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

Captive Supply trivia.

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Haymaker keeps touting the merits of the Captive Supply Reform Act.


I have a question for all of you who think Captive Supplies are negatively impacting our cattle markets.

First remember the definition of captive supplies: those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

Considering that part of the captive supply reform act is to establish a base price on forward contracted cattle, can anyone tell me what percentage of "captive supply" cattle do not have a fixed base price?

Anyone?

Don't tell me you are blindly following the R-CALF/LMA pied pipers again!



~SH~
 
SHY:"First remember the definition of captive supplies: those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter."

This is the definition according to Gipsa. The true definition is "any cattle bought by packers that aren't sold on the open market".
Gipsa coined this definition so that their study could be skewed and favor the packers. They are in bed together you know.
 
Guest: "This is the definition according to Gipsa. The true definition is "any cattle bought by packers that aren't sold on the open market"."

That is not the true definition of "captive supply". That is the packer blamer's deceptive definition of "captive supply" to create the PERCEPTION OF higher captive supply numbers.

The primary concern with captive supplies is PACKER CONTROL OF CATTLE, PERIOD. The whole premise of Pickett vs. ibp was based on an unproven theory of market manipulation from "captive supply cattle" of which 75% are forward contract cattle. The argument being that packers avoid cash markets by opportunistically drawing from "captive supply" cattle. The debate has been defined well enough in court that you will not change the definition of "captive supplies" to fit your needs here.

Non negotiated base prices of formula and grid cattle is a seperate issue which has nothing to do with the unproven conspiracy theory of avoiding cash cattle markets with packer owned or controlled captive supply cattle. You will not slither around this issue on me. I know it too well. Grid and Formula cattle are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers at all, let alone for 14 days prior to slaughter.

The conspiracy theory of "captive supplies" relates to market manipulation by avoidance of cash cattle markets while drawing from "captive supply" cattle. That is the only issue on the table here and has nothing to do with formula and grid cattle that are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers.

If you can't buy that, perhaps you would like to take a shot at explaining to the readers how packers can manipulate markets with formula and grid cattle that are not owned by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter?

You won't touch that which brings me back to the original question.

What percentage of "captive supply cattle" per GIPSA and Pickett's definition do not have a base price negotiated?


Guest: "Gipsa coined this definition so that their study could be skewed and favor the packers. They are in bed together you know."

No, the packer blamers REDEFINED captive supplies because their "shot from the grassy knoll" is that packers control these cattle therefore manipulate the markets with them. Formula and Grid cattle are not controlled by packers to allow for the untested theory of market manipulation by drawing from captive supply cattle rather than buying cattle in the spot/cash market.

Your formula and grid strawman has been torn to shreds by the packer blamer's position in Pickett vs. ibp.

NEXT!


~SH~
 
:???:


Captive supply, would that be the same as going out on the Chicago Mert. Exchange and buying a futures delivery contract on feeders, and then selling a fed cattle delivery contract? Cause that kinda sounds like hedging to me, and good way to lock in a profit position. Oh right, before you can do that you need to know how to use the futures markets and what your cost of production is. The fellows in the grain industry have been doing this for years, as well as a lot of feedlot operators.

This whole debate on "Captive Supply" to me seems kinda mute. If someone came along and told you what cattle you could buy and what cattle you could sell and where to buy and sell them, i bet every r-calfer in the USA would rally up and raise money to fight it in the courts.
 
oppps,

sorry everyone, got my buys and sells backwards on the previous post...it still gets me confused after years of using hedges..
 
TTT

What percentage of "captive supply cattle" per GIPSA and Pickett's definition do not have a base price negotiated?


ANYONE?



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Guest: "This is the definition according to Gipsa. The true definition is "any cattle bought by packers that aren't sold on the open market"."

That is not the true definition of "captive supply". That is the packer blamer's deceptive definition of "captive supply" to create the PERCEPTION OF higher captive supply numbers.

Guest, don't you realize that there is the "packer blamers" definition and the "R-CALF blamer's" definition? :wink:
Click to expand...
 
Sandhusker can't answer a simple question either. Statements are more to his comfort zone. Imagine that!



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top