Captive Canada?

[Big Muddy rancher]

Where has anyone ever said all business should be owned by 1 man?

Every industry has seen competition that forces players to get bigger to survive. That is a fact of life. To wish for the "good old days" might be fun but isn't realistic. The days are gone where a rancher (unless he is old money or out of debt etc..) can be partially employed and survive.

It isn't logical to think every rancher can start his own feedlot and retail beef outlet. That would make him over employed and not able to do it all.

A realistic middle ground is to join some sort of alliance and concentrate on what he is good at. Expand his cowherd or take on the calf feeding. Add a trucking side or do some custom work. The options will be as diverse as ranchers are, but there needs to be enough work for the person to be fully employed.

There is a good article in the December Angus Journal on a boot camp for ranchers. It was held at Colorado State. Everyone should give it a read.

I hear there is a big push to get Canada opened up to breeding stock from the U.S., Jason. You may need to employ the strategies you espouse.

I think the bigger push is to get the border opened up to breeding stock from Canada. One thing you should learn Econ is Canada has superior genetics.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Every industry has seen competition that forces players to get bigger to survive. That is a fact of life.

I don't have a problem if the players get bigger. I do have a problem when the players gobble up the competition, and then all of a sudden, we're left with one or two players. Then it becomes a big problem, because instead of being price takers, they become price makers.

When that happens, consumer demand no longer has much influence. Take the computer industry for example. At one time, there were many players in the operating system market. Now, there is one real player and a bunch of little mutts nipping at his heels. And when one of the mutts gets big enough to maybe take a bite, he gets bought, re-integrated or destroyed.

And I think its a big problem when a company can get involved in markets that can positively or negatively affect one another. Lets take a theoretical example: Corporation A has a grain division with significant market influence and a packer division with even more influence. Since A is a single entity, there are no rules against the two division heads talking to one another. Grain prices have an effect on calf prices. The higher the cost of a bushel of grain, the lower the price of the calves. Corp A feels that they are paying too much for feeders at the auction market, and their profitiability is dropping. So, perhaps Corp A doesn't have quite enough influence to directly set the price of a bushel of grain, however they have enough market share that should they decide to increase how much they pay at the elevator, it will be noticed. And in todays commodity and futures markets, it takes less than direct action to influence prices. Need proof of that statement? Look at the hurricanes and their effects on gas futures this year.

Anyway, I digress.

Corp A influences the price of grain upwards. Grain farmers are plenty happy, they're getting another few cents/bushel more than they did a few months back. But now, two things have happened: The feedlots, who are already operating on a pretty thin margin now drop what they're paying for feeders to make up for the lost margin. Eventually, the feeders will adjust to the lower purchase price and adjust their selling price down. Now Corp A's packing division can get their mitts on cheaper feeders. Since there are only a couple packers, and a whack of stores competing for the finished product, the packers are price makers with supply and demand having little to do with the final pricing. Now let Corp A get their mitts into a few other related business ventures. They could swing the prices around, often enough to drive out any new mutts that come into town and start nipping at their heels. Once the mutts are gone, then they could put pressure on prices so their highest margin companies would then have favorable conditions, until the next mutts come into town.

Perhaps my econ profs taught me bad, but to my way of thinking, thats anti-competitive and steps should be taken to eliminate it.

I really don't mean to pick on Cargill, they're just handy. I have a real problem with any multinational corporation who has their hands in a multitude of markets.

To wish for the "good old days" might be fun but isn't realistic.

Why not? Its our government. Why should the large corporations dictate terms to governments that should only be concerned with the welfare of the individual? How else do we change things for the better, unless we actually stand up and start bellaring at our elected representatives? Why should we, as individuals, have to adapt to 'the way things are done' in the business world? Maybe its old fashioned, but I always thought it was supposed to work the other way around, and government was supposed to be there to ensure it did.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Where has anyone ever said all business should be owned by 1 man?

