and the supporting materials carefully as they decide whether or not R-CALF USA is an organization that they can continue to support.

They also have started a blog, Swift Horses.

I will really be interested to see where this leads. Maybe this information coming out will lead to changes in R-Calf. Information on what is happening in R-Calf will help those producers out there who care where the organization is going take it back. Maybe this will lead in the direction R-calf needs to go. We can only hope. The light of day shining on things is sometimes helpful. Let the light shine.

Hat tip to Matt Singer for this one.

Information, knowledge, is power. If you can control information, you can control people. Tom Clancy

R-Calf has a press release out that gives seven easy steps to implement COOL.

USDA can immediately implement COOL for beef by:

*Allowing packers to indicate beef has come from imported animals without having to specify each further production step that may have occurred in the United States.;
*Allowing packers to label blended products with a list of the countries of origin that may be contained in the product, rather than a definitive list of each country;
*Allowing retailers to rely on pre-labeled products for origin claims;
*Allowing meat packers to rely on country markings that already are applied to cattle imports in order to determine origin;
*Eliminating unnecessary and duplicative record-keeping requirements regarding chain of custody and separate tracking during the production process to allow packers and retailers to rely on documents they already keep in the ordinary course of business;
*Reducing the record retention requirement from two years to one year; and
*Specifying that producers and retailers do not need to demand affidavits or third party verification audits of suppliers in order to adequately substantiate origin claims.

Now these things make sense. Some of the requirements the Government dreamed up for COOL were really stupid and I feel designed to make COOL fail. These recommendations by R-Calf kill most of the problems the USDA dreamed up for COOL and Congress needs to implement them. This would really save the program and reduce the expense of the program to a manageable level. I heartily support them.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think COOL will be a major factor in the beef markets in the long run since beef is a commodity item, but it is the right thing to do. Almost everything else gets to bo labeled as to where it comes from, why isn't beef allowed this luxury?

The really good idea is always traceable back quite a long way, often to a not very good idea which sparked off another idea that was only slightly better, which somebody else misunderstood in such a way that they then said something which was really rather interesting. John Cleese

Animal Health Committee Asks USDA to Maintain Brucellosis Surveillance Program

Upon referral of a resolution from its Animal Health Committee – chaired by Missouri veterinarian Max Thornsberry – the R-CALF USA Board of Directors has adopted interim policy dealing with the continuance of the Brucellosis surveillance program. The organization also sent a formal letter to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns that outlines the organization’s position.

“There is a significant problem with Brucellosis in elk and bison – particularly in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming – which is becoming a problem for independent cattle producers in those states, and potentially in adjacent states,” said Thornsberry, who also serves as R-CALF USA Vice President and Region VI Director.

The first part of the Animal Health Committee’s resolution states that R-CALF USA supports Brucellosis testing of bison in the Yellowstone Ecosystem in an effort to eradicate the disease, but Thornsberry emphasized brucellosis is not just an issue for Western states. On a recent trip to Central America, Thornsberry discovered that Brucellosis continues to be a problem for the cattle industry in those countries, as local veterinarians estimated the incidence of the disease to be above 10 percent of the population of breeding-age cattle in some areas.

I'm glad to see R-Calf taking a stand on this issue. There is a problem with Brucellosis in the elk and Bison population of Yellowstone Park and the Federal Government needs to get a handle on the issue. They require the States to control Brucellosis in their boundaries, it is only fair that the Feds control Brucellosis in their boundaries. Now lets all watch the Feds ignore the situation, they seem to be good at that.

When you take a stand out of deep conviction, people know. They may not even agree, but they ask, 'Do I want someone who is willing to take a hard stand and someone I can trust to do that when the chips are down?' They want that. Barbara Boxer

Jolley: The Checkoff – Two Decades Of Sleeping At The Financial Switch

Beef industry leaders met in Kansas City this summer to take a fresh look at the Beef Checkoff program. The 17-member industry-wide Beef Checkoff Task Force established their mission this way: “to review, study and recommend enhancements to the Beef Act and Order for the purpose of strengthening the Checkoff for the common good of the beef industry.”

Noble charge.

One of the four points that came out of their meetings immediately stirred controversy. Although the decision to suggest an adjustment in the checkoff rate was long overdue, the size of their request was like a captive bolt to the forehead of an unsuspecting industry. Staggering to cattlemen everywhere.

