Canfax numbers

[Econ101]

Econ does the US government audit companies then publish what they find out for all to see?

Health inspectors of resturaunts do. They even show it on the news. Maybe we need a little more transparency with the packers instead of hiding everything under the rug. As someone who often buys meat for my family, I would be interested and I don't care if it hurts the poor little packers.

 

[Tam]

Econ does the US government audit companies then publish what they find out for all to see?

Health inspectors of resturaunts do. They even show it on the news. Maybe we need a little more transparency with the packers instead of hiding everything under the rug. As someone who often buys meat for my family, I would be interested and I don't care if it hurts the poor little packers.

Health Inspectors do not audit books like the IRS. They inspect for Health violations and if there are any that might put the public in danger then yes there should be transparency but transparency in a companies FINANCES is not a health issue endangering the Public Health. :roll: From what I understand the Packers had concerns of just who all would be allowed to see their books and when that was clarified they did turn them over. I could be wrong though but I found something you should read.

Alberta meat packers did not profit unfairly from the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. However, Alberta consumers did see a 20 per cent overall reduction in the price of beef in the stores.

These findings are outlined in a government report, Pricing in the Beef Industry. The report found that while prices for high-end cuts like t-bones and ribeyes stayed steady due to high demand with little supply, prices for low-end cuts like ground beef and chuck dropped substantially.

Did you know?
Of an animal that weighs 1,387 pounds at slaughter, only about 625 pounds will end up on store shelves:
116 pounds of hip cuts
152 pounds of middle cuts
99 pounds of front cuts
211 pounds of ground beef
47 pounds of manufacturing cuts

For example, on May 18, 2003, two days prior to the confirmation of the single case of BSE in Alberta, the average price of regular ground beef was $4.85/kg. By November 2, 2003, the average price was $2.96/kg. The average price of t-bone steaks on May 18 was $21.52/kg, and on November 2, it was $19.46.

The review also showed that there does not appear to be support for claims of unfair packer profits. In the days and months following the discovery of BSE in Alberta, packers have faced increased costs including:

extra labour costs due to the need to separate cattle more than 30 months of age from those less than 30 months of age,
the loss of international markets,
changing the product mix to meet guidelines for export markets, and
costs of removing and disposing of Specified Risk Materials.

Gee somebody must have looked at the books. Financial Information turned over to any Government agency should be kept PRIVATE no matter who's it is YOUR, MINE, OR THE PACKERS. Without going into the number details the GOVERNMENT cleared them and that is all YOU NEED TO KNOW.

 

[Econ101]

Econ does the US government audit companies then publish what they find out for all to see?

Health inspectors of resturaunts do. They even show it on the news. Maybe we need a little more transparency with the packers instead of hiding everything under the rug. As someone who often buys meat for my family, I would be interested and I don't care if it hurts the poor little packers.

Health Inspectors do not audit books like the IRS. They inspect for Health violations and if there are any that might put the public in danger then yes there should be transparency but transparency in a companies FINANCES is not a health issue endangering the Public Health. :roll: From what I understand the Packers had concerns of just who all would be allowed to see their books and when that was clarified they did turn them over. I could be wrong though but I found something you should read.

Alberta meat packers did not profit unfairly from the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. However, Alberta consumers did see a 20 per cent overall reduction in the price of beef in the stores.

These findings are outlined in a government report, Pricing in the Beef Industry. The report found that while prices for high-end cuts like t-bones and ribeyes stayed steady due to high demand with little supply, prices for low-end cuts like ground beef and chuck dropped substantially.

Did you know?
Of an animal that weighs 1,387 pounds at slaughter, only about 625 pounds will end up on store shelves:
116 pounds of hip cuts
152 pounds of middle cuts
99 pounds of front cuts
211 pounds of ground beef
47 pounds of manufacturing cuts

For example, on May 18, 2003, two days prior to the confirmation of the single case of BSE in Alberta, the average price of regular ground beef was $4.85/kg. By November 2, 2003, the average price was $2.96/kg. The average price of t-bone steaks on May 18 was $21.52/kg, and on November 2, it was $19.46.