Every industry has seen competition that forces players to get bigger to survive. That is a fact of life. To wish for the "good old days" might be fun but isn't realistic. The days are gone where a rancher (unless he is old money or out of debt etc..) can be partially employed and survive.

It isn't logical to think every rancher can start his own feedlot and retail beef outlet. That would make him over employed and not able to do it all.

A realistic middle ground is to join some sort of alliance and concentrate on what he is good at. Expand his cowherd or take on the calf feeding. Add a trucking side or do some custom work. The options will be as diverse as ranchers are, but there needs to be enough work for the person to be fully employed.

There is a good article in the December Angus Journal on a boot camp for ranchers. It was held at Colorado State. Everyone should give it a read.

I hear there is a big push to get Canada opened up to breeding stock from the U.S., Jason. You may need to employ the strategies you espouse.

I think the bigger push is to get the border opened up to breeding stock from Canada. One thing you should learn Econ is Canada has superior genetics.

BMR, I had a friend who had a herd of cattle when I was in college. He had this one cow that looked really nice. She was big framed and her hide was prettier than all the other cows in the herd. You could look at the herd and tell that she stood out right away. Her bag was nice, big frame, long on the loin, muscled good for a cow. Nice long neck and feminine features. What you would want, it seems, in a good breeding cow.

The next summer that cow was gone. Sold. I asked my friend what happened to her. She didn't calve. He sold her.

Your genetics are probably like that cow. Now, with rkaiser, I know he has potential. I don't know about you. If all it took was a brown nose, then Jason would be the man. For a bull, as you know, it takes some big nuts.

 

[mrj]

I hear there is a big push to get Canada opened up to breeding stock from the U.S., Jason. You may need to employ the strategies you espouse.

I think the bigger push is to get the border opened up to breeding stock from Canada. One thing you should learn Econ is Canada has superior genetics.

BMR, I had a friend who had a herd of cattle when I was in college. He had this one cow that looked really nice. She was big framed and her hide was prettier than all the other cows in the herd. You could look at the herd and tell that she stood out right away. Her bag was nice, big frame, long on the loin, muscled good for a cow. Nice long neck and feminine features. What you would want, it seems, in a good breeding cow.

The next summer that cow was gone. Sold. I asked my friend what happened to her. She didn't calve. He sold her.

Your genetics are probably like that cow. Now, with rkaiser, I know he has potential. I don't know about you. If all it took was a brown nose, then Jason would be the man. For a bull, as you know, it takes some big nuts.

Conman, you again exposed you baser qualities and lack of beef industry knowledge, or at the least, admission of the history of beef industry commerce between the USA and Canada.

If Canadian genetics are not important to the US beef industry, why has there been so much of it imported, promoted, and bragged about in the past by US seedstock producers????

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

I think the bigger push is to get the border opened up to breeding stock from Canada. One thing you should learn Econ is Canada has superior genetics.

BMR, I had a friend who had a herd of cattle when I was in college. He had this one cow that looked really nice. She was big framed and her hide was prettier than all the other cows in the herd. You could look at the herd and tell that she stood out right away. Her bag was nice, big frame, long on the loin, muscled good for a cow. Nice long neck and feminine features. What you would want, it seems, in a good breeding cow.

The next summer that cow was gone. Sold. I asked my friend what happened to her. She didn't calve. He sold her.

Your genetics are probably like that cow. Now, with rkaiser, I know he has potential. I don't know about you. If all it took was a brown nose, then Jason would be the man. For a bull, as you know, it takes some big nuts.

Conman, you again exposed you baser qualities and lack of beef industry knowledge, or at the least, admission of the history of beef industry commerce between the USA and Canada.

If Canadian genetics are not important to the US beef industry, why has there been so much of it imported, promoted, and bragged about in the past by US seedstock producers????