The raising of the checkoff fee is very controversial to a lot of people. There are many cattle producers who disagree with the checkoff the way it is let alone if they raise the levy. The way I understand it the producers have to vote on this idea to raise the checkoff. I'm waiting for the vote so I can vote against it. How the vote will turn out I don't know. The northern states tend to oppose it more than the southern states who tend to like it. Since the producers in the south tend to be smaller than northern producers they tend to carry the day.

Of course the NCBA likes the idea and R-CALF hates the idea. I think the industry leaders are being a bunch of Lemmings. Yes Lemmings. Australia just implemented a raise in the Checkoff rate so they think we in the US need to do the same. This is the same logic the industry is using on NAIS, Australia has it so we need to.

I think we need leaders in our industry, not Lemmings that always want to do what the Australian community is doing. American cattle producers know what they are doing and raise some of the finest beef in the world. Why do we need to copy Australia? We don't, that's what our industry needs to think about and quit following Australia's example. I am not saying Australia is wrong for themselves, just that we don't need to follow them. Make our own way.

To Follow by faith alone is to follow blindly. Benjamin Franklin

I think Leo McDonnell, Past President of R-CALF USA, needs to get his story straight. At a recent get together in Mississippi he told the gathered crowd;

“R-CALF USA does not support the proposed Animal ID system,” he said. “It is hypocrisy to put such a costly and burdensome regulation on the U.S. industry while we lower our import standards to countries that could expose us to higher disease risk.”

Now I've always been disappointed with R-CALF for there lackluster attitude towards NAIS. I thought maybe Leo's statement was a shift from their position to a stronger negative position of this issue. I was wrong. Here we find R-CALF's position on NAIS.

R-CALF USA is committed to working with Congress and the Administration on animal identification to ensure:

The industry is fully informed of the expected costs and benefits of any proposed system;

Producer input is taken into account and weighed fully before any mandatory system is created;

If a single tracking database is created and submissions of producer data are mandated, the system is exclusively managed by the federal government in coordination with state and tribal animal health authorities; and

Any national identification system builds upon the success of existing animal identification systems, and there should be strong support for such systems and pilot projects that comply with national standards and protect producer data.

(emphasis added are mine)

What Leo said, and the above position don't jive. He needs to get his story straight. R-CALF's position is to work with the USDA to ensure before the mandatory system is in place that producers are aware of the costs and can publicly gripe about it. They also want the government to handle all the data, where it can be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests by anybody, and that existing methods of identification be taken into account. How in the hell does this position match the statement "R-CALF USA does not support the proposed Animal ID system?"

IT DOESN'T!!!!!

Like I said, R-Calf needs to take a strong position of opposition on this matter and they are dropping the ball. Too bad, they could have really increased their membership with a firm stance on this one. There is a lot of opposition to this out there to capitalize on. R-CALF should be taking advantage of it.

Leo, maybe you need to review the position on NAIS you proposed, you are being a typical politician and talking out of both sides of your mouth.

False words do not bring forth fruit. Sophocles

Cross Posted to No Mandatory Animal ID

Canada reports new case of mad cow disease

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed on Wednesday a new case of mad cow disease in Alberta.

It is Canada's fifth case in 2006 and the eighth since 2003, when the disease was first found in this country, officials said.

I continue to find it interesting that Canada has such a problem with BSE and in the US, with a much larger herd, we have only had a couple of native cases. I still think COOL here in the US would help with this situation. Let the consumer decide if they want to limit their beef consumption to one country or just buy meat from wherever. I personally think the typical consumer only cares about the price of beef and not considerations such as where it's from or disease that they will most likely not contract.

This will sure get RCALF going again on this BSE/Canada issue again. Let's check it out.

BSE Confirmed in Alberta Beef Cow

Today the Canadian government confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in another Alberta beef cow, making this the ninth BSE-positive animal of Canadian origin.

“R-CALF has been saying all along that it appears the prevalence of BSE in Canada is a lot higher than anybody anticipated,” said R-CALF USA President and Region V Director Chuck Kiker. “This raises a tremendous amount of concern, especially in light of the fact that it does not appear Canada’s meat and bone meal ban, or feed ban, was effective.

“With numerous cases of BSE in older Canadian cows, and the four cases in animals born after Canada’s 1997 feed ban, Canada could continue to discover BSE cases for years to come,” he added.

I sure wish R-CALF would put this kind of effort into stopping our government from forcing NAIS down our throats or enforcing the Packers and Stockyards act to prevent the meat packers from screwing the farmers and ranchers. But they feel the BSE/Canada issue trumps all. Awful short sighted if you ask me. They need to open their eyes to other problems.