The review also showed that there does not appear to be support for claims of unfair packer profits. In the days and months following the discovery of BSE in Alberta, packers have faced increased costs including:

extra labour costs due to the need to separate cattle more than 30 months of age from those less than 30 months of age,
the loss of international markets,
changing the product mix to meet guidelines for export markets, and
costs of removing and disposing of Specified Risk Materials.

Gee somebody must have looked at the books. Financial Information turned over to any Government agency should be kept PRIVATE no matter who's it is YOUR, MINE, OR THE PACKERS. Without going into the number details the GOVERNMENT cleared them and that is all YOU NEED TO KNOW.

BMR, do you and Tam really live together?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Gee somebody must have looked at the books. Financial Information turned over to any Government agency should be kept PRIVATE no matter who's it is YOUR, MINE, OR THE PACKERS. Without going into the number details the GOVERNMENT cleared them and that is all YOU NEED TO KNOW.

Tam, the provincial government in Alberta cleared them WITHOUT ANY opening of the books with regards to the rest of Canada. Is Alberta the only place that Alberta packers sold their wares? Its odd how in Saskatchewan the AVERAGE cost of hamburger never wavered. Sure, we saw some down cycles, like some 99 cent sales, but there wasn't enough volume to affect the overall average. Same with Ontario. But the packers weren't required to open their books to show sales to any other province but Alberta. When those books were requested by the FEDERAL government, they were slammed shut and, unfortunately, the courts kept them shut.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Tam, none of the information you put up shows your point. A lot of little facts without a real examination of what is really going on is what GIPSA is good at. I guess Canada and the USDA have a lot in common.

Do you not care about the facts?

As I said before, the leadership in both Canada and the U.S. in regards to cattle producer organizations is sorely wanting. You can put the shoe back on.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy Kaiser,

I am really curious if there is even a hint of reasoning ability in that thick packer blaming skull of yours.

Do you still believe that Tyson and Cargill account for 80% of Canada's slaughter capacity?

Yes or no?

Very simple to the point question. No need to dance. Either you still believe that despite the numbers in front of your or you don't.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Randy Kaiser,

I am really curious if there is even a hint of reasoning ability in that thick packer blaming skull of yours.

Do you still believe that Tyson and Cargill account for 80% of Canada's slaughter capacity?

Yes or no?

Very simple to the point question. No need to dance. Either you still believe that despite the numbers in front of your or you don't.


~SH~

SH, why have the packers been bidding up the price of cattle so high to where they have "negative" per head profits? Can you come up with one reasonable answer that fits the puzzle?

Yes or no. Explain.

 

[Jason]

Can you understand it is cheaper to lose some money on cattle instead of a lot of money by shutting down?

Overhead accrues whether cattle are killed or not.

 

[Tam]

Tam, none of the information you put up shows your point. A lot of little facts without a real examination of what is really going on is what GIPSA is good at. I guess Canada and the USDA have a lot in common.

Do you not care about the facts?

As I said before, the leadership in both Canada and the U.S. in regards to cattle producer organizations is sorely wanting. You can put the shoe back on.

You are the one that doesn't care about the facts Econ all you care about is blaming the packers. Have you read the Standing Committee on Agricultures report on the Packers in Canada or anything about what the Competition Bureau found in their investigations. First, the Standing Committee, in the long term Impacts it states that

The George Morris Centre speculates that the average unit operating costs for Canadian Packers of about $150 per head pre BSE will be about $250 per head Post BSE. Given this Huge increase, it is uncertain whether all 19 federally inspected packers will remain economically viable. In the longer term, some packers may have to leave the business, find a new owner, or merge with an existing operator.