MRJ

MRJ, I don't like to talk to anyone like this but I have asked you nicely not to call names. This is not how I talk to anyone or how I think about anyone, even though I am employing the tactic being used on me:

MRJ, hagwoman industry packer, I don't need your commentary.

To answer your question, maybe rkaiser has something.

 

[Bill]

BMR, I had a friend who had a herd of cattle when I was in college. He had this one cow that looked really nice. She was big framed and her hide was prettier than all the other cows in the herd. You could look at the herd and tell that she stood out right away. Her bag was nice, big frame, long on the loin, muscled good for a cow. Nice long neck and feminine features. What you would want, it seems, in a good breeding cow.

The next summer that cow was gone. Sold. I asked my friend what happened to her. She didn't calve. He sold her.

Your genetics are probably like that cow. Now, with rkaiser, I know he has potential. I don't know about you. If all it took was a brown nose, then Jason would be the man. For a bull, as you know, it takes some big nuts.

Conman, you again exposed you baser qualities and lack of beef industry knowledge, or at the least, admission of the history of beef industry commerce between the USA and Canada.

If Canadian genetics are not important to the US beef industry, why has there been so much of it imported, promoted, and bragged about in the past by US seedstock producers????

MRJ

MRJ, I don't like to talk to anyone like this but I have asked you nicely not to call names. This is not how I talk to anyone or how I think about anyone, even though I am employing the tactic being used on me:

MRJ, hagwoman industry packer, I don't need your commentary.

To answer your question, maybe rkaiser has something.

Maybe you had better bow out of this one Econ. After reading your analogy and the words used to describe Miss Centerfold, I'm willing to bet that you weren't part of the college judging team. Your understanding of the phenotypic standards of the bovine beast appears quite limited but thanks for the chuckle. :lol: The trade in live genetics between Canada and the US has been a two way street and will resume in the not too distant future. Can't say that I would be sourcing many bulls from the Midland test facility though.

 

[mrj]

Econ, talk about spying (as on the Political Bull site)! Shame on you for looking through my computer screen and seeing me before I "clean up" a bit to make myself fit to be seen!!!! Though my best isn't much, beauty-wise. My English grandmother ingrained into me the idea "pretty is, as pretty does", so I never cared much about my looks, fortunately! Using the "womanly paint pots" would help......but haven't the patience, nor the inclination to do much of that. Got other fish to fry. My point....."hagwoman" fits me fine sometimes.......and is pointless, unlike my reference to you as "Conman", when you earn the title yourself, IMO.

Now, calling me "industry packer" is truly stupid on your part since my closest packer relationship has been to consider investing in one share of packer stock for a grandchild but soon realized it was far from the best investment to be found and gave it no more consideration.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Conman, you again exposed you baser qualities and lack of beef industry knowledge, or at the least, admission of the history of beef industry commerce between the USA and Canada.

If Canadian genetics are not important to the US beef industry, why has there been so much of it imported, promoted, and bragged about in the past by US seedstock producers????

MRJ

MRJ, I don't like to talk to anyone like this but I have asked you nicely not to call names. This is not how I talk to anyone or how I think about anyone, even though I am employing the tactic being used on me:

MRJ, hagwoman industry packer, I don't need your commentary.

To answer your question, maybe rkaiser has something.

Maybe you had better bow out of this one Econ. After reading your analogy and the words used to describe Miss Centerfold, I'm willing to bet that you weren't part of the college judging team. Your understanding of the phenotypic standards of the bovine beast appears quite limited but thanks for the chuckle. :lol: The trade in live genetics between Canada and the US has been a two way street and will resume in the not too distant future. Can't say that I would be sourcing many bulls from the Midland test facility though.

It wasn't meant to be serious, Bill.

