SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.
  




From: TSS ()
Subject: Re: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995
Date: March 31, 2005 at 9:30 am PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:57:00 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
References: <4241CC7F.6090102@wt.net>


##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

IMPACTS ON US BEEF PACKERS,
WORKERS, AND THE ECONOMY OF
RESTRICTED CATTLE TRADE BETWEEN
CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES
Prepared By:
Ted Schroeder, Ph.D.
John Leatherman, Ph.D.
Agricultural Economists
Kansas State University
Prepared For:
National Cattlemens Beef Association
Canadian Cattlemens Association
American Meat Institute
Canadian Meat Council
December 28, 2004

001217.00000/35658750v1
Executive Summary
On May 20, 2003 following discovery of a cow infected with Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) in Alberta, Canada, the US imposed border restrictions
prohibiting exports of Canadian cattle and beef to the US. Prior to
this, the US
was importing more than one million head of cattle from Canada for
slaughtering
and processing. Thus, these restrictions have caused a substantial
decline in
available supply of slaughter cattle for US packers and excess supply in
Canada
where production has exceeded slaughter and processing capacity.
The impacts of these border restrictions on slaughter cattle flow were much
greater in particular regions of the US where packing plants relied
heavily upon
Canadian cattle imports for capacity utilization. Canadian imports
represented
30% of Utah, 19% of Washington, and 10% or more of Minnesota, Michigan, and
New Jersey cattle slaughter in 2002. Utah, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska,
and Pennsylvania each imported more than 100,000 head of Canadian cattle for
slaughter and processing in 2002.
The estimated value of beef and byproducts sales from Canadian slaughter
cattle
imported and processed in the US in 2002 was $900 to $956 million1
resulting in
a gross margin (beef and byproduct sales value less cattle purchase
cost) of $145-
$155 million. Utah, Washington, Minnesota, and Nebraska each had more than
$100 million in total sales and $15 million in beef and byproduct sales
margin
from Canadian slaughter cattle imported in 2002.
US beef packers lost a projected $1.7 to $1.8 billion in gross sales
revenue of
boxed beef and byproducts as a result of Canadian slaughter cattle import
restrictions from 2003 through 2004. Beef packers located in Utah,
Washington,
Minnesota, and Nebraska each lost in excess of $200 million in beef and
byproduct sales by not having Canadian slaughter cattle imports during
this time.
From May 2003 through 2004 a projected loss of beef and byproduct sales
margin
for US packers is estimated to be $270-$286 million attributable to the
border
restrictions. Assuming no substitution of other cattle in particular
states, this lost
sales margin resulted in $56 million loss in Utah; $46 million in
Washington; $39
million in Minnesota; $32 million in Nebraska; $26 million in each
Pennsylvania
and Wisconsin; and more than $10 million in each Idaho, Michigan, and
Colorado.
To estimate the broader economy-wide impacts of cattle import
restrictions, the
reduced level of meat packing activity associated with the ban was
investigated.
Two snapshots were completed, with one being the overall impact to the
US, and
the second being a case study of Washington State, one of the states most
impacted. The US analysis suggests the estimated decrease in production
could
have affected nearly 5,000 jobs and decreased US income by about $282
million
(2003$ US) annually. These estimates represent the level of income and
1 All dollars ($) US unless otherwise indicated.
001217.00000/35658750v1
employment closely associated with the level of reduction in meat packing
activity.
The more than a million head reduction in available annual slaughter
cattle supply
has resulted in underutilization of US packing facilities. Beef packer
average
costs increase dramatically when plants operate below designed slaughter and
processing capacity. As such, costs of slaughter and processing have
increased
considerably for individual plants in the US, especially those located
in areas hit
hardest by the import ban.
Canadian cattle prices have been discounted by as much as $20/cwt
relative to the
US in recent months as Canada experienced over supply of slaughter cattle
relative to packer capacity and the US has faced reduced supply. These
events are
strongly encouraging the development of plans and investment strategies to
expand Canadian beef slaughtering and processing capacity. The import
restriction has already contributed to three US cattle slaughter plant
closures and
reduced operating shifts at others. Once the Canadian investments occur, and
cattle trade between the two countries resumes, additional excess
slaughter and
processing capacity will exist. Additional US and/or Canadian
slaughterer firms
will not be able to survive, causing both long run structural
(especially size) and
location shifts in cattle slaughter, processing, and possibly cattle
production.
Such adjustments will come at substantial economic costs. ...

snip... full text ;

http://www.beefusa.org/udocs/Impact%20of%20Restricted%20Cattle%20Trade%20-%20Schroeder%20and%20Leatherman.pdf

skies becoming much clearer now about this BSE MRR policy.
seems the meat packers and the BSE MRR policy go hand in hand.
not a shred of science in it, just open the borders at all cost,
including human health. YOU can see below if you go back in
time, exactly what is happening here now, like a book.
JUST whom is funding this though?

TSS

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:

> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
>
> STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995
>
> snip...
>
> To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed
> compounders.
>
> To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through
> adverse publicity.
>
> To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by
> maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw
> material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any
> changes which may be required.
>
> snip...
>
> THE FUTURE
>
> 4..........
>
> MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at
> handling potentially explosive issues.
>
> 5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which
> contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive
> test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly
> supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible.
>
> 6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed
> compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct
> linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases,
> the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ...
>
> SEE full text ;
>
> http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf
>
> TSS
>
> ######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
> ##########
>
>

######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########






Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: