Captive Canada?

[Anonymous]

s.s.a.p. you raise some very valid points that I would like to hear the answers explained without a shouting match starting! This is a valid question for many niche producers on both sides of the border.

Creekstone Farms tried to serve a niche market - you saw what happened there.

I see as far as I can tell that they are still in buisness and serving a niche market. They adapt and move on if they want to survive.

They sent 34,000 lbs to Japan Monday....

http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w051231/Sat1.html

If our Big Corporate backing government hadn't stood in the way they could have been shipping for the last 2 years- but Tyson et al wouldn't allow USDA inc. to authorize it......

 

[Jason]

The latest fallacy by Conman

Tyson is using its market power to cut out all the competition. After the competition is gone, there can be no threat to their increasing their spreads.

They are doing a poor job of it. Cargill isn't going to roll over, neither are Swift or the others.

Small plants like Creekstone seem solid.

Heck even Randy is still in business. He hasn't given an example of Tyson underbidding him in a market.

 

[Econ101]

The latest fallacy by Conman

Tyson is using its market power to cut out all the competition. After the competition is gone, there can be no threat to their increasing their spreads.

They are doing a poor job of it. Cargill isn't going to roll over, neither are Swift or the others.

Small plants like Creekstone seem solid.

Heck even Randy is still in business. He hasn't given an example of Tyson underbidding him in a market.

Jason, rkaiser is not the only producer out there. Creekstone was rolled by policy.

 

[Jason]

The latest fallacy by Conman

Tyson is using its market power to cut out all the competition. After the competition is gone, there can be no threat to their increasing their spreads.

They are doing a poor job of it. Cargill isn't going to roll over, neither are Swift or the others.

Small plants like Creekstone seem solid.

Heck even Randy is still in business. He hasn't given an example of Tyson underbidding him in a market.

Jason, rkaiser is not the only producer out there. Creekstone was rolled by policy.

Who said RKaiser was the only producer out there? I said he is still in business even though he is afraid the big boys will squash him.

Creekstone took a chance and lost, but they are still in business.

Good businesses will take risks, but not ones that will break them if they are wrong.

Go back to the post about chicken and pork and antibiotics, you are saying Tyson is the big loser there. How can that be if they control everything like you have claimed?

 

[Econ101]

The latest fallacy by Conman


They are doing a poor job of it. Cargill isn't going to roll over, neither are Swift or the others.

Small plants like Creekstone seem solid.

Heck even Randy is still in business. He hasn't given an example of Tyson underbidding him in a market.

Jason, rkaiser is not the only producer out there. Creekstone was rolled by policy.

Who said RKaiser was the only producer out there? I said he is still in business even though he is afraid the big boys will squash him.

Creekstone took a chance and lost, but they are still in business.

Good businesses will take risks, but not ones that will break them if they are wrong.

Go back to the post about chicken and pork and antibiotics, you are saying Tyson is the big loser there. How can that be if they control everything like you have claimed?

Jason, I didn't see what you were referring to here. One of the reasons Tyson controls so much in poultry is because the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration is not doing their job to enforce the law. I will send you a pm on that.

On another note, do you want me to start referring to you as Gay Jason on the Downlow? I don't think it would help out in any of the discussions on this forum. I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me Conman. Keep doing it if you want, but I will treat you with the respect you give me as I have before. You have shown a bit of tough skin in this regard but it can get a lot worse. Doesn't have to, but can.

 

[rkaiser]

I really wish you would stop acting like there is no trend Jason. Sure we are still in business and NO, I am not scared of the BIG BAD PACKERS. If the group I currently work with gives up, I will find another. The beef business still has opportunities for those who choose to avoid the norm. Unlike the hog and chicken industry. BUT the mutinationals have goals Jason, and you can act dumb about this until computer discussion boards become obsolete.

 

[Jason]

Randy I really respect what you are trying to do with your branded product. It is exactly what you are doing that shows the packers don't control our destiny.

Not every producer wants to start a branded retail program, or be forced to buy the genetics to supply one. However, that being said there is room for them to find a market, even if it is with Cargill and/or Tyson and if they make money who's business is it?

The fact that you can make more total profit in your venture proves what SH, Agman, myself and others say, that if there is too much profit left on the table other players will always come into the picture. You have stepped up and although relatively small are giving competition to the big boys.


The only area we need to keep an eye on is slaughter regs. As long as the rules are consistant (which they are now) large and small packers can compete.

 

[rkaiser]

What ever you need to say to believe that you and Agman and SH are right Jason? :roll:

Sorry that you are to insistent on believing that you are right to admit that I am right about a trending society and a trending industry. Trending toward more power and control by few.