 

[Econ101]

Econ, talk about spying (as on the Political Bull site)! Shame on you for looking through my computer screen and seeing me before I "clean up" a bit to make myself fit to be seen!!!! Though my best isn't much, beauty-wise. My English grandmother ingrained into me the idea "pretty is, as pretty does", so I never cared much about my looks, fortunately! Using the "womanly paint pots" would help......but haven't the patience, nor the inclination to do much of that. Got other fish to fry. My point....."hagwoman" fits me fine sometimes.......and is pointless, unlike my reference to you as "Conman", when you earn the title yourself, IMO.

Now, calling me "industry packer" is truly stupid on your part since my closest packer relationship has been to consider investing in one share of packer stock for a grandchild but soon realized it was far from the best investment to be found and gave it no more consideration.

MRJ

Thanks, MRJ. I think we can both go on without the name calling. I apologize to you for any I have done so to you. As I said on another post, there are some traits I see in you posts that I totally agree with, although we should both leave room for differences of opinion. I even appreciate your posts on the NCBA. I don't think everyone is "bad" in NCBA, but I think there are some that are doing what the packers want to the detriment of everyone else. My vehmenance is directed towards those policies and the people who are allowing them to transpire, not towards everyone in the NCBA.

 

[Jason]

Rod,

I appreciate you giving a direct example unlike someone who likes to switch positions.

First, the good old days, are you willing to go back to stock racks on 3 ton trucks to haul cattle? Small 2wd tractors and pick-ups that get 4 mpg? How long would you last? How much subsidy would it take to support your family?

It would be cheaper for the gov't to put you on wellfare than support those old technologies.

Every farmer/rancher today can raise far more units of their production with less labor because of advancements in machinery and genetics.

As for a mulitnational being involved in grain and slaughter of cattle, do you seriously believe they can raise the price of grain enough to affect feeding operations? Cargill, the Wheat Board, P&H, Agricore, and a couple more I can't think of are all involved in grain in Western Canada right now. Plus feed mills, independant buyers etc. They might not have elevators close to every producer, but with the internet and toll free numbers they are seconds away from bidding your grain. Super-B grain trailers make 500 mile hauls feasible where they never used to be even considered.

Let's just say Cargill raises the price of barley just enough to affect feeders (although a few cent rise in barley isn't even a blip on the cost of feeding). If Cargill suddenly gets a bunch of this barley at the "new" price they have to move it. They are above the market price, do they sell at a loss? Where do they sell it? The main outlet is feedlots. If they sell to other feedlots they have just lost money and put the barley back into other feedlots.

Let's assume somehow they got rid of the barley and kept the price feedlots pay higher. Feeders drop the price of calves lower to adjust to the higher cost of gain. Has it helped the packer? Cargill doesn't buy all the cattle so they have to compete based on what margin they have. If XL, Tyson or shipping fats to the States pays more, will the feedlot sell to Cargill with a lowball price? We both know the answer to that.

Now Cargill has lost money on the barley and they have lost on the number of cattle they could buy. Why would they do that?

The only way market manipulation would work is if all buyers of fats got together and set a back room price. There has never been any proof of this happening, and is expressly forbidden in the PSA in the States. Now remember the States packers can bid on Canadian cattle, so they would have to be involved in the collusion if it were to happen.

Find proof of price fixing and you would be the first.

Please feel free to ask names and numbers if you need feeding or grain selling info. Information is power. If you know what prices are in other areas you know where the markets are headed. If I don't know an answer or a buyer etc. lot's of others here have info I don't have.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) First, the good old days, are you willing to go back to stock racks on 3 ton trucks to haul cattle? Small 2wd tractors and pick-ups that get 4 mpg? How long would you last? How much subsidy would it take to support your family?

2) Every farmer/rancher today can raise far more units of their production with less labor because of advancements in machinery and genetics.

3) elevators close to every producer, but with the internet and toll free numbers they are seconds away from bidding your grain. Super-B grain trailers make 500 mile hauls feasible where they never used to be even considered.

4) feeding). If Cargill suddenly gets a bunch of this barley at the "new" price they have to move it. They are above the market price, do they sell at a loss? Where do they sell it? The main outlet is feedlots. If they sell to other feedlots they have just lost money and put the barley back into other feedlots.

