frenchie
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Nice try Sand man. keep telling yourself that . More Bull from BuLLard..your actions speak louder than words. I ,ll see you boys to the doors of hell for your deeds.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
‘Exorbitant’ CAN packer profits
- Thread starter Econ101
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Nice try Sand man. keep telling yourself that . More Bull from BuLLard..your actions speak louder than words. I ,ll see you boys to the doors of hell for your deeds.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandhusker: "Bullard has said the exact words "The Canadians are not our enemies"."
Yeh and Bill Clinton said the exact words "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".
What Bullard says and 5 cents will buy you a cup of coffee at Wall Drug.
I am more compelled to believe the CANADIAN DUMPING CASE prior to this whole BSE fiasco.
Still trying to cleanse that filthy conscience of yours huh Sandbag?
Did this study include the lost value of SRM removal to UTM cattle?
Looks like some whiny liberal Canadian packer victim wants to get reelected.
R-CULT stuck it to the Canadian producer and nothing Sandbag can say will change that.
~SH~
Jason
Well-known member
The question still remains how would Canadian producers have been better off without Cargill and Lakeside killing at full capacity?
Let them close up. Send them home, then what?
How would Canadian cattle have gotten killed and shipped to the US as boxed product?
If we use the 4.4 million head killed that fedup2 quotes, we're down to $139 per head profit in 2004 IF THE $600 MILLION FIGURE IS ACCURATE, FOR ALL CANADIAN PACKERS.
Next question is does the 4.4 million head slaughtered in 2004 include all OTM cattle as well as UTM cattle?
Looks like we're heading closer to Agman's estimated profit of $65 US per head. (exchange then was about 25%, so $75-$80 CDN)
Feedlots lost on their initial inventory when BSE hit they adjusted their prices for feeders to what they were getting from the packers.
So producers paid for the extra margin the packers made, a herd that sells 100 calves lost that $35-$40 per head, or $3-4000.
With Randy's herd of less than 100 cows, he said he got a subsidy cheque for more than $3000 on 1 program.
Let them close up. Send them home, then what?
How would Canadian cattle have gotten killed and shipped to the US as boxed product?
If we use the 4.4 million head killed that fedup2 quotes, we're down to $139 per head profit in 2004 IF THE $600 MILLION FIGURE IS ACCURATE, FOR ALL CANADIAN PACKERS.
Next question is does the 4.4 million head slaughtered in 2004 include all OTM cattle as well as UTM cattle?
Looks like we're heading closer to Agman's estimated profit of $65 US per head. (exchange then was about 25%, so $75-$80 CDN)
Feedlots lost on their initial inventory when BSE hit they adjusted their prices for feeders to what they were getting from the packers.
So producers paid for the extra margin the packers made, a herd that sells 100 calves lost that $35-$40 per head, or $3-4000.
With Randy's herd of less than 100 cows, he said he got a subsidy cheque for more than $3000 on 1 program.
rkaiser
Well-known member
Well Mr. math. You have no idea how many cattle I own. I am a private company, just like Cargill. How many do you own Jason? Don't see your name on the list at all. Do you simply have a herd of goats?
I'm sick of discussing these numbers with blind followers like yourself.
I always like your first excuse to let the packers rape the producers of Canada.
Jason
As if that would have happened in a million years. It's all about money meathead. Tell me why the border was opened to boxed beef? And please leave your "Mr. science" hat out of the discussion.
I'm sick of discussing these numbers with blind followers like yourself.
I always like your first excuse to let the packers rape the producers of Canada.
Jason
Let them close up. Send them home, then what?
As if that would have happened in a million years. It's all about money meathead. Tell me why the border was opened to boxed beef? And please leave your "Mr. science" hat out of the discussion.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "R-CULT stuck it to the Canadian producer and nothing Sandbag can say will change that"
Canada's problems were because of the precarious position they put themselves in by being dependant on another country to process and eat their over-production of beef - a position that they are still in even more so. This all came to roost when the USDA closed the border to them. Those are facts, not the opinions of a contrary hyper-biased windbag.
You like to think of yourself as a great ally of the Canadian producer and discoverer of the truth, yet you cover-up the true reasons for their quandry by deflecting the blame. :roll:
You're a dandy.