The rules are consistent all right Jason. Consistently favouring size and scale and consistently doling out corporate welfare. Your life time will be fine Jason, as will mine. I wish I could say as much for my children. Will your kids be their own boss Jason? Will they enjoy the last remaining dregs of a somewhat functional free market, which I do admit exists in a dwindling way?

Be proud of being right Jason; if that is what you believe. I also believe that it is right to say that the beef industry may be the last battleground. Chicken and Pork are done, and grain is a joke here in Canada. If you prefer to work for the MAN, go for it Jason. I prefer to manifest my own destiny. (sorry for borrowing the line my American friends.)

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

The only area we need to keep an eye on is slaughter regs. As long as the rules are consistant (which they are now) large and small packers can compete.

I promised myself I would never get involved in one of these discussions (although there has been some entertaining reading), but what the heck:

I disagree with the above statement. Economies of scale will always allow a larger company to be 'more competitive' than a small company. Small companies will always have difficulty staying in or entering a market in which there are already entrenched big players, especially in something like the packing industry.

I've always found it interesting that a packer like Cargill is even allowed to be involved in so many different agricultural markets, without having someone raise the anti-competition flag. Its far too easy for a large company, with huge cash reserves, to exert influence on a related market, which in turn influences the primary market, effectively hampering the supposed 'free market' we have.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Every industry is getting larger and larger players.

The regs in the packing industry are the same for all right now, and yes it is easier to spread overhead with more numbers.

That is a fact of life. Whining and complaining doesn't change that.

Asking the gov't to outlaw the big players sets us up for foriegn ownership, or cheaper imports.

I would rather have the jobs here in Canada and all the workers sharing the tax load instead of having to import more goods and export the cash.

However, with the shift in consumer demand for organic and/or safer food the really big players might have a hard time changing direction. If they do it's fair game for a new "big" player to emerge.

Anyone that wants to do their homework and take the risk is able to try their hand at any venture. Legislate based on blind emotion because you don't like the current players you might wind up with no one being able to set up shop.

Randy asks about going to work for "the man" (what is this the 60's?), that is an individual descision. I know hog barns that are under contract and the owners (hutterites) are far happier with the arrangement.

The point is those who don't want to change and provide what consumers want will disappear without help from anyone. If change means most have to be part of a chain, alliance or whatever so be it.

Randy is telling his "partners" that they need to use his hairy bulls to be part of his beef chain. Looks like they are working for "the man" already.

 

[Econ101]

Every industry is getting larger and larger players.

The regs in the packing industry are the same for all right now, and yes it is easier to spread overhead with more numbers.

That is a fact of life. Whining and complaining doesn't change that.

Asking the gov't to outlaw the big players sets us up for foriegn ownership, or cheaper imports.

I would rather have the jobs here in Canada and all the workers sharing the tax load instead of having to import more goods and export the cash.

However, with the shift in consumer demand for organic and/or safer food the really big players might have a hard time changing direction. If they do it's fair game for a new "big" player to emerge.

Anyone that wants to do their homework and take the risk is able to try their hand at any venture. Legislate based on blind emotion because you don't like the current players you might wind up with no one being able to set up shop.

Randy asks about going to work for "the man" (what is this the 60's?), that is an individual descision. I know hog barns that are under contract and the owners (hutterites) are far happier with the arrangement.

The point is those who don't want to change and provide what consumers want will disappear without help from anyone. If change means most have to be part of a chain, alliance or whatever so be it.

Randy is telling his "partners" that they need to use his hairy bulls to be part of his beef chain. Looks like they are working for "the man" already.

Jason, the regs are not the same. You have almost "free trade" with Canadian cattle, yet the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 is a U.S. law that does not apply to Canada's production.

Changing that fact would go a long way to helping protect Canada's producers from the effects of market power and abuse. No one is whining here. Some are just working for change.

No one is advocating outlawing the packers, just making them behave in the market place. You already have most of Canadian packers controlled by foreign interests so you can't argue that lack of support of foreign interests will mean more foreign interests.

It probably is most efficient to have the slaughter plants close to production and with the increase in fuel costs will become more so. No one is advocating getting rid of slaughter capacity in Canada. rkaiser was advocating getting more slaughter capacity that is not foreign or big packer owned. It is kind of funny that you will support a tax bailout that went to huge foreign interests that do not need Canadain taxpayer support money and not support a producer controlled plant. Must be your Cargill education.

In case you don't know it, the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was a law that was not passed on blind emotion. The Canadian bailout was.

Producers need to raise what consumers want. Having just a few men in an office making that decision for most of the industry will not accomplish this. Allowing those men to drive out competition with the abuse of market power will not either.