5) XL, Tyson or shipping fats to the States pays more, will the feedlot sell to Cargill with a lowball price? We both know the answer to that.

6) Information is power.

Good points Jason, however there are a couple things that I disagree with:

1) & 2) No, I wouldn't want to give up my modern trucks and tractors (although I will be moving back to feeding with horse in a year, simply to save on money), but then thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about receiving a fair dollar for my work and efforts.

As you say, we've made great strides in the amount of productivity, however the profit per unit has dropped. Why, as a producer, do I have to be the one to take the risks, increase my productivity, spend the bucks, only to see my increased productivity get stuffed into someone else's pocket? And this is happening. 40 years ago, my folks ran 50 mangy Shorthorns and Red Polls and some grain land. It was enough to buy a new truck every few years, keep us fed and watered, and build a reasonably nice home. These days, despite the increased productivity, 100 head won't do that, and it takes more work to raise 100 head now than it did to raise 50 head then. I've increased my productivity, my workload and taken larger risks but see no increased benefit. I have a problem with a world like that.

3) The promise of the internet hasn't come through yet, at least not for grain producers in Western Canada. Prices fluctuate wildly, so by the time you call around, get quotes, send in your samples, the price may have dropped 10-20 cents/bushel. And with the price of diesel and poor commodity prices, that extra 500 miles the B train has to make may eliminate the profit.

4) Large corporations that buy above current market prices likely won't sell immediately. At least not well run ones and well captialized ones. If they buy above market conditions, they'll stockpile until market conditions permit the sale. I never put any timelines in my example, and perhaps should have, but I'm not talking about overnight results. Many North American corporations have finally begun taking a more Japanese view of business and think in decades, not months.

Also bear in mind that my little example of a two commodity marketplace is pretty limited. If "Corp A" has their paws in 7 or 8 related markets, it would be very easy to heavily influence pricing in any of those markets by making small adjustments in the other markets.

5) If the feedlots are locked in with a contract, they don't have much choice of where to ship to.

6) Certainly. And I try to keep myself abreast of current conditions. More so than many of my fellow producers. Ya see, if I can't convince my government to bring about changes to allow the smaller family farm to be viable again, then I have every intention that my children or grandchildren will own the corporate farm, not just be a peon working it.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Rod, I disagree that 100 cows now is harder than 50 cows years ago.

A couple round bales and boom the cows are fed. I can put up twice as much feed in half the time with less help than I used to.

Our lifestyle has changed. The nice house your folks built wouldn't be considered such a nice house now I bet.

The landbase a generation back had wasn't worth what it is today. Prices went up, so did land values.

Profit per unit has dropped in ag, but it has in every commodity based industry as well. It might not be fun but it is reality.

As for pricing grain, samples should be at main buyers offices months (weeks) before you need to sell. You should have a target price in mind and can say yes or no to any offer in 10 seconds. If you need brokers try Shelly at Market Master in Edmonton or Jim at Newco in Coaldale. I can supply 800 numbers. It costs nothing to list grain for sale. They will give you definite at the bin prices, no freight surprize.

Many farmers deal direct with feedlots and eliminate the middle man. The price feedlots are paying for barley in feedlot alley is what sets the price everywhere in Western Canada. That information is common knowledge and is easilly accessed with a phone call.

Cattle and grain are perishable commodities and have to be used in a timely fashion. Barley can be stored for a year maybe 2 but storage isn't free. I know farmers who store more grain trying to drive the prices higher, and many of them wind up taking huge losses to rot, mold or other things that happen to stored grain.

If a large corp buys grain, it is not over market price, they have had to offer more to get the commodity bought. Cargill has contracts with buyers and must fill those orders. If they get caught short and have to pay more than they sell at, it is a short term thing and they save more in penalties than they pay extra (or else they would pay the penalties).

