“This is why producers need R-CALF

[mrj]

Oldtimer Wrote "Does it not bother Canadians that their industry survives only thru FRAUD? Riding on the backs of what the US producer built--Talk about cowardly and lying!!!!!!"

I don't loose any sleep over it because I know all the Green tractors and Combines sitting in our farm yard were made in the U.S.A. Knowing that these farm implements supported the US economy and provided Jobs to US workers. Perhaps these employees at John Deere should be bothered that they are working and surviving through fraud. Riding on the industry Versatile tractors has built in Canada even though I know the green ones were made in the US.

Bullard "An effective strategy to reduce this risk is for meatpackers to expand their supplies of cattle beyond their immediate needs," Bullard said. "They can do this by melding together the herds of Canada, the United States and Mexico into one seamless herd."

I don't disagree with the Concept of R-Calf but their arguement against Canadian cattle imports comes about 15 years too late. Somebody in there office must have forgot to take the 1989 callender of the wall. Thier is a thing called the North American Free Trade Agreement it is not called the North American tariff and Quota Agreement. This is no different than a contract signed with your local feed dealer or grain buyer. If R-Calf would look forward for once and spend more of thier resources trying to find more export markets and fighting CAFTA I would be the first person to join their Membership.

Young Farmer, from what I heard, there was a big fight against CAFTA. It was a case of corporate agribusiness and money winning over the argument on specious grounds. Cargill was probably the biggest force behind that one. Cargill is the main company in Brazil. Central American countries are thought to be Brazil's door into the U.S.[/quote


Econ, have you done any independent research upon the effects of NAFTA on agricultural income in the USA?

I have heard other economists who state that it has been very positive.

Perhaps it was that positive effect of NAFTA, rather than you usual conspiracy theory of the "evil empires" of corporate agriculture manipulating things that caused CAFTA to fly.

I've also read the there is a consideration of government (meaning Congressmen and Senators) understanding the value of improving the economy of those nations via CAFTA. People who are not hungry, after all, are far less likely to fall prey to supporting dictatorships.

MRJ

 

[mrj]

See what I mean, Kato? Over 150 people have read this thread since I made my comments about producers knowing where they rank and having a business plan based on facts gleaned from benchmarking, and you are the only one who has said anything so far. (It's going to take me a little while to type this. So, I apologize in advance if someone else has posted on the subject of benchmarking before I get this posted.)

Don't get me wrong. I commend you for at least thinking about it a little. But I have a couple of questions for you and some more thoughts to throw out. You stated, "That's true. One big problem with that is that as the bottom third gets smaller, then the bar gets raised higher for those remaining to be able to stay in the Top Third. How long can that go on? Until there are only three producers left?"

You kinda made it sound like you have a choice when it comes to participating in the economic realities of Top Third - Middle Third - Bottom Third. As long as cow-calf producers are independent producers who operate in a capitalist, free enterprise system of production and sales, you are subject to the forces at work whether you want to be or not. Are you an independent producer operating in a free enterprise system?

Actually, the thirds are constantly changing a little as producers drop out, sell out, develop out, have drought or disease problems all of a sudden, etc. And yes, technically, it could come down to just 3 producers as long as the system is maintained. Not very likely though even though in the U.S. it pretty much came down to the big 3 auto makers for a while. (But what has happened to the big 3 since then?)

We have a long way to go in the world of cow-calf production to worry about having too few producers at level one, but the challenge is just as real with a million producers as it is with 50,000 or so. You need to know what you are doing and develop a business plan based on facts instead of flying by the seat of your pants - in the dark. If a producer insists on doing that (as most - like 98% - do today), he is rolling some mighty big dice, and it is unnecessary.

You are probably the only one who made a comment because others just don't want to "open that can of worms" yet. "Why, heck, we have border wars to fight first instead of worrying about my business plan." Why do you think they are afraid to even ask a question about what I am talking about? There's a lot of independence, ego, illusion, delusion and procrastination at work among other things (such as not having a computerized accounting system and a good Internet connection). I realize that this is the way it is, and the cow-calf industry probably has a long way to go before it wakes up and realizes that it has a big investment to protect and needs to look for all the help it can get. But we can hope.

Now do you think we will get questions and comments? I doubt it, but I'll do my best if we do. Thanks again for your comments.

Pointrider, guess I've joined those who weren't willing to address your original post and points therein by replying to some of them.

Not being the number cruncher in the family, and not totally sure that a formal written out mission statement or philosophy of ones business is the most important aspect we can take care of, my participation might be small on this thread.

However, I do find what you and Kato have shared very interesting.

My interests tend toward the people involved in the business, and I have to wonder how much effect things like have on viability of the business as compared to the business plan and how well they follow it.

What part do things like divorce, major illnesses/accidents and associated costs, both financial and human, and even ability for the business partners to maintain their civility with one another......and more......play in failure of the business (or decisions to sell out, failing or not)? Is it even possible to quantify these types of events and evaluate them on a financial or business basis?

