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

CANADIAN CATTLE MEN

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Does the Canadian cattle man care about CAPTIVE SUPPLY?

  • yes they do.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no they dont

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
If it happens- test everything over 20 months

not only for human health safety, and herd health, but to find the extent of the disease and help eradicate it

If it happens? OT-if you worry so much about the prevalence and you believe testing would find it in U 20 M then you should be pushing for testing of everything now! But you're not.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Not only that, if you believe in these two statements, then you should be working with the USDA on their rule to have all Canadian cattle tested under 20 months after they cross the border, at the expense of the packer! When the border opens will R-calf push for the Canadian cattle to be branded and tested.

If the packers and their captive supply are making so much money on these cattle they proably won't mind doing this for the American Consumer. Oh, yeah then have it labeled as COOL and tell the consumer that R-calf were the ones to push for COOL, and the safe Canadian product. ( they might even be able to charge a premium), we'd like some of the "trickle down" income!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
But the Statement was if BSE is found in the US US ranchers shouldn't sell anything over 20 months. This statement didn't say anything about testing it said sell.

Tam- I don't know where that statement came from, but I do know what R-CALF's policy has been since day one-- and I know personally what I would like to see.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Murgen said:
If it happens- test everything over 20 months

not only for human health safety, and herd health, but to find the extent of the disease and help eradicate it

If it happens? OT-if you worry so much about the prevalence and you believe testing would find it in U 20 M then you should be pushing for testing of everything now! But you're not.

We haven't seen where it is in the US herd......Just the Canadian herd...That is why I think Canadian beef over twenty months should have to be tested and all of it labeled as a product of Canada......
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Well OT, we'll try to get that done for you, Maybe we'll even ship it down with a label on it. "Canadian Beef 100% tested for BSE" Hell we might even have a couple of different products for you " Canadian Beef 100% BSE free, hormone free, and DNA tested for origin" Would that make you happy? Would set one hell of a precedent wouldn't it?
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Oldtimer...We haven't seen where it is in the US herd......Just the Canadian herd...That is why I think Canadian beef over twenty months should have to be tested and all of it labeled as a product of Canada......


I agree, and if it is ever found here in the US herd, test everything over 20 months. Show the world that Canada and the US is willing to find out the extent of the problem.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Tommy, if that is the case then be willing also to buy Canadian cattle to redeem your $175/animal in lost export sales and spend the $30/head to do it. Makes sense to me, spend $30 to gain $145. the other option would be to let us do it and lose the $145 after we get the slaughter capacity!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT: "Your predictions are as good as those NCBA paid beancounters that told us for 20 years that this free trade was going to raise cattle prices--"

Unfortunately for R-CULTers like you OT, you fail to realize that without the value of our export markets in those years, our cattle prices would have been lower.

It's really unfortunate that you know so little about what drives cattle prices.


Haymaker,

Considering the fact that 75% of "captive supply cattle" are forward contract cattle, why did the plaintiffs in Pickett support the use of forward contracts???


~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
OT: "Your predictions are as good as those NCBA paid beancounters that told us for 20 years that this free trade was going to raise cattle prices--"

Unfortunately for R-CULTers like you OT, you fail to realize that without the value of our export markets in those years, our cattle prices would have been lower.

It's really unfortunate that you know so little about what drives cattle prices.


Haymaker,

Considering the fact that 75% of "captive supply cattle" are forward contract cattle, why did the plaintiffs in Pickett support the use of forward contracts???


~SH~


Damn I dont know SH since they were "willing participants" you dont suppose it could have been because their options were limited do you?...........good luck PS this take it or leave it crap because IM the only game in town is comming to an end.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Question for Haymaker? If a group of producers get together with a large quantity of calves, ready to market those as one group to an individual packer, does this not also meet your definition of "captive supply"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Haymaker: "Damn I dont know SH since they were "willing participants" you dont suppose it could have been because their options were limited do you?...........good luck PS this take it or leave it crap because IM the only game in town is comming to an end."

To the contrary Haymaker, their options are more limited in the cash market. Forward contracts are done well in advance of slaughter.

Do you think the cattle producers that own USPB should not be able to own cattle?

Do you think the Federal Government should determine who should own cattle in the U.S.?