Canada's problems were because of the precarious position they put themselves in by being dependant on another country to process and eat their over-production of beef - a position that they are still in even more so. This all came to roost when the USDA closed the border to them. Those are facts, not the opinions of a contrary hyper-biased windbag.
You like to think of yourself as a great ally of the Canadian producer and discoverer of the truth, yet you cover-up the true reasons for their quandry by deflecting the blame. :roll:
You're a dandy.
Jason
Well-known member
rkaiser said:JasonLet them close up. Send them home, then what?
As if that would have happened in a million years. It's all about money meathead. Tell me why the border was opened to boxed beef? And please leave your "Mr. science" hat out of the discussion.
Everything is always about money Randy. If I don't make money I go out of business. Same for the packers, same for you.
Let's assume you are right and Tyson/Cargill influenced the USDA into opening the border to boxed beef.
Did that move help or hurt the Canadian cattleman? How would it have been a benefit to our bottom line by having no outlet for that extra boxed beef?
The packers slowed the kill down to 30% of normal and were supplying the Canadian market. If the border had stayed closed it would be logical to assume that 70% of producers, and packers would be out of business.
I'm sorry I use logic, math and science to figure out what happens instead of blind emotion. I'll try to be more irrational for you in the future.
rkaiser
Well-known member
Logic Jason, you don't even know what the word means.
Use some logic for once. And tell me how the border opened so quickly to boxed beef?
Use some logic and tell me that the USDA would have stood by and watched Canadian producers burn up perfectly good beef cattle that had tremendous profit potential for them and their American mutinational packers.
Did the move help the Canadian producer. Of course it did Jason. Now you tell me Jason. Did it help Cargill and Tyson? I say it helped them a hell of a whole lot more than it helped producers.
Didn't answer my question about how many sheep you own Jason. You seem to think you know all about me, what about you?
Use some logic for once. And tell me how the border opened so quickly to boxed beef?
Use some logic and tell me that the USDA would have stood by and watched Canadian producers burn up perfectly good beef cattle that had tremendous profit potential for them and their American mutinational packers.
Did the move help the Canadian producer. Of course it did Jason. Now you tell me Jason. Did it help Cargill and Tyson? I say it helped them a hell of a whole lot more than it helped producers.
Didn't answer my question about how many sheep you own Jason. You seem to think you know all about me, what about you?
Jason
Well-known member
rkaiser said:Logic Jason, you don't even know what the word means.
Use some logic for once. And tell me how the border opened so quickly to boxed beef?
Use some logic and tell me that the USDA would have stood by and watched Canadian producers burn up perfectly good beef cattle that had tremendous profit potential for them and their American mutinational packers.
Did the move help the Canadian producer. Of course it did Jason. Now you tell me Jason. Did it help Cargill and Tyson? I say it helped them a hell of a whole lot more than it helped producers.
Didn't answer my question about how many sheep you own Jason. You seem to think you know all about me, what about you?
Logic: The science concerned with the principles of valid reasoning and correct inference, either deductive or inductive.
I think it is logical that the USDA saw a very serious situation with the biggest trading partner of the US.
I think it is logical the USDA (perhaps with input from the feds in the US and / or Canada) looked for a way to assist Canada and Canadian producers, and American consumers, and found that way through boxed beef.
I think it is logical that Tyson/Cargill were looking for support to have the border opened to all exports, live cattle included, as they needed those cattle for their US plants. I also think it is logical to assume other Canadian packers were supportive of this as well.
We both agree that the opening to boxed beef helped producers, keeping most of us in business.
You state that you believe there was never any serious possibility of Tyson or Cargill shutting their doors up here.
Based on that assumption, Tyson/Cargill and all other Canadian based packers made money but producers were saved. Who did it help more? Profited one group and saved another group. There is no chance of profit if you are not in business.
The logical conclusion based on the above statements would be that it helped producers more.
Your original question was about goats, now it is sheep, I own neither. Never have, never will.
I own about 3 times the size of the average Canadian herd.
But damnit to be more emotional I just have to cuss those damn big packers. Them buggers buy the cattle and make money off us. How dare they! I wish they would lose their shirts and go broke so we have no place to sell our cattle.
Wait maybe emotion goes too far.