Now it does state that the packers profited in the short term but it goes on to say the the Packers will likely suffer the most from the effect of BSE. It is a 70 page report Econ and by the looks of it all the players testified XL Beef, Cargill, Tyson, Better Beef, Levinoff Beef and some from the retail groups. BY the way not all the packer refused to turn over their book

Two of Western Canada's major packing companies - Lakeside Packers and Cargill Foods - stood in contempt of Parliament at press time on May 10 because they refused to respond to demands from the House of Commons agriculture committee that they produce financial records

AND this was an article in the WESTERN PRODUCER

Packer Probe draws to a close
This week, the House of Commons agriculture committee will report that an audit of slaughter plant books in the aftermath of the BSE outbreak showed a sharp spike in packer profits but no obvious collusion or inappropriate gouging.

Now tell us how they showed the Standing committee a shape spike if they didn't get to look at any packer books?
The Standing Committee also recommended that the Competition Bureau look into the beef industry. This is an article about their investigation

Competition Bureau Concludes Examination into Canadian Cattle and Beef Pricing
OTTAWA, April 29, 2005 – Consumer demand for Canadian beef has kept prices stable even though cattle prices have dropped since the onset of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada, the Competition Bureau has concluded following a thorough examination.

The Bureau began its examination in February 2004 to determine if there were agreements among beef packers to lower prices paid to cattle producers or among grocers to raise or maintain retail prices for beef. The Bureau also examined whether pricing patterns were the result of one or more dominant firms engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts that restricted competition.

"We found no evidence of collusion or abuse of dominance by beef packers or grocers," said Richard Taylor, Deputy Commissioner of Competition. "The Bureau will continue to examine complaints of alleged anti-competitive activity in these industries, especially within the context of the U.S. border being closed to Canadian cattle."

The Bureau found that:

beef prices are set on a North American basis because of the reopening of the U.S. border to boneless beef exports from cattle under 30 months of age;
cattle prices dropped because farmers are limited to selling their cattle to Canadian slaughter houses, resulting in a massive oversupply of cattle that far exceeded Canadian slaughter capacity;
cattle prices tend to be volatile since they are normally set in auction markets;
lower cattle prices do not necessarily lead to lower consumer prices for beef; and
the final consumer price of beef includes a number of fixed costs such as transportation and labour, in addition to the price of cattle.
As part of its review, the Bureau contacted and analysed information from farmers and their associations, beef packers, and other players in the beef and cattle industries. The Bureau also retained an industry expert to write a comprehensive report, and commissioned economic reports.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that promotes and maintains fair competition so that all Canadians can benefit from competitive prices, product choice and quality service. It oversees the application of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act.

Sorry Rod but some of the packer must have turned over their books and it was the Standing Committee on Agriculture that found no obvious collusion or inappropriate gouging. and neither did the COMPETITION BUREAU.

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Jason,


Why don't you just tell the people you work for Cargill :shock: :shock: , and that is the reason you come up with the BS to blow your wind....

 

[Jason]

I didn't invent the numbers. Can-fax published them. Just say you don't believe them if you like.

Tam's article stated 19 Federally Inspected plants are operating in Canada, kinda supports the numbers.

Even Randy's numbers showed many plants with a capacity of 100 or 200 head, very small plants by comparison to the big 2. That shoots the theory that the big 2 will run out all small competitors.

If you can shed some light on the topic please feel free. I am always willing to learn more. If you want to know who I am, check the archives.

 

[Econ101]

Tam, none of the information you put up shows your point. A lot of little facts without a real examination of what is really going on is what GIPSA is good at. I guess Canada and the USDA have a lot in common.

Do you not care about the facts?

As I said before, the leadership in both Canada and the U.S. in regards to cattle producer organizations is sorely wanting. You can put the shoe back on.

You are the one that doesn't care about the facts Econ all you care about is blaming the packers. Have you read the Standing Committee on Agricultures report on the Packers in Canada or anything about what the Competition Bureau found in their investigations. First, the Standing Committee, in the long term Impacts it states that

The George Morris Centre speculates that the average unit operating costs for Canadian Packers of about $150 per head pre BSE will be about $250 per head Post BSE. Given this Huge increase, it is uncertain whether all 19 federally inspected packers will remain economically viable. In the longer term, some packers may have to leave the business, find a new owner, or merge with an existing operator.