~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
Murgen said:
Question for Haymaker? If a group of producers get together with a large quantity of calves, ready to market those as one group to an individual packer, does this not also meet your definition of "captive supply"

Murgen captive supply is practiced to some degree in one form or another by most cattle men,myself included.I have no problem with any form of captive supply as long as it doesnt unfairly controll markets
Tyson's use of captive supplies of cattle to drive down the price of cattle on the auction circuitis well documented. Captive supplies are cattle that are either owned by, or contracted to a packer at a predetermined and hidden price. The ranchers suing Tyson claimed that the company would dip into its captive supply for its weekly kill when prices on the open market went up. The lack of demand on open markets would drive the price down, and Tyson would then go back and purchase on the open markets. In practice, Tyson was obtaining about half its cattle from captive supplies.
The ranchers' case was based on a 1921 act called the Packers and Stockyards Act, which prohibits packers from employing any "unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device" or from making preferential agreements. American cattlemen have been calling for enforcement of this Act to deal with captive supplies for many years.......................good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Haymaker: "Murgen captive supply is practiced to some degree in one form or another by most cattle men,myself included.I have no problem with any form of captive supply as long as it doesnt unfairly controll markets..............good luck"

When does captive supplies unfairly control markets Haymaker?

Explain it!


~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
Haymaker: "Murgen captive supply is practiced to some degree in one form or another by most cattle men,myself included.I have no problem with any form of captive supply as long as it doesnt unfairly controll markets..............good luck"

When does captive supplies unfairly control markets Haymaker?

Explain it!


~SH~

EACH AND EVERY TIME ITS PRACTICED BY PACKERS TO CONTROL THE MARKETS,WHICH PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT COMPRENDO?.............GOOD LUCK
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You didn't answer my questions Haymaker!

Do you think the cattle producers that own USPB should not be able to own cattle?

Yes or no?

Do you think the Federal Government should determine who should own cattle in the U.S.?

Yes or no?

Have you ever stood up in the sale barn and demanded that a packer didn't bid on your cattle?


The following is Haymaker reciting someone else's quotes AGAIN........


Haymaker: "Tyson's use of captive supplies of cattle to drive down the price of cattle on the auction circuitis well documented."

That isn't well documented. That's well "theorized".

If it was well documented, the plaintiffs in Pickett would not have lost their case.


Haymaker: "Captive supplies are cattle that are either owned by, or contracted to a packer at a predetermined and hidden price."

75% of captive supplies are forward contracts that producers willingly enter into and the price is not hidden.

Do you want to end that practice?


Haymaker: "The ranchers suing Tyson claimed that the company would dip into its captive supply for its weekly kill when prices on the open market went up."

When are those forward contract and packer owned cattle supposed to be killed Haymaker?

Didn't producers know when they sold those cattle to packers via foward contract that someday they would have to be killed?

What about when the prices on the open market went down? These cattle still have to be slaughtered don't they? Wouldn't that create just the opposite affect?

If packers can control the markets, why do fat cattle prices fluctuate at all??


Haymaker: "The lack of demand on open markets would drive the price down, and Tyson would then go back and purchase on the open markets."

Then why would producers forward contract to packers knowing that these cattle will have to be slaughtered someday?


Haymaker: "In practice, Tyson was obtaining about half its cattle from captive supplies."

That is a lie. Captive supplies do not include formula and grid cattle.

Captive supplies only include forward contract cattle and packer owned cattle not formula and grid cattle which the deceivers included to create the "illusion" that captive supplies are larger than they really are.


Haymaker: "The ranchers' case was based on a 1921 act called the Packers and Stockyards Act, which prohibits packers from employing any "unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device" or from making preferential agreements. American cattlemen have been calling for enforcement of this Act to deal with captive supplies for many years."

The plaintiffs in Pickett also agreed that IBP had a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies and had entered into forward contracts themselves.

You are in way over your head Haymaker especially when you have to quote someone else.




~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
Then so are about 14000 honest cattle men I have to disagree with you sh I believe you and your kind are over your head,the explosive growth in R CALF and the severe decline in NCBA membership proves my point,listen close SH and write this down so you dont forget,FAIRNESS that is what the UNITED STOCK GROWERS OF AMERICA is promoting for the grass roots cattle man................good luck PS I dont have time to go back and forth with you today boy weather is breaking and I have lots to do.
 

Latest posts

Top