If the feedlots have signed a contract, they hopefully did so knowing their costs. Having feed contracted as well as the level of the dollar if in an export situation. I don't know of any feedlot that would contract fats when they haven't got a supply of feed, know their costs and have calves either bought or priced. If there is one that has, they won't be around long, and who made them do it?

I am glad you keep informed. Keep learning, if corporate farms are the new reality make the best descisions you can. No one forces us to be in ag. There are options out there. I am tempted to go drive water truck at $40 an hour. No one is stopping me but me. If I miss the oportunity it will be my fault not any multinational.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Our lifestyle has changed. The nice house your folks built wouldn't be considered such a nice house now I bet.

2) Profit per unit has dropped in ag, but it has in every commodity based industry as well. It might not be fun but it is reality.

3) I am tempted to go drive water truck at $40 an hour. No one is stopping me but me. If I miss the oportunity it will be my fault not any multinational.

1) Certainly not. And my idea of a nice place is likely someone else's idea of a dive. :lol: But what I'm getting at is with my 100 head, I couldn't build the same place they did with 50 head years ago. My workload is the same or increased, but I can't afford a new truck every 2 years from my cattle ranch. I have to work off-farm in order to afford some of the nicer things. Heck, I gotta work off-farm simply to afford the basics. But since all other prices went up, why is it unreasonable of me to expect that I should be getting more for my commodity?

2) I keep seeing reality mentioned, and I understand it is a modern reality. But it shouldn't be, and the only way we'll change it is to make government sit up and listen to us. If we keep changing our ways and not even _try_ to force corporations to adapt to us, at least a bit, then I firmly believe our society is going to be in terrible condition in 50 years.

3) I'm a double major, computer science/economics. No doubt I should have taken an offer in 1997 to move to the US and take over a shop down there doing cutting edge computer work. Instead I stuck with my current company, came home, and bought some cows to get back to a life that I love. I can raise my kids where there isn't as much chance of them getting knifed or shot, I've got lots of fresh air ('cept when I'm cleaning pens), and we still get the neighbors together every now and again for a few drinks and music. Its a fantastic life that I won't ever give up, but I don't think I should have to work harder and harder to keep that life so someone else can drive a BMW and live in a $5,000,000 home. So I work for change, and don't dis-illusion myself into believing that a large multi-national corporation is actually going to _help_ me achieve what I want.

Rod

 

[PureCountry]

Jason said:

First, the good old days, are you willing to go back to stock racks on 3 ton trucks to haul cattle? Small 2wd tractors and pick-ups that get 4 mpg? How long would you last? How much subsidy would it take to support your family?

It would be cheaper for the gov't to put you on wellfare than support those old technologies.

Every farmer/rancher today can raise far more units of their production with less labor because of advancements in machinery and genetics.

Jason, are you actually that naive to believe that someone who uses stock racks, little tractors, old technology and such, cannot be profitable? Maybe even more profitable than you? That is certainly what you're implying with those statements. And I say, I say, I s.s.s.say I resemble that remark, BOY! I am the guy using 'Old Technology', and my cost of production is lower than most cattlemen in our area. What's wrong with not having equip. comin out your ying-yang? You figure we all oughta have a 7710 to play with, or a different crew-cab diesel for everyday of the week?

You talk about how fast you can put up feed and how productive that is. Don't forget that production is only a piece of the profit puzzle. there's also somethin called expenses, maybe you've heard of it...maybe not. Anyway, you probably are doin better than me. My cows are so inefficient they take anywhere from 120-150 days to clean up our swaths, not to mention the mess of manure they leave behind all across the field bein out there away from the heated barn and pens all winter. Yeah, you're probably right. I won't last much longer doin' it the way I am.