Now it does state that the packers profited in the short term but it goes on to say the the Packers will likely suffer the most from the effect of BSE. It is a 70 page report Econ and by the looks of it all the players testified XL Beef, Cargill, Tyson, Better Beef, Levinoff Beef and some from the retail groups. BY the way not all the packer refused to turn over their book

Two of Western Canada's major packing companies - Lakeside Packers and Cargill Foods - stood in contempt of Parliament at press time on May 10 because they refused to respond to demands from the House of Commons agriculture committee that they produce financial records

AND this was an article in the WESTERN PRODUCER

Packer Probe draws to a close
This week, the House of Commons agriculture committee will report that an audit of slaughter plant books in the aftermath of the BSE outbreak showed a sharp spike in packer profits but no obvious collusion or inappropriate gouging.

Now tell us how they showed the Standing committee a shape spike if they didn't get to look at any packer books?
The Standing Committee also recommended that the Competition Bureau look into the beef industry. This is an article about their investigation

Competition Bureau Concludes Examination into Canadian Cattle and Beef Pricing
OTTAWA, April 29, 2005 – Consumer demand for Canadian beef has kept prices stable even though cattle prices have dropped since the onset of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada, the Competition Bureau has concluded following a thorough examination.

The Bureau began its examination in February 2004 to determine if there were agreements among beef packers to lower prices paid to cattle producers or among grocers to raise or maintain retail prices for beef. The Bureau also examined whether pricing patterns were the result of one or more dominant firms engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts that restricted competition.

"We found no evidence of collusion or abuse of dominance by beef packers or grocers," said Richard Taylor, Deputy Commissioner of Competition. "The Bureau will continue to examine complaints of alleged anti-competitive activity in these industries, especially within the context of the U.S. border being closed to Canadian cattle."

The Bureau found that:

beef prices are set on a North American basis because of the reopening of the U.S. border to boneless beef exports from cattle under 30 months of age;
cattle prices dropped because farmers are limited to selling their cattle to Canadian slaughter houses, resulting in a massive oversupply of cattle that far exceeded Canadian slaughter capacity;
cattle prices tend to be volatile since they are normally set in auction markets;
lower cattle prices do not necessarily lead to lower consumer prices for beef; and
the final consumer price of beef includes a number of fixed costs such as transportation and labour, in addition to the price of cattle.
As part of its review, the Bureau contacted and analysed information from farmers and their associations, beef packers, and other players in the beef and cattle industries. The Bureau also retained an industry expert to write a comprehensive report, and commissioned economic reports.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that promotes and maintains fair competition so that all Canadians can benefit from competitive prices, product choice and quality service. It oversees the application of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act.

Sorry Rod but some of the packer must have turned over their books and it was the Standing Committee on Agriculture that found no obvious collusion or inappropriate gouging. and neither did the COMPETITION BUREAU.

Tam, you already posted parts of an article that did not show your point. Why should I argue with someone like you who can not tell that was so? Do I need to disect it for you? If a real audit is not done and one that is largely made up by the packers themselves (I am not including the smaller packing plants here) for public dessimination, I might be interested in reading the report. Even the top rated Arthur Anderson accounting firm bent to the whims of industry in the Enron affair.

I am not saying there can not be a real audit preformed, I am saying it needs to be truely independent. Taxpayers paid out some reported $49 million to Tyson during the BSE fiasco, don't you think they are entitled to a federal audit? Was it just Alberta that paid the $49 million? My concern given the limited information on this issue is that the big packers had enough power to stop a federal audit and that you settle for a provincial audit which is much more likely to be adulterated. Would it have embarrassed the provincial politicians?

As someone else (you know who you are) says, it brings up more questions than answers.

Next time you post an article that makes your point, please be sure that the information in the article actually makes your point instead of spitting out unrelated "facts" to the questions being asked.