On the business side, what if one 'guesses' wrong or takes advice from professional advisors who are wrong, on which breeds of cattle, trends of the industry, consumers wishes or ability to buy beef, etc, etc.?

More later, maybe.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Young Farmer, from what I heard, there was a big fight against CAFTA. It was a case of corporate agribusiness and money winning over the argument on specious grounds. Cargill was probably the biggest force behind that one. Cargill is the main company in Brazil. Central American countries are thought to be Brazil's door into the U.S."

SPECULATION, CONJECTURE, THEORY, & OPINION!

Nothing's changed.

If you knew what CAFTA was about, you would realize that there is nothing to stop Brazil from entering the U.S. through Central America NOW. If it was a problem, IT WOULD ALREADY BE A PROBLEM. CAFTA didn't change that.

CAFTA was about reducing our tarriffs to Central America that were as high as 40% while they exported to the U.S. virtually duty free. If you weren't just repeating what you heard and did some actual research, you'd know that.


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

MRJ -

Pointrider, guess I've joined those who weren't willing to address your original post and points therein by replying to some of them.

Not being the number cruncher in the family, and not totally sure that a formal written out mission statement or philosophy of ones business is the most important aspect we can take care of, my participation might be small on this thread.

However, I do find what you and Kato have shared very interesting.

My interests tend toward the people involved in the business, and I have to wonder how much effect things like have on viability of the business as compared to the business plan and how well they follow it.

What part do things like divorce, major illnesses/accidents and associated costs, both financial and human, and even ability for the business partners to maintain their civility with one another......and more......play in failure of the business (or decisions to sell out, failing or not)? Is it even possible to quantify these types of events and evaluate them on a financial or business basis?

On the business side, what if one 'guesses' wrong or takes advice from professional advisors who are wrong, on which breeds of cattle, trends of the industry, consumers wishes or ability to buy beef, etc, etc.?

More later, maybe.

MRJ

Very interesting topic. My wife and I had a similar discussion just the other day about which of us follows an economic path and which strays.
My wife plans day to day events very well and has a wonderful grasp on balancing the cheque book. My "plan" is more big picture, and I have been know to stray from a business plan on more than one occasion to take advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. Somehow this combination seems to be working.

Bottom line is that I agree with your statement about the unknown or human factors. I believe that fortune and timing have more to do with success than number crunchers want us to believe.

Some of this fortune and timing can be set aside when business moves away from the Mom and Pop atmosphere, but is that were we all truly want things to go? One of the greatest parts about living in North America is the freedom thing, is it not. An atmosphere where one person can live a financially successful life with a BOSS.

No one on this thread can truly say that there is not a trend toward bigger business in the cattle industry. If all of you want to think that that is the best and only way to go, I will never convince you. I still want the freedom in life and business that allows me to work without a BOSS, and want that for my son as well.

 

[PPRM]

Pointrider,

Not many responded, I think if you had started a seperate thread more would have...Even in a different section...


What are we doing....Well, overall I am looking at things that will let me do more myself. Two largest expenses are Feed and labor...A lot of times the labor is to feed...I own cattle sometimes all th way thru to handing it to the final customer. I am looking to doing more of the feeding, also even considered buying the small USDA plant I send cattle to.

I am always re-evaluting feed and looking for price appropriate ways of doing things, extending grazing is the number one thing.....Next is some new technology to allow me to feed more on my own. I live where there I a lot of food processing, so we are always looking at waste as feed opportunities...

Marketing, I am looking to expand and hold more of the dollars for myself...

Genetics, I think I need cattle that will hit the High Choice more consistently. I want to do this without added backfat, maybe a little larger Ribeye with a bit bigger carcasses. A lot of this will be done thru heterosis, all will be done without sacrificing where I am at with my cows...

Those are the big things, all go back to decreasing my cost per pound and increasing my sales dollar per pound,

PPRM

 

[rkaiser]

PPRM

Why a larger ribeye and a bigger carcass? I guess you are still wanting a share of what I like to call the utility consumer market. If you were to go all the way and buy the plant and market your own product, why not less backfat (which I agree with) and a more moderate rib eye with a nice shape. Of course cost of production may lean toward the larger carcass and large ribeye, but there is higher value in a more moderate cut that fits a fine restaurant plate a little better. Little more work marketing, but the end dollars are what count.

When we present a strip to some of our Chefs that has too much size, they threaten to throw it back at us. Suggest what the big carcass promoters like to call a medaliion cut, and they will throw it at you.

I personally like a good inch thick or better, well marbled and rare in the middle. Take some extra value from these high value cuts and the overall picture from pasture to plate has a surprisingly attractive alternative.

Anyhooo , just my opinion.

 

[PPRM]

Rkaiser,

Hell, I am from the USA, land of bigger is better and live to excess, LOL.