 

[mrj]

Econ, talk about spying (as on the Political Bull site)! Shame on you for looking through my computer screen and seeing me before I "clean up" a bit to make myself fit to be seen!!!! Though my best isn't much, beauty-wise. My English grandmother ingrained into me the idea "pretty is, as pretty does", so I never cared much about my looks, fortunately! Using the "womanly paint pots" would help......but haven't the patience, nor the inclination to do much of that. Got other fish to fry. My point....."hagwoman" fits me fine sometimes.......and is pointless, unlike my reference to you as "Conman", when you earn the title yourself, IMO.

Now, calling me "industry packer" is truly stupid on your part since my closest packer relationship has been to consider investing in one share of packer stock for a grandchild but soon realized it was far from the best investment to be found and gave it no more consideration.

MRJ

Thanks, MRJ. I think we can both go on without the name calling. I apologize to you for any I have done so to you. As I said on another post, there are some traits I see in you posts that I totally agree with, although we should both leave room for differences of opinion. I even appreciate your posts on the NCBA. I don't think everyone is "bad" in NCBA, but I think there are some that are doing what the packers want to the detriment of everyone else. My vehmenance is directed towards those policies and the people who are allowing them to transpire, not towards everyone in the NCBA.

Apology accepted, though unnecessary. I won't promise not to call names because there are times it's just to appropriate and tempting. And I claim the tiniest bit higher moral ground because I do not use crude, rude names, but ones related to the quality of comment in the post being answered.

However, you are insulting when you insist you know more about NCBA and what the members should be supporting than the members themselves do. It is ludicrous to claim the miniscule number of packers involved in NCBA control the members. Cattle producers are over 60% of the membership. Not all cattle producers believe that ANYTHING good for packers is automatically bad for cattle producers! The least you could do is name names as to whom we should be wary of in NCBA that you THINK is pushing packer interests "to the detriment of everyone else" and even tell us just what those detrimental acts are, if you truly are concerned for members.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ--"Not all cattle producers believe that ANYTHING good for packers is automatically bad for cattle producers! The least you could do is name names as to whom we should be wary of in NCBA that you THINK is pushing packer interests "to the detriment of everyone else" and even tell us just what those detrimental acts are, if you truly are concerned for members.

MRJ"

I don't beleive that either. I will probably give names later. I like a little more info. before I trash someone's name. I can still disagree with them on points, but trashing someone's name is reserved for a little more than a disagreement.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

someone who uses stock racks, little tractors, old technology and such, cannot be profitable?
I am the guy using 'Old Technology', and my cost of production is lower than most cattlemen in our area.

I think this is about the only reason I managed to weather the BSE storm with any kind of profit to show at the end of the year. Other than my haybine and baler, which I need to be higher capacity and newer (working off-farm and trying to hay just doesn't always work), my tractors are all older equipment. My newest unit is an 1135 Massey that cost me $6000. So I've got virtually no equipment payments.

The 1135 spent all summer laid up with a bad water pump, so I spent haying season with a 4020 JD and my 930 Case. I couldn't believe how much I saved on fuel, even in comparison to using my 1135 and 1130. Pardon, I didn't save any actual cash on fuel, but my litre total was almost half of last year.

And I lost 10 lbs of weight every day from sweating. Was gonna call Oprah and let her know about it.

Next year, I'll fix the water pump, mainly because I missed the radio and the AC (yeah, I girlie-man), but it sure made me think twice about some the newer equipment I've been eyeballing. I know 1135s were never considered all that economic, but it'd be pretty tough to beat that old 930. I laid into a quarter that netted me 400 bales, and used 3 five gallon pales of diesel to bale it.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Your equipment doesn't sound much different than mine.

I run a AC 7060 and a NH 660 baler. Total cost for both was $25000.

My point was how about going back to small squares and stooks.

I don't know of any place with more than 20 cows that hasn't got some sort of a stock trailer.

How many cows do you need to afford the trailer? The more cows the less cost per cow the trailer represents. Same for the tractor etc. etc. etc.