YoungFarmer
Active member
Sandhusker
Are not all exporters in any business "over producers". Is that not how the export free trade game works. Canada will always produce more livestock and grains than it will ever consume simply built on its large agricultural land base and small population. I make no appologies for my cattle business relying on the American market. I trade beef in return for supporting the American economy by importing all of our farm equipment be it Green tractors, combines etc. Blaming Canadian ranchers for overproducing is like telling American corn farmers to stop "over producing corn" and exporting it to Canadian hog producers. It's called the North American Free Trade Agreement. If you don't like a small amount of Canadian beef than go travel to the John Deer factories and tell the employees some off them should not have employment there because you think the American border should be closed to canadian cattle. If you don't like NAFTA then just come out and say it but your "over producing arguement" comes Fifteen years too late. If you don't like it than have the American government send me a cheque to buy me out and I will promise to never produce cattle again.
This arguement hold no water.Canada's problems were because of the precarious position they put themselves in by being dependant on another country to process and eat their over-production of beef - a position that they are still in even more so. This all came to roost when the USDA closed the border to them. Those are facts, not the opinions of a contrary hyper-biased windbag.
Are not all exporters in any business "over producers". Is that not how the export free trade game works. Canada will always produce more livestock and grains than it will ever consume simply built on its large agricultural land base and small population. I make no appologies for my cattle business relying on the American market. I trade beef in return for supporting the American economy by importing all of our farm equipment be it Green tractors, combines etc. Blaming Canadian ranchers for overproducing is like telling American corn farmers to stop "over producing corn" and exporting it to Canadian hog producers. It's called the North American Free Trade Agreement. If you don't like a small amount of Canadian beef than go travel to the John Deer factories and tell the employees some off them should not have employment there because you think the American border should be closed to canadian cattle. If you don't like NAFTA then just come out and say it but your "over producing arguement" comes Fifteen years too late. If you don't like it than have the American government send me a cheque to buy me out and I will promise to never produce cattle again.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
YoungFarmer said:SandhuskerThis arguement hold no water.Canada's problems were because of the precarious position they put themselves in by being dependant on another country to process and eat their over-production of beef - a position that they are still in even more so. This all came to roost when the USDA closed the border to them. Those are facts, not the opinions of a contrary hyper-biased windbag.
Are not all exporters in any business "over producers". Is that not how the export free trade game works. Canada will always produce more livestock and grains than it will ever consume simply built on its large agricultural land base and small population. I make no appologies for my cattle business relying on the American market. I trade beef in return for supporting the American economy by importing all of our farm equipment be it Green tractors, combines etc. Blaming Canadian ranchers for overproducing is like telling American corn farmers to stop "over producing corn" and exporting it to Canadian hog producers. It's called the North American Free Trade Agreement. If you don't like a small amount of Canadian beef than go travel to the John Deer factories and tell the employees some off them should not have employment there because you think the American border should be closed to canadian cattle. If you don't like NAFTA then just come out and say it but your "over producing arguement" comes Fifteen years too late. If you don't like it than have the American government send me a cheque to buy me out and I will promise to never produce cattle again.
I'll allow your point on exporters generally dealing with overproduction. However, the fact remains that when you depend upon others, no matter what the dependence is, you are vulnerable. The more dependent you are, the more vulnerable you are.
Sandhusker, one question or two. How long has the Canadian cattle/beef industry been dependent on the US? Does it coincide with any shortages of supply within the US domestic market?
In other words, are you importing what you need to meet demand? Why did the US ranchers not pick up the slack in production?
In other words, are you importing what you need to meet demand? Why did the US ranchers not pick up the slack in production?
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Murgen said:Sandhusker, one question or two. How long has the Canadian cattle/beef industry been dependent on the US? Does it coincide with any shortages of supply within the US domestic market?
In other words, are you importing what you need to meet demand? Why did the US ranchers not pick up the slack in production?
I can't answer your first question - I'm not a historian of the Canadian beef industry. I would say that the day a closure of the border like we had would cause you serious hurt is the day you became dependant on us.
Like anything else, there are probably a few reasons why US ranchers did not "pick up the slack". My first guess is economics. Profitable businesses and profitable industries generally expand - if there is no expansion there is probably a problem with the checkbook.