Your quote from the competiton bureau for example:


"We found no evidence of collusion or abuse of dominance by beef packers or grocers," said Richard Taylor, Deputy Commissioner of Competition. "The Bureau will continue to examine complaints of alleged anti-competitive activity in these industries, especially within the context of the U.S. border being closed to Canadian cattle."

specifically states there was no evidence of collusion or abuse of dominance by beef packers or grocers. No one has alleged that they were doing this. The allegation is that they took advantage of the BSEconomics to gain excess rents. They did not have to collude to get away with these excess rents. It was a market condition that was brought on by BSEconomics.

When you ask the wrong questions, you will get the wrong answers.

The question is "Did some packing plants take advantage of the market conditions and make much more money based on the widening price spreads between what the producers were paid and what they were paid?

Richard Taylor's statement did not answer that question. Nothing in your article pointed out the facts that were to be ascertained to get the answer. Now, I don't know what kind of educational level you have, Tam, but this was not that hard to catch if you had been THINKING regardless of your educational level. It does amaze me that anyone would put you in any position of responsibility for determining facts given your obvious inability to sift through these type of issues unless you are being used as a rubber stamp. You mitght not think think that $49 million is a lot of money but I bet the producers in your area do. Why don't you start looking out for their interests instead of portraying yourself as a leader for them and then not doing due diligence when it comes to the work?

 

[Anonymous]

MR: "I sure agree with you on the packers making a heck of alot more than $3.88 per head. Anyone who bellieves that bull hasnt looked in the meat counter at the store."

Manitoba, you have taken that number completely out of context. The $3.88 per head was for ALL FIVE MAJOR PACKERS IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE NINETIES.

Nobody suggested that is the average profit for ALL PACKERS AT ALL TIMES in all countries.

Pickett showed that ibp made $26 per head during the era of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation. That data was subpoenoed (sp?) into court.

I have no doubts that Tyson's Lakeside plant profited excessively AT TIMES when Canada had more cattle than slaughter capacity during the border closure which was prolonged by R-CULT's phony lawsuit against USDA.

MR: "Why don't you just tell the people you work for Cargill , and that is the reason you come up with the BS to blow your wind...."

As always, when they can't refute the facts, they discredit the fact presenter. Some things never change.

Manitoba, why don't you read the above quotes from the Canadian governments own study that Tam posted. What part of an additional $100 in expenses due to SRM removal don't you understand?

Oh, never mind, silly me, you're the guy that looks at the price of middle meats at the meat counter and thinks that this is representative of packer and retailer profits. LOL!

You better rush right out there and buy yourself a packing plant and retail plant and get going while the going is good then huh???

Conman: "SH, why have the packers been bidding up the price of cattle so high to where they have "negative" per head profits? Can you come up with one reasonable answer that fits the puzzle?

Yes or no. Explain."

Jason explained it. When there is shortage of cattle compared to the available slaughter capacity FOR ALL PACKING PLANTS, it's cheaper to run negative margins than close down plants. When Tyson's Pasco and Boise plants were running at about 30% of capacity when the Canadian border closed, they were still paying the same labor force for a 32 hour workweek.

It's no mystery for those who know anything about the packing industry which wouldn't include you.

It's so amazing how much you packer blamers hate the truth.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

Quote:
Conman: "SH, why have the packers been bidding up the price of cattle so high to where they have "negative" per head profits? Can you come up with one reasonable answer that fits the puzzle?

Yes or no. Explain."


Jason explained it. When there is shortage of cattle compared to the available slaughter capacity FOR ALL PACKING PLANTS, it's cheaper to run negative margins than close down plants. When Tyson's Pasco and Boise plants were running at about 30% of capacity when the Canadian border closed, they were still paying the same labor force for a 32 hour workweek.

It's no mystery for those who know anything about the packing industry which wouldn't include you.

It's so amazing how much you packer blamers hate the truth.


