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

Cattlemen's Group Wrangles With Its Former Allies

What's with you Murgen,,,,, nothing to do this afternoon either?

Don't you dare make suggestions about Sandman's extra ciricular activities. How the hell do you spell ciricular?
 
Just checking in to see if our buddy had finally brought anything yet.

Kaiser, I'm going to PM you sometime soon on your Galloways - maybe tonight.
 
Sandhusker, don't mix them, secured market or not, they will make your Angus look like, well, "hairy angus"! :D :D :D
 
Murgen said:
Sandhusker, don't mix them, secured market or not, they will make your Angus look like, well, "hairy angus"! :D :D :D
Click to expand...

I'm in cahoots with my cousin in a show calf operation. Show calves need to be thick, square and hairy. Black generally helps, too. We're wondering if the right Galloways might be useful on the maternal side.
 
Sandhusker, there is a guy around here that uses Galloway to produce the show steers. I think you'll be adding a little bit of everything, maternal and thickness. and a little bit of hybrid vigour.

I say go for it. I've seen some of Randy's, and they are some of the best!
 
I might PM you as well and tell you what we're thinking and what we're looking for. My cousin makes all the calls on the herd, I've got a handful of cows out there and I show up every now and then to pound a staple or man a vaccine gun. He'll be the one the needs convincing, but I do have his ears perked.
 
Sandhusker, the guy around here that is using them is named Earley. You might have heard of him, maybe not. Good guy, knows what he is doing, has even sold some of his "show steer bulls", crossbreds to units!

I think they sell about 50 steers a year for show, do pretty well at around $4000 avg.

But they are already crossbreds, so I would go to Randy and check out what he has!
 
Ever heard of the Daines Harry Crumb Bull Sandhusker. His dam was 1/2 Galloway. She produced some other steer bulls that I took my kids to watch sell. Big bucks in the mid 1990's. Found a page with his pic but it wasn't very big nor clear. I'll search around.

Daines ranch here in Alberta used some Galloway blood for quite a few years and made some good money. Of course the last few years have all but stopped the show steer thing in Canada and the real money was always in the USA.

We do have some structurally sound cattle that I know would work well in a project like this. And a fair bit of our blood came right out of your good old US of A.
 
We're both pretty sold on crossing Angus and Simmental for the mommas. The bulls we use are generally composites that are heavily Maine influenced. What does the Galloway Simmental cross come up with? That cross would be our line of thinking to keep on the same road we're on.
 
Our whole industry seems to be focused on breeds rather than structure of individual animals AND their predecesors. Don't forget the predecesors. Looking at an animal and admiring his structure and performance records is only part of the picture.

This breed thing is one of the reasons some of the sound breeds like our Galloways, or dare I mention Red Poll, South Devon, or any of a number of other sound cattle breeds, have been held back in North America.

Sorry for the rant, but I am a strong believer in cattle families rather than cattle breeds.

A sound Galloway bull crossed with a sound Simmental cow (or vise versa) will no doubt produce a sound crossbred calf.

We have producers in our program with some Simmi influence in their herds and shy away from those with too much frame, but we also have some Angus breeders that we make an effort to direct to a shorter thicker
herd bull.

Galloway will supply a wonderful haircoat obviously, but will also supply a stellar structure and even a postier show leg in some genetic lines. Thickness and spring in the forerib are almost a gimee and head size is generally small.
 
$100 from you to me if I provide the proof that gains in Canadian packing plants were offset by losses in U.S. plants that slaughtered Canadian cattle and no longer had those cattle available after the Canadian border closed. $100 to you from me if I can't provide the proof
Click to expand...
.


I read that Tyson lost more to loss of export markets than they did to lack of Canadian cattle.
 
Murgen said:
Rancher, that's what we have been telling you all along, you need us, and our Canadian imports!
Click to expand...

Why do we need your meat Murgen when we have no export markets to take it? We lost Japan and that hurt the packers more than no canadian cattle. That caused more of a financial loss to the books than the closed border. Are you :? :?
 
Cattleman: "I find it interesting that SH all along in other threads was pointing out that there was a shortage of cattle in the US and this is what accounted for the record high prices in the US...I agree.....but now he is turning around and trying to include ALL the losses associated with the plants running at 35% because of the closed Canadian border!!!!!!"
Click to expand...

Bullsh*t!

YOU SHOW ME WHERE I EVER SAID THAT A SHORTAGE OF CATTLE IN THE U.S. ACCOUNTED FOR THE RECORD HIGH PRICES IN THE U.S.

I NEVER SAID THAT!

If you are going to critique what I have stated, BRING MY QUOTE so it cannot be taken out of context.

I don't know where the heck you came up with that but it's simply not true.

The reduced supplies is only part of the record high price equation and I understand that very well.

