• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Buried numbers

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
This got buried befre many read it so I just brought it back up.

First off, from the total Canadian federally inspected kill 66% is killed in Alberta.

This is based on 75% is killed in the West and of that 75%, 88% is killed in Alberta. (75 x 88% = 66%)

This number equates to 2.4156 million cattle.

Roperab and others have been under the impression we only have 3 packers in Alberta (Tyson/Lakeside, Cargill and XL) Others have been under the impression Tyson and Cargill control 80-85% of the kill in Canada.

Both impressions are wrong.

If we split the fed cattle numbers from the cows and bulls included above, the % changes slightly probably because Cargill in Alberta is strictly a fed cattle plant.

Alberta kills a combined 2.269 million fed cattle or 73.9% of the total FI fed cattle kill.

Cargill and Tyson are roughly similar in capacity at 3800 hd/day 5 days a week 50 weeks a year each could kill flat out 950,000 head, that allows for no hollidays, no break downs and no labor disruptions. Tyson had a 3 week strike and there is nearly 1 stat holliday per month.

XL can kill about 800 hd/day same number of days is 200,000 hd. Same deal, that allows for no hollidays, slowdowns etc.

This still leaves 2,415,600 - (950,000x2) - 200,000 = 315,600 head There has to be over 1200 head per day capacity in other plants to kill this amount.

Canada wide FI plants killed 590,000 head of cows and bulls. So much for 900,000 head of OTM cattle just standing around waiting to stampede the US.

Using the 950,000 hd number Tyson and Cargill control about 25.9% of the Canadian kill each, or 51.8% combined.

Cargill bought Better Beef and they are a smaller plant that XL, but using the same kill of 200,000 hd/yr that is 5% of the Canadian FI kill.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
It got buried for a reason Jason. You can take your numbers and become some sort of Canadian beef market analyst if you like. Might even get a job and convince a few more ABP/ CCA folks with your twist on those numbers. Use that word FACTS a lot when you put your portfolio together, that always helps. Bring up the $3.88 figure as many times as possible - it's obviously ingrained in your brain already.

There are no problems in the beef industry Jason - Cargill and Tyson are actually bending over backwards to make things better for cattle producers. Or you, my friend are simply lost in space.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Wouldn't want you to forget the number Jason,

Repetition is the best way to train the mind.

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Another simple question for producers.

Would you rather have accurate numbers to make business decisions on or blind emotion?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Another simple question for producers.

Would you rather have accurate numbers to make business decisions on or blind emotion?

How about just plain accurate information? The Alberta report didn't seem to get even that right. It answered the wrong questions and did not bring ANY credibilty to packer claims of not profiting off of producers during the BSE crisis.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Jason wrote:
Another simple question for producers.

Would you rather have accurate numbers to make business decisions on or blind emotion?

If $3.88 was an acurate number Jason, you might have a legitimate question.

The problem is, you have not only become emotionally atached to the number, your brain can't even comprhend the reality behind it.

Tell us how any company in the world could survive on a profit margin like this let alone expand.

You go ahead with the numbers yourself.

$3.88 --- now the value of the carcass, which ever end works better for you - purchase price from producer or sales price to the retailer.

now show us the percentage

If you need some help, just put the numbers up and I'll do the division for you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Randy Kaiser how much did ibp, Excel, Monfort, National Beef and the fifth largest packer make on a per head basis through the 90's?

Come on big shooter, show us what you got.

"I don't know because I am a thumbsucking packer blamer" is a perfectly acceptable answer.


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
You are right SH, I don't know.

And you obviously are too busy brown nosing to answer the simple math question that I gave to Jason.

Come SH, it's not about rocket science, it's about common sense.

Show us the answer Scotty, and then show us one other company in the world who could survive for months, let alone years with that kind of bottom line.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
rkaiser said:
You are right SH, I don't know.

And you obviously are too busy brown nosing to answer the simple math question that I gave to Jason.

Come SH, it's not about rocket science, it's about common sense.

Show us the answer Scotty, and then show us one other company in the world who could survive for months, let alone years with that kind of bottom line.

There's something else you haven't consdered, Randy. Those companies were expanding thru the 90s. If Scotty is right that companies only expand when they are profitable, then that $3.88 number must be a pretty decent profit.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Of course there is more to this number than the simple $3.88 profit. It simply has to be. Scotty can not stop his emotional crucade long enough to admit it. Jason ---- well we all know Jason.
 

Latest posts

Top