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

can someone tell me ..........

A

Anonymous

Guest
Most Canadian cattlemen- except those like the Big Muddy's and the Tams of the great white north - saw who owned the captive supply of cattle and feedlots in Canada when BSE hit, and the government gave out subsidy/disaster payments for the first major percentage slaughtered...

Few noncorporate ranchers/feeders got anything- while like rkaiser says- "the Packers went on a salmon run"..... :( :( :mad:

If that doesn't show you who controls/manipulates your industry- nothing will Big Muddy..... :roll:

But I know-- its easier to blame all your problems on R-CALF or Americans- than look at who is really screwing you...... :roll:
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
HAY MAKER wrote" PS Please dont ask questions like how I come to the conclusion that there is a proven canadian captive supply problem,waste of time.[/quote]


I agree with you, it would be a waste of time! Unless, you wanted to learn something. You are not going to stop packers from owning cattle, or having 'sweetheart' deals with selected feedlots, through government legislation. As in the past, every government attempt to control packers has failed, starting with the first meat inspection laws in 1893 and again in 1906 and certainly the biggest failure was the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921. If these organizations, that you support, would do their homework first and quit 'cherry-picking' endless issues. The cattle industry and its producers would be alot better off.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
HAY MAKER wrote" PS Please dont ask questions like how I come to the conclusion that there is a proven canadian captive supply problem,waste of time.


I agree with you, it would be a waste of time! Unless, you wanted to learn something. You are not going to stop packers from owning cattle, or having 'sweetheart' deals with selected feedlots, through government legislation. As in the past, every government attempt to control packers has failed, starting with the first meat inspection laws in 1893 and again in 1906 and certainly the biggest failure was the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921. If these organizations, that you support, would do their homework first and quit 'cherry-picking' endless issues. The cattle industry and its producers would be alot better off.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts[/quote]

The details Ben,the details between Canadian captive supply and captive supply here in the states,and how it does/does not effect my market,should'nt be hard for an expert to explain,you did say there was a differnce ?............good luck
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Most Canadian cattlemen- except those like the Big Muddy's and the Tams of the great white north - saw who owned the captive supply of cattle and feedlots in Canada when BSE hit, and the government gave out subsidy/disaster payments for the first major percentage slaughtered...

Few noncorporate ranchers/feeders got anything- while like rkaiser says- "the Packers went on a salmon run"..... :( :( :mad:

If that doesn't show you who controls/manipulates your industry- nothing will Big Muddy..... :roll:

But I know-- its easier to blame all your problems on R-CALF or Americans- than look at who is really screwing you...... :roll:


So OT have you ever got up and told the buyers at the Auction not to bid on your calves if the partner with Packers?
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
HAY MAKER" The details Ben said:
HAY MAKER, I never said, It didn't effect your market, I said you weren't going to stop captive supply by government legislation. The difference between the two countries captive supply, is just numbers, live and CBT paper!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Most Canadian cattlemen- except those like the Big Muddy's and the Tams of the great white north - saw who owned the captive supply of cattle and feedlots in Canada when BSE hit, and the government gave out subsidy/disaster payments for the first major percentage slaughtered...

Few noncorporate ranchers/feeders got anything- while like rkaiser says- "the Packers went on a salmon run"..... :( :( :mad:

If that doesn't show you who controls/manipulates your industry- nothing will Big Muddy..... :roll:

But I know-- its easier to blame all your problems on R-CALF or Americans- than look at who is really screwing you...... :roll:
Don't you ever tire of trying to twist Canadians holding R-Klanners accountable for their lies into a Canadian vs. American issue? That tactic is getting damn old.

I had a very good visit yesterday with a producer from one of the western states who was up here buying breeding stock and he was absolutely fed up with the BS coming out of Montana. Another American producer bought nine head and had nothing good to say about R-Calf except that he was glad they had imploded.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Is it captive supply or captive markets?????

90% of USA fed cattle go through 5 or 6 packers!!!

80% of Canadian fed cattle go through 2 USA packers!!!

The bottle neck of OUR industry centers around these packers and extends from there both up the chain and back down toward producers.
Concentration begets concentration!!!
Packers don't want to own cattle long term...they would rather own them just hours before they slaughter them. Owning them longer is to insure market share and be an impediment to competition...the less packers, the less need for captive supply because there are no other avenues for processing and, by default, the cattle will come to these packers(the last packers standing)!!!

A free-market capitalistic system works(with least regulation) because of multiple venders...if you don't like the price or quality of one vender, there is another offering similar product. If there is one vender, you take what he has to offer at the price he dictates.