THE PRIMARY DRIVER IN OUR RECORD HIGH CATTLE PRICES WAS THE INCREASE IN CONSUMER DEMAND FOR BEEF along with a decrease in domestic supplies and a decrease in Canadian imports!

R-CULT is the one who is misleading the producers by lying to them about the impact of Canadian imports on our markets. Look at last years cattle prices with a closed Canadian border. Look at this years cattle prices with an opened Canadian border. WHO'S MISLEADING WHO???

The answer is obvious!

NOR WAS I TRYING TO CREDIT ALL THE NW PLANT LOSSES TO A CLOSED CANADIAN BORDER. Yes, a reduction in Canadian cattle was the primary driver PARTICULARLY IN THE NW where those plants relied on Canadian cattle for 25% of their plant needs. There was also a reduction in domestic supplies that played a role as well. Heifer retention was a supply factor. Loss of exports was a demand factor.

I posted all the reasons given by Tyson and they did not just mention a reduction in Canadian cattle either so how you derived this from anything I have stated is beyond me.

THE ONLY ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE PROFITS AT THE LAKESIDE PLANT OFFSET THE LOSSES AT THE BOISE AND PASCO PLANTS. NOTHING ELSE!
Don't put words into my mouth or take my statements out of context.

Normally, (pre BSE) Canadian imports of beef and live cattle constituted 10% of our U.S. beef consumption. That is a fact!

As a rule of thumb, every 1% change in supply yields about a 1 1/2% change in the price of fat cattle IF ALL OTHER FACTORS REMAINED THE SAME.

5% reduction in supply by the elimination of Canadian live cattle imports, "IF" Canadian boxed beef imports were still coming in as normal, would create about a 7.5% increase in the price of fat cattle IF ALL OTHER FACTORS REMAINED THE SAME. Now consider the reduction in domestic supplies and a slight decrease in consumer demand from the highs of last year and you have the current cattle market.

Nowhere did I ever say anything to the contrary.


Rancher: "I read that Tyson lost more to loss of export markets than they did to lack of Canadian cattle."
Click to expand...

Guess where a lot of those cattle that were exported to Japan came from????

CANADA!

Guess where Creekstone's primary Japanese export supply was going to come from????

CANADA!

Like it or not, that's just a fact! Canadian cattle as a whole grade very well.

Yes rancher, the loss of our export markets played a role but all you have to do is look at Tyson's profitability in relation to our export markets and you can see that Tyson is back in the black again WITHOUT THE JAPANESE EXPORT MARKET.

What does that tell you rancher?

You cannot isolate a single factor, you have to look at all of the factors that contribute to our markets and all the factors that contribute to packer profitability.

Don't just R-CALF this by looking at the part of the equation that happens to support your bias.


Fedup 2,

Since you seem to be unbiased, how about I give you the phone number for the Tyson representative that I talked to, via PM, and you can ask him if the profits in Lakeside were enough to offset the losses in Boise and Pasco and report back what you find out?

I would love for someone to confirm this.

How about it Fedup?

Good information BTW and I appreciate your apparent objectivity on this topic.



~SH~
 
Do you think SH's report will include that rancher?

I dun thin so!

He's desperate for the hundred bucks.

Where you at SH, you can't hide out forever.
 
SH
Don't just R-CALF this by looking at the part of the equation that happens to support your bias.
Click to expand...
:lol:

That's the best SH :lol:

You have come up with nothing but a statement from one of your buddies over at Tyson who loves the way you treat the pions out in the real world. :lol:

You're kinda setting yourself up with a whole thread of statements like this last one are'nt you SH. What if us packer bwamers had a cut and paste artist like yourself to challenge your post. We'd be here all night.
 
SH earlier-
Did I mention plant abandonments in this thread Randy or is that something else you created in your vivid imagination?

You want to lecture on lies?

My position is that the profits made in Canada due to having more cattle than slaughter capacity were offset by the losses in U.S. plants that relied on Canadian cattle. I never mentioned anything about plant abandonments.
Click to expand...



SH later-
NOR WAS I TRYING TO CREDIT ALL THE NW PLANT LOSSES TO A CLOSED CANADIAN BORDER
Click to expand...
.
Yes, a reduction in Canadian cattle was the primary driver PARTICULARLY IN THE NW where those plants relied on Canadian cattle for 25% of their plant needs. There was also a reduction in domestic supplies that played a role as well. Heifer retention was a supply factor. Loss of exports was a demand factor.

I posted all the reasons given by Tyson and they did not just mention a reduction in Canadian cattle either so how you derived this from anything I have stated is beyond me.

THE ONLY ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE PROFITS AT THE LAKESIDE PLANT OFFSET THE LOSSES AT THE BOISE AND PASCO PLANTS. NOTHING ELSE!
Don't put words into my mouth or take my statements out of context.
Click to expand...
[/quote]
 

Latest posts

Back
Top