I suppose you like black bulls instead. What is it that you raise? Is everyone you sell a bull to working for you?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

The one thing that I'm not looking for is additional laws from a government. As a general rule of thumb, when gov't gets involved, they make a mess of things.

Having said that, what I would like is a government who actually pays more than lip service to the monopoly laws as it pertains to the agricultural industry. Allowing a couple foreign owned big players to buy out the majority of smaller operators was an error that our government made, and now should have to deal with.

A solution? Since the government got us into this mess, they can bail us out. Back a couple smaller Canadian owned packing plants with government guarantees. Allow them to expand to a size where they can now compete with the larger organizations. Once they're on their feet, pull the guarantees to ensure the company remains competitive and not reliant on government backing.

Then break up the corporations into their individual entities. If Cargill isn't using their position in the chicken industry, or their position in the grain industry to bolster their beef side, then they shouldn't have too many complaints about the separate entities being forced to operate as individual entities. Then consumers within Canada can be assured that the invidual markets remain separate and are only influenced by consumer demand.

Rod

 

[PureCountry]

Jason said:

Asking the gov't to outlaw the big players sets us up for foriegn ownership, or cheaper imports.

I would rather have the jobs here in Canada and all the workers sharing the tax load instead of having to import more goods and export the cash.

Jason, did you type this wrong? If not, what the #*$! are you talking about??!!? ALL of the big players in the packing industry are foreign owned!?

Anyway, the part of this whole argument that I always focus on, is the fact that Cargill and/or Tyson want to be in EVERY market. I don't care what they're doing in other enterprises, but to me, a corporation that pushes into every sector of an industry to better it's position / fatten it's wallet, is my competition. Call me jealous if you like, maybe I am. That kind of 'market power' is impressive to a point. But there is always a flip-side to that, and I really do not like the way they go about it. I've seen buyers gobble up cull cows and what-have-you as cheap as they could through BSE at the auctions who are not in their 'network', then sell them in their own auctions only days later at a higher price.

Jason, you say if they use their power to better their position, so be it. I say if they do, it's morally and ethically wrong. Yeah, maybe not illegally, at least that anyone can prove, but morally, IT IS WRONG. Why would you do whatever possible to beat out every other bull seller in your area? On one side, you have profit, on the other side, enemies, grudges, hatred, and YOUR OWN GUILT. If that's good business, you can have it.

 

[Jason]

Nothing changes the fact that the 2 big packers in Canada operate under Canadian laws and pay Canadian taxes, hire Canadian workers etc etc etc.

Would anyone rather us have to ship all our cattle South to have them killed? Talk about not remembering what the last couple years have been like.

There is no law on the books that favors large packers over small packers. Anyone that can live up to the safety and inspection requirements can kill cattle.

The realities of business favor a larger operation in terms of spreading out overhead.

I only showed similarities between a small vertically integrated operation and the larger outfits. I can't help it if you don't like the comparison.

 

[Econ101]

Nothing changes the fact that the 2 big packers in Canada operate under Canadian laws and pay Canadian taxes, hire Canadian workers etc etc etc.

Would anyone rather us have to ship all our cattle South to have them killed? Talk about not remembering what the last couple years have been like.

There is no law on the books that favors large packers over small packers. Anyone that can live up to the safety and inspection requirements can kill cattle.

The realities of business favor a larger operation in terms of spreading out overhead.

I only showed similarities between a small vertically integrated operation and the larger outfits. I can't help it if you don't like the comparison.

If all companies were owned or controlled by one individual, they could be "efficient" and spread their overhead.

They would also be totalitarian.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Nothing changes the fact that the 2 big packers in Canada operate under Canadian laws and pay Canadian taxes, hire Canadian workers etc etc etc.

Would anyone rather us have to ship all our cattle South to have them killed? Talk about not remembering what the last couple years have been like.

There is no law on the books that favors large packers over small packers. Anyone that can live up to the safety and inspection requirements can kill cattle.

The realities of business favor a larger operation in terms of spreading out overhead.

I only showed similarities between a small vertically integrated operation and the larger outfits. I can't help it if you don't like the comparison.

If all companies were owned or controlled by one individual, they could be "efficient" and spread their overhead.

They would also be totalitarian.

But they aren't :!: :cowboy:

 

[rkaiser]

Seems like you and Jason are hoping for it though!

 

[Jason]

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.

 

[rkaiser]

Jason -

A realistic middle ground is to join some sort of alliance and concentrate on what he is good at.

And the ultimate of ultimate is to do the best job that you can do, and then hand that animal over to Cargill and Tyson to grab more value and fire the profits into American Mutinational bank accounts. :roll:

And then stick up for them every time that someone talks nasty about their goals.

 

[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.