We must open our eyes and see that modern civilization has become so complex and the lives of civilized men so interwoven with the lives of other men in other countries as to make it impossible to be in this world and out of it. Franklin D. Roosevelt

Cattle groups pleased with halt of import plan

Officials with leading cattle industry groups in the state said they were pleased with the federal government's plan to halt, for now, an effort to expand cattle and beef trade with Canada because of mad cow disease. A leader of one of those groups, however, said the move doesn't go far enough.

Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, said the U.S. Department of Agriculture should suspend all beef and cattle trade with Canada until more is known about the extent of the disease in the Canadian cattle herd and officials reassess the risk continued trade poses to the U.S. cattle industry and to consumers.

The USDA pulled it's plan for allowing cattle over 30 months of age access to the US after the latest BSE case in Canada. R-Calf was sure pleased but want more imports stopped. Other cattle groups are a little more moderate and are glad to see this and comfortable with letting younger cattle in.

What really surprised me was this:

The executive vice president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Dennis Laycraft, said the decision appeared to be a matter simply of "due diligence." He expected the investigative work to be completed within weeks.

So The Canadian Cattleman's Association isn't even surprised or worried about this. Normally they are screaming and yelling about such a thing but not this time.

Personally I think it is a good move. My question still remains in the air. Why does Canada have such a greater prevalence of BSE in a much smaller total herd than the US. I would really like to know this.

Precaution is better than cure. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Well R-calf is at it again.

Canada’s Latest BSE Case in Youngest Animal Yet; USDA Must Rescind Final Rule

Today the Canadian government confirmed its fourth positive case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) detected this year, Canada’s ninth BSE case overall. Canada’s first case was detected in 1993 in a cow imported from the United Kingdom (UK). Eight other cases followed in Canadian-origin cattle, including the December 2003 case in Washington state that was detected in a cow imported from Canada.

This latest case occurred in a 50-month-old cow, the youngest Canadian animal yet – barely over 4 years old – that was born well after 1997 when Canada implemented its feed ban. Unfortunately, this case like most others found in Canada came from the Province of Alberta, the source of a large percentage of the cattle and beef products imported into the U.S. from Canada.

“Canada has had a high level of BSE infectivity circulating within its domestic cattle herd as recently as 2002,” said R-CALF USA President and Region V Director Chuck Kiker. “BSE has now been confirmed in eight other Canadian-born cattle from a sample of only about 115,000 Canadian cattle tested since 2003, which represents one positive case detected for every 15,000 cattle tested, versus one case per 400,000 U.S.-origin cattle tested.”

Canadian cattle producers always get mad at me for pointing out R-Calf's position but it's something that's going on and it's an opinion that needs to see the light of day. Any more I don't know the right position on this at all. In a way I harken back to my question "why does Canada have such a higher incidence of BSE than the US?" Linda thinks we have as many in the US but just hide the evidence. I have never heard this claim before so can't really comment on it. A couple of more quotes form R-Calf's press release.

4. USDA assumed Canada’s BSE problem is not comparable to the BSE problem experienced in European countries – countries USDA considered to have “widespread exposure” to BSE.

“Canada’s ratio of positive BSE cases under its enhanced testing program over the past 12 months is now 0.72 cases per 10,000 cattle tested, higher than the 12-month ratios reported by many EU countries for 2004, which is the latest data available,” said Kiker. “A comparison of Canada’s BSE statistics with data compiled for each EU member shows Canada’s ratio of BSE-positive cattle for the past 12 months is now comparable to, or higher than, the 2004 ratios reported by 18 of the 25 EU members, including the Czech Republic, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, and the Netherlands – all countries with known BSE problems.”

5. USDA implicitly assumed Canada’s BSE risk profile is no different from that of the U.S.

“That assumption was never logical because Canada had confirmed BSE in a cow imported from the UK in 1993, and apparently slaughtered and rendered numerous other cattle from the same UK farm,” Kiker commented. “But clearly, this assumption by USDA is even more wrong now, with Canada’s detection of BSE in four cattle born after its feed ban, versus the only two cases in the U.S., which were in cattle born long before our domestic feed ban.

R-Calf's solution to these problems is to just ban all Canadian Cattle. Like I said, at this point I don't know. It will be interesting to see what happens but I don't think R-Calf has enough prestige or pull with the USDA or the Federal Government to get anything accomplished. The USDA/meat packers perceive their positions to be radical so they will never be acted upon. There points are interesting though but I sometimes wonder about taking such a radical position about BSE and export. What if all of a sudden there is a bunch of BSE cases found in the US? Then there position will backfire on them. Wouldn't that be funny.

Did anyone feel like this might backfire? Jimmy Carl Black