The question comes back as to why should a rancher/farmer expect to have the "lifestyle" and still have the same standard of living others have? It costs money to afford a "lifestyle". Maybe ag people pay the cost in lower incomes.

For a person to hold off farm employment it means they aren't fully employed on the farm, or else they want a higher standard of living than ag will afford.

There is nothing wrong with that as a personal descision. But why should the gov't be asked to garantee a standard that is available if a person would change professions?

Life is all about choices. It is not news that ag margins aren't golden. The gov't has stepped in with assistance for blindsides like BSE where no one saw it coming or could plan for it totally. To ask them to set incomes so we can stay with a choice that might not be feasible for us is not their job.

The next step would be financial parity for all professions. Then why not for waitstaff, gas jockies, Wal-mart greeters etc. Some people really enjoy those jobs, why shouldn't they be paid a living wage to continue enjoying them?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) There is nothing wrong with that as a personal descision. But why should the gov't be asked to garantee a standard that is available if a person would change professions?

2) The next step would be financial parity for all professions. Then why not for waitstaff, gas jockies, Wal-mart greeters etc. Some people really enjoy those jobs, why shouldn't they be paid a living wage to continue enjoying them?

1) I'm not asking the government to guarantee me anything, least of all a lifestyle, however I do expect them to properly police the multinationals, and ensure proper competition, which they are not doing right now. During BSE, I watched older cows selling for 4-5 cents per pound. This was a regular occurence. Then I went into the grocery store and looked at the cost of lean hamburger (which is likely where that gummy old cow went). 3 bucks/lb. Who made the $2.90/lb (assuming 1/2 waste, which there isn't)? It certainly wasn't the feedlot where she went, and it certainly wasn't the Safeway where it was purchased. That leaves 1 place. So the government does a "study" that shows there was no wrong doing anywhere. I call BS. And then XL (or was it Cargill, I don't recall) released their earnings last year and showed record profits in spite of a depressed marketplace.

2) Perhaps I take a rather Utopian view on things, but I think society as a whole would be better with financial parity. Whose to say that a suit deserves a $150/hr wage, but a farmer who helps feed the world should work for less than $10/hr? But thats a whole new topic.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Your equipment doesn't sound much different than mine.

I run a AC 7060 and a NH 660 baler. Total cost for both was $25000.

My point was how about going back to small squares and stooks.

I don't know of any place with more than 20 cows that hasn't got some sort of a stock trailer.

How many cows do you need to afford the trailer? The more cows the less cost per cow the trailer represents. Same for the tractor etc. etc. etc.

The question comes back as to why should a rancher/farmer expect to have the "lifestyle" and still have the same standard of living others have? It costs money to afford a "lifestyle". Maybe ag people pay the cost in lower incomes.

For a person to hold off farm employment it means they aren't fully employed on the farm, or else they want a higher standard of living than ag will afford.

There is nothing wrong with that as a personal descision. But why should the gov't be asked to garantee a standard that is available if a person would change professions?

Life is all about choices. It is not news that ag margins aren't golden. The gov't has stepped in with assistance for blindsides like BSE where no one saw it coming or could plan for it totally. To ask them to set incomes so we can stay with a choice that might not be feasible for us is not their job.

The next step would be financial parity for all professions. Then why not for waitstaff, gas jockies, Wal-mart greeters etc. Some people really enjoy those jobs, why shouldn't they be paid a living wage to continue enjoying them?

Jason, a cheap food policy is a whole bunch of government rules, and regulations and their enforcement that either encourage over production or underproduction. Overproduction and no market power protection makes a cheap food policy. We have a cheap food policy right now. They don't have it in europe. Farmers make more money in europe than us.

I don't want farmers to have to move to europe to not have a cheap food policy, I want a cheap food policy to move somewhere else or just disappear. It only serves large agribusiness, not farmers, rural communities, or cattlemen.

You can stop your socialist fear mongering mantra of how it will be if we don't have our current system. It is not true.