Interesting answer if you don't know my Rib Eye Size, but I think long term you may be right. I still think it depends on the age of slaughter as to the size of Rib-eye the consumer gets. Actually, a lot of my customers like the big steak, but as I expand, that may change...I am talking the people buying halves and quarters tho.

Actually, my Rib Eyes to bad, I am always looking for a bit more yield...I consider that a bigger steak with the same amount of fat appears less fat...You may be right on the Rib-Eye. The neat thing about the Beef Market is there is no one size fits all, otherwise we would look more like the Poultry and Pork Complex. The market would drive it. Also, why else would Tyson not discount until carcasses hit 950 lbs?

Some of mine still end up at Tyson. A lot of my carcasses are destined for a Mexican Grocery/Butcher shop, they are different in a lot of ways.....But suffice to say, I feed them to a point and if they go beyond that, then they go to Tyson. The larger size doesn't happen until they go past this point, if that makes sense. This helps keep the Carcass size more moderate and Backfat down for the Mexican and Locker Beef customers, but a little more natural marbling would fit the bill for both markets..

Actually, I fed at a backgrounding lot 2 years ago and came up with keeping them on a cheaper background ration longer. It worked well for both markets, then I could step the excess up on feed if they were getting too big and send to IBP....

On the Packing Plant, the opportunities are minimal for my market, but good for some others. The guy that owns it is retirement age. He keeps getting opportunities, but passes as they would require a little bit of equipment, something that doesn't pencil at his age. However, he says he wants to sell, but his actions say otherwise.. I am considering buying some of the equipment that may ease me into these markets and then buying him out...

Hmmm... this is turning into a much more civil conversation than I am used to seeing on this side of the forum, probably boring the heck out of those that tend to the Bull Session side, LOL,

Thanks for the comments, they are sincerely appreciated,

PPRM

 

[Jason]

Randy the Beef Information Center here in Canada is promoting the medallion cut. Basically a large strip loin sliced lengthwise.

I think different ways to cut an animal are worth exploring, but the customer has to have a good eating experience. Have you had a bad eating experience with a medallion cut? Or have you had feedback from some of your beef customers about it?

If it isn't satifying it shouldn't be promoted by the Beef Info Center.

 

[rkaiser]

My comments are feedback from our chefs Jason (or lack of strip throwback). I realise that the Beef Information Center is promoting the medallion Jason. Cuts of meat are generally relative to muscle or muscle groups. Cut a muscle in the wrong place and it changes the way that cut cooks. Slice your strip and then cut out an inch and a quarter steak. The take a full muscle strip and cut out your steak, you'll see what I mean Jason.


Great post PPRM - As for yieding higher without detracting from marbling----that is were our branded program shines. Most british breeds want to lay done a heavy bark before they marble, but add some hair and hide and you get the best of both worlds. Exterior fat in every animal but our own species is generally a natural way to stay warm. Take a way that need in cattle, and the marbling comes naturally in cattle raised in northern climates.

We are often over supplied with product and have to bite the proverbial bullet and sell through the conventional market as well from time to time. I gave my kill sheet away and am tracking down another,,,, but our last load of heifers averaged a bit over 1300 pounds and gave us 86% AAA marbling. When I find the sheet, I will post the number of Yeild grade ones etc. Talking with a feeder who sold thousands of cattle Stateside through Cantriex International and he absconded with my sheet.

I guess that my typical shoot from the lip mouth would not be without a comment on where our conventional market is heading. Do we want to be like the chicken or hog industry, or do we want to continue to serve customers a variety of wonderful products from one beef sector? Not that the trend is going to stop me in my lifetime, but most seem to believe that we need not slow down what is obviously happening.

 

[Jason]

Randy, I think the 86% AAA (choice) is a great place, benchmark whatever you want to call it.

The other 14% fits the 'other' tastes.

If by some fluke we raised too many of those animals that work for the high end, we could pull them sooner before they are finished and have the leaner animal for those with that taste.

I don't see the point in trying to breed animals that won't ever hit the high end, then again that is just my opinion.

 

[PPRM]

Randy,

I generally hit over 80% choice, but my eyes were opened to most of my choice being low choice, YG 2 and 3. So, I figured a little more marble and a little less bark, and a little more muscle would be good.

My target weight for calves headed to Tyson would be about 1425-1450 pounds, so the weights I am after are a little higher, but again that is to Tyson,

What breeds are you using if I might ask??


PPRM

 

[rkaiser]

You see that icon beside my name PPRM. Galloway, Welsh Black and even a few Highland cattle.

Jason - we have to watch when we push our cattle on to full feed as well. Crossbreds are allowed in the program as well as purbred cattle from producers with somewhat different sizes than our cattle.

I'm not saying that you could not produce a similar product with any number of breed crosses, just saying that we found a way with ours that is working well.