So the problem with the cattle industry is one today's governments will not address...corporate concentration. The solution is less concentration...or MORE PACKERS!!!!!!!!!!! Only producers can make that happen...are you going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?????
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Is it captive supply or captive markets?????

90% of USA fed cattle go through 5 or 6 packers!!!

80% of Canadian fed cattle go through 2 USA packers!!!

The bottle neck of OUR industry centers around these packers and extends from there both up the chain and back down toward producers.
Concentration begets concentration!!!
Packers don't want to own cattle long term...they would rather own them just hours before they slaughter them. Owning them longer is to insure market share and be an impediment to competition...the less packers, the less need for captive supply because there are no other avenues for processing and, by default, the cattle will come to these packers(the last packers standing)!!!

A free-market capitalistic system works(with least regulation) because of multiple venders...if you don't like the price or quality of one vender, there is another offering similar product. If there is one vender, you take what he has to offer at the price he dictates.

So the problem with the cattle industry is one today's governments will not address...corporate concentration. The solution is less concentration...or MORE PACKERS!!!!!!!!!!! Only producers can make that happen...are you going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?????


RobertMac, you are correct in what you say about captive supply/captive market. We no longer have a true captive supply in the cattle industry like we had fifty years ago. With the demand we have for beef in this country, Canada, dosen't have the production numbers to create a problem for our market, but Argentina and Brazil do.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Tex

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Is it captive supply or captive markets?????

90% of USA fed cattle go through 5 or 6 packers!!!

80% of Canadian fed cattle go through 2 USA packers!!!

The bottle neck of OUR industry centers around these packers and extends from there both up the chain and back down toward producers.
Concentration begets concentration!!!
Packers don't want to own cattle long term...they would rather own them just hours before they slaughter them. Owning them longer is to insure market share and be an impediment to competition...the less packers, the less need for captive supply because there are no other avenues for processing and, by default, the cattle will come to these packers(the last packers standing)!!!

A free-market capitalistic system works(with least regulation) because of multiple venders...if you don't like the price or quality of one vender, there is another offering similar product. If there is one vender, you take what he has to offer at the price he dictates.

So the problem with the cattle industry is one today's governments will not address...corporate concentration. The solution is less concentration...or MORE PACKERS!!!!!!!!!!! Only producers can make that happen...are you going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?????
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

In concentrated markets, such as utility markets there are many more regulations that have to be followed. Packers want to not follow the regulations on the books. They want their cake and eat it too.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
RobertMac, you are correct in what you say about captive supply/captive market. We no longer have a true captive supply in the cattle industry like we had fifty years ago. With the demand we have for beef in this country, Canada, dosen't have the production numbers to create a problem for our market, but Argentina and Brazil do.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

OK, it's not Canada...but it's not Argentina or Brazil either. It's the packer bottleneck!!!!!
Being global is an asset for them!
No COOL is an asset for them!
"Free trade" is an asset for them!

Our problems start with the packer bottleneck...every small and medium packer that survives because of producer support helps correct the problem!
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Agreed Robert except that Rcalf is wrong in thinking that they will ever stop globalism or free trade. Their efforts should be concentrated on the last part of the post. Take back your industry. If producers own beef rather than cattle the bottleneck is opened up. Support for smaller processors is great but only allowing processors to be processors is the ultimate.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Ben Roberts said:
RobertMac, you are correct in what you say about captive supply/captive market. We no longer have a true captive supply in the cattle industry like we had fifty years ago. With the demand we have for beef in this country, Canada, dosen't have the production numbers to create a problem for our market, but Argentina and Brazil do.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

OK, it's not Canada...but it's not Argentina or Brazil either. It's the packer bottleneck!!!!!
Being global is an asset for them!
No COOL is an asset for them!
"Free trade" is an asset for them!

Our problems start with the packer bottleneck...every small and medium packer that survives because of producer support helps correct the problem!


I agree it is the packer bottleneck! RobertMack, where is the beef packing business going, their expansion plans are not in this country or Canada. Last week, Adam Werbach (past president of the Sierra Club) said that the US corporations need to put more funds into helping China develop organic crops and address the US food safety issues. Adam Werbach now has his own consulting firm, his largest client, Wal-Mart.