~SH~

It is obvious to me that the Pareto equilibrium without market fraud is an industry structure where packers are more like a public utility. Tyson, with its market frauds, is trying to change that Pareto efficient outcome. They are doing it with frauds against producers and GIPSA doesn't have a clue of how to investigate these frauds or even recognize them.

You are only trying to excuse frauds against producers by the packers, SH. Your circus chicken act might work with MRJ, but it doesn't fly in Texas.

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

As always, when they can't refute the facts, they discredit the fact presenter. Some things never change.

Manitoba, why don't you read the above quotes from the Canadian governments own study that Tam posted. What part of an additional $100 in expenses due to SRM removal don't you understand?

Oh, never mind, silly me, you're the guy that looks at the price of middle meats at the meat counter and thinks that this is representative of packer and retailer profits. LOL!

You better rush right out there and buy yourself a packing plant and retail plant and get going while the going is good then huh???





What I am trying to say is that we need a few farmer owned plants where we could kill our own cattle and really see if the packin industry is all that bad. Seems theres lots of market for meat that people know exactley where it comes from and was fed.

 

[Tam]

I am not saying there can not be a real audit preformed, I am saying it needs to be truely independent. Taxpayers paid out some reported $49 million to Tyson during the BSE fiasco, don't you think they are entitled to a federal audit? Was it just Alberta that paid the $49 million? My concern given the limited information on this issue is that the big packers had enough power to stop a federal audit and that you settle for a provincial audit which is much more likely to be adulterated.

Econ the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture is the FEDERAL GOVERMENT and the Competition Bureau is an INDEPENDENT Agency hence

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that promotes and maintains fair competition so that all Canadians can benefit from competitive prices, product choice and quality service.

Why can't you see that a FEDERAL AUDIT WAS DONE WITH AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT TO BACK IT UP WITH THE SAME FINDINGS NO ABUSE OF DOMINANCE BY BEEF PACKERS.?

The funny thing is some are worried about the packers not turning over their book and how the Canadian consumer was paying to much and they want to know why. According to the Standing Committees (Federal Government ) report the plants that were processing most of the beef for the Canadian market did turn over their books it was only the two plants that sent most of their processed UTM beef to the US that didn't turn them over. And the FEDERAL HOUSE OF COMMONS Standing Committee on Agruiculture Audit and the INDEPENDENT Competition Bureau audit and the adulterated Provincial Audit all found the same thing. No Abuse of market power . :wink:

 

[mwj]

As always, when they can't refute the facts, they discredit the fact presenter. Some things never change.

Manitoba, why don't you read the above quotes from the Canadian governments own study that Tam posted. What part of an additional $100 in expenses due to SRM removal don't you understand?

Oh, never mind, silly me, you're the guy that looks at the price of middle meats at the meat counter and thinks that this is representative of packer and retailer profits. LOL!

You better rush right out there and buy yourself a packing plant and retail plant and get going while the going is good then huh???

Sell some shares and start up a plant if that is where the money is at! I had a friend that had beef pkged at a federal inspected plant and sold to the public. She did fair except for the fact that she could never get the balance of high dollar cuts (steaks) and lower priced cuts (burger and roasts) to balance out. If you do not have a large base it would be hard to justify the cost of a plant on start up.





What I am trying to say is that we need a few farmer owned plants where we could kill our own cattle and really see if the packin industry is all that bad. Seems theres lots of market for meat that people know exactley where it comes from and was fed.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

According to the Standing Committees (Federal Government ) report the plants that were processing most of the beef for the Canadian market did turn over their books it was only the two plants that sent most of their processed UTM beef to the US that didn't turn them over.

Read what you just wrote there Tam, and you'll begin to comprehend why the study was laughable. They compared what was being paid to Canadian producers, then comparing that against Canadian retail prices (but only Alberta retail prices, read the study please, not the rhetoric on the web). Did the study even remotely touch on retail beef prices in the US? These are GLOBAL companies Tam who were able to buy cheap beef from Canadian producers and sell it at the same or even higher than norm prices elsewhere in the world.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

As always, when they can't refute the facts, they discredit the fact presenter. Some things never change.