What you and I do RobertMac will survive, along with other producers that have similar business, the rest of the cattle industry in this country and Canada won't. The cost of production will be too high.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Agreed Robert except that Rcalf is wrong in thinking that they will ever stop globalism or free trade. Their efforts should be concentrated on the last part of the post. Take back your industry. If producers own beef rather than cattle the bottleneck is opened up. Support for smaller processors is great but only allowing processors to be processors is the ultimate.

What makes you think R CALF has decided it can stop globalism or free trade,I have never heard that.
I dont speak for R CALF but............first things first... M COOL would be my choice, then the check off promoting home grown beef, R CALF is one of two avenues the US cattle man has to protect their interests,the US cattlemans assc.the other....................good luck

PS almost forgot Ben expert of what ? by who's definition ? and I dont agree with your statement about canada not having the numbers to pressure the cash market,maybe you could provide detail ?
what would you think if I told you boxed beef is a form of captive supply ?
Canadians need to step up to the plate........pass some packer laws.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Agreed Robert except that Rcalf is wrong in thinking that they will ever stop globalism or free trade. Their efforts should be concentrated on the last part of the post. Take back your industry. If producers own beef rather than cattle the bottleneck is opened up. Support for smaller processors is great but only allowing processors to be processors is the ultimate.

R-CALF isn't out to stop globalism or free trade, although as far as I'm concerned, that would be a good idea.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
rkaiser said:
Agreed Robert except that Rcalf is wrong in thinking that they will ever stop globalism or free trade. Their efforts should be concentrated on the last part of the post. Take back your industry. If producers own beef rather than cattle the bottleneck is opened up. Support for smaller processors is great but only allowing processors to be processors is the ultimate.

R-CALF isn't out to stop globalism or free trade, although as far as I'm concerned, that would be a good idea.

I agree Sandhusker,dont think the free trade deal does a thing for us,Im thinking fair trade would come closer to being digestible,I wont pretend to be knowlegeable on the trade issues,realize they are complex,but its obvious to me the cattle man is getting a raw deal,been a helluva fight just to get close to some fairness,look what its took to get M COOL this far,and no guarantees we get it............No we dont need free trade,what we need is Fair Trade.
good luck
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Ben , You mentioned Adam<<<<<<

The Death of Integrity

In working with Wal-Mart, activist Adam Werbach is abandoning his principles
By John Sellers and Barbara Dudley
19 Jul 2006


In late 2004, Adam Werbach proclaimed that environmentalism was dead due to the movement's unwillingness to connect with ordinary working people and its inability to effectively grapple with the most profound problem the earth has ever faced, climate change. His diagnosis was clear: In order to build the next liberal majority in this country, environmentalists must create bold new "frames" that will unite us with our working-class brothers and sisters around "shared values."

Werbach argued that to win we must begin by challenging our most basic assumptions. "What if we stopped defining global warming as an environmental problem and instead spoke of the economic opportunities it will create?" he asked. It's this kind of out-of-the-box thinking that has landed Werbach a new gig in Big-Box Land.

Yes, Adam Werbach, founder of the Sierra Student Coalition, youngest president of the Sierra Club, author, filmmaker, and self-proclaimed progressive-big-think guy, is going to be a consultant for Wal-Mart. Will he be working with the planet's largest retailer to cut its carbon footprint by 50 percent, source its products locally from sustainable suppliers, or make fundamental changes to its labor practices? No. Werbach has been brought on to teach Wal-Mart's "associates" how to live a less consumptive existence in their everyday lives, how to eat healthy food and buy compact fluorescent light bulbs on their meager wages.

Wal-Mart's line is that this new "Environmental Health and Wellness Program" was created as a direct response to requests from its employees. Oddly they have not responded to employee requests for a living wage, affordable health care, or unscheduled bathroom breaks. The Wal-Mart Workers Association in Tampa, Fla., sent Werbach a letter respectfully asking him not to lend Wal-Mart his name or environmental credentials. They insightfully point out that greenwashing for Wal-Mart is woefully out of step with the views expressed in his 1997 book Act Now, Apologize Later, in which he compares the retail giant to a "virus, infecting and destroying American culture."

Let's be really blunt: there is no such thing as a green big box that is full of exploited workers selling you cheap disposable stuff made in sweatshops on the other side of the planet. Whenever environmentalists help Wal-Mart score easy "corporate responsibility" points in The New York Times, they set back the efforts of working people in their battle with Wal-Mart, and simply reinforce the flaws of the old environmentalism which Werbach and others declared dead over a year ago.

We've got a multi-issue movement to build, a country to take back, and a planet to save. So get back to work, Adam! Since when are you a Chi Com lover ? Money?
 

Latest posts

Top