Manitoba, why don't you read the above quotes from the Canadian governments own study that Tam posted. What part of an additional $100 in expenses due to SRM removal don't you understand?

Oh, never mind, silly me, you're the guy that looks at the price of middle meats at the meat counter and thinks that this is representative of packer and retailer profits. LOL!

You better rush right out there and buy yourself a packing plant and retail plant and get going while the going is good then huh???





What I am trying to say is that we need a few farmer owned plants where we could kill our own cattle and really see if the packin industry is all that bad. Seems theres lots of market for meat that people know exactley where it comes from and was fed.

Manitoba Rancher, you will need to look around and see what it takes to become the industry dominant player before you take that step.

Here are but a few:

1) Poultry operations that subsidize your beef operations and vice versa

2) Ability to purchase foreign (Canadian) companies when your buddies at the USDA put a ban on foreign supplies allowing you to get those foreign companies at a discount. Same thing with domestic companies (Hudson)

3) Taxpayer subsidies for your foreign companies. (This hits so close to the line at the bottom of Sandhusker's old posts about taxation being from foreigners living abroad----SUCKERS!!!!)

4) Manipulation of North American beef herd health and policies through your friends at the USDA to help you achieve your goals.

5) Taking advantage of those foreign producers to increase your own profit margins

6) Taking every legal case to the Supreme Court so you don't have to be held accountable to any laws and can mess up cases along the way.

7) Interferring with regulatory agencies so you don't have to be regulated.

8) Making large filtered campaign donations to political parties and political hacks in Congress and in the Canadian equivalent.

9) Using every leverage you can to skew all resources towards you alone.

10) A huge propaganda apparatus that would make Joseph Goebles jealous.


I could go on and on but I think most producers don't have the stomach for such tactics. I have found most producers to be a lot more honest than what it takes to be a packer. Of course there are a few notable exceptions on this board that I spar with occasionally.

If you are going to worship wealth instead of the important things in life, you deserve what you get. It only takes a lifetime either way to get what you deserve.

 

[Tam]

According to the Standing Committees (Federal Government ) report the plants that were processing most of the beef for the Canadian market did turn over their books it was only the two plants that sent most of their processed UTM beef to the US that didn't turn them over.

Read what you just wrote there Tam, and you'll begin to comprehend why the study was laughable. They compared what was being paid to Canadian producers, then comparing that against Canadian retail prices (but only Alberta retail prices, read the study please, not the rhetoric on the web). Did the study even remotely touch on retail beef prices in the US? These are GLOBAL companies Tam who were able to buy cheap beef from Canadian producers and sell it at the same or even higher than norm prices elsewhere in the world.

Rod

Rod wouldn't they also have to take into consideration the EXTRA expenses of processing the beef the one detail you don't care to admit might have something to do with the price of cattle. When the Competition Bureau investigated they did say the prices were based on the North American price as the border was open and beef was flowing into the US. Why don't you stop the rhetoric and look at the extra expenses the packers were facing. Do you think the packers are just going to eat the cost of disposal of SRM and the cost of lost of export markets for products we DON"T EAT here in Canada and the extra cost of upgrading plants so they can stay in the export business and pay you the same as they did Pre BSE. Those costs are no different that the cost of testing, the Packers are NOT going to eat them if they can recoop them by passing them back to the producer. ie cheap cattle prices as the Consumer will not pay any more. Rod do us all a favor ask your packer that you deal with what added expenses he is facing due to BSE and ask him to explain what those extra expenses are doing to his bottom line.

These are GLOBAL companies Tam who were able to buy cheap beef from Canadian producers and sell it at the same or even higher than norm prices elsewhere in the world.

EXACTLY Global companies that can take the beef they process and sell it to the highest bidder. If Canadian retailers don't better or at least match the US price will the Canadian retailers have enough beef to supply our domestic demand?