Chicken Replacing Beef

[Econ101]

Once again what you think is not improtant. Those were the same twelve people who concluded on their own that IBP had no business purpose to use supply contracts. That was their conclusion although the plaintiff's witnesses and all other witnesses testified to the contrary. May I remind you that such contracts are not illegal.

RIGHT TO CONTRACT DOES NOT TRUMP THE PSA!!!! The PSA sets the rules and some of these contract terms do not follow them. That is why we have laws like the PSA, so companies do not use market power to gain advantage in the market place. When market power is exerted we all lose. This is the argument the packers want to make-- that their right to contract and break the rules set forth in the PSA is dominant. It just isn't so. Just because you formalize fraud with a contract is no excuse for you to get away with it. The excuse that "the cattlemen made up these contracts" or that the cattlemen are somehow responsible for Tyson exerting market power because some of them willingly entered into contracts is ridiculous.

Companies breaking laws through contracts that market participants enter into willingly is no defense against the company using those mechanisms to exert market power.

I have continually argued that in cattle the contracts themselves were not the culpret, they were the vehicle. I am continually pointing to Tyson's other reason for swinging the beef markets, their poultry business. In the poultry contracts I have looked into they are the mechanism for the fraud. Poultry producers are now being paid based on their facilities, not on the poultry they are producing. When cattlemen are paid based on factors that provide efficiencies for the packers instead of the product the are producing, they too will lose their producer surplus and the companies will capture all of the profits in the industry. Tyson already knows that game well.

Again, just because the contracts were not illegal and could have good business purposes, does not mean that they could not also be used as a mechanism for exerting market power and extracting the producer surplus. Don't get the two mixed up and don't keep insulting my intelligence when you do.

Having producers sign contracts that include predatory pricing does not mean that predatory pricing was non existent or that the producers are somehow to blame. The entity exerting the market power and the predatory pricing are to blame, not the many producers seeking to maximize their return in the market.

Again, the remedy of not allowing Tyson to enter into these type of contracts is a legitimate remedy if Tyson used them to exert market power. So what if they are at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors in the market place because of it? So what if Tyson will lose out in the market place and not have as much money to give on capital hill. The armed robber who has gun privledges taken away from him is at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the population in regards to self protection. It is the price he had to pay for the armed robbery.

In response to your last sentence in this quote, using the example of the armed robber; it was not illegal for him to have a gun before the armed robbery, but that did not excuse him for using it during the armed robbery.

Your knowledge of the industry and this particular case does not exclude your incorrect application of logic and economic reasoning that was the basis of the PSA. It does not excuse the appellate judge's decisons either; it just reduces their credibility and compromises their judicial integrity.

If you are correct and I am so wrong then this case will get a quick review and be overturned by the Supreme Court. I will say again, they will not waste their time on a case where the decision of the Appellate court was unanimous. It appears you are the one with misplaced logic. If you could demonstrate that you knew even the basics of how this industry works then you would not be so confused. You have derived your opinions from heresay, not factual events. Do you still think major retailers only sell choice beef? I will save you the effort of checking, they sell predominately select beef.

The one thing you have proven to be adept at is taking one small phrase and implying that constitutes that entire law. Sorry Bud, but you are not the first one to pull that shell game. You are only fooling yourself and some R-Calf sheep.

I never made the claim that retailers sell only choice. I even admitted that I had bought select cuts of meat from the retail markets. It seems you are taking taking one small phrase and implying something different than it is. I do know that most times choice costs more than select. I can look to see if the fat trimmed or not trimmed off a brisket (and yes I cook a mean brisket) is enough to warrant the price/yield spread between two different grades of meat. I do know that some of the best meat I have had came from Ruths Chris Steakhouse and it was expensive and trimmed. I have cut my own beef before and know the difference between yield/grade. I do know that I don't want to eat another brahman beef.

I did not take the PSA phrase out of context. The appellate court did. They don't even know that any breaking of parts a) and b) of Section 202 affects the producer surplus and that any company captures the producer surplus has a competitive edge in relation to its competitors who treat its producers fairly. It is this court that has taken this law out of historical context.

I do know that when 1.28 billion dollars and the possibility of many more billions of dollars is at stake that it is not that hard of stretch that a THREE JUDGE PANEL can either be manipulated or out to lunch or corrupt. Especially when these judges owe their advancement to recommendations of the current judiciary committee.

As for being a sheep, maybe I am a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[agman]

RIGHT TO CONTRACT DOES NOT TRUMP THE PSA!!!! The PSA sets the rules and some of these contract terms do not follow them. That is why we have laws like the PSA, so companies do not use market power to gain advantage in the market place. When market power is exerted we all lose. This is the argument the packers want to make-- that their right to contract and break the rules set forth in the PSA is dominant. It just isn't so. Just because you formalize fraud with a contract is no excuse for you to get away with it. The excuse that "the cattlemen made up these contracts" or that the cattlemen are somehow responsible for Tyson exerting market power because some of them willingly entered into contracts is ridiculous.

Companies breaking laws through contracts that market participants enter into willingly is no defense against the company using those mechanisms to exert market power.

I have continually argued that in cattle the contracts themselves were not the culpret, they were the vehicle. I am continually pointing to Tyson's other reason for swinging the beef markets, their poultry business. In the poultry contracts I have looked into they are the mechanism for the fraud. Poultry producers are now being paid based on their facilities, not on the poultry they are producing. When cattlemen are paid based on factors that provide efficiencies for the packers instead of the product the are producing, they too will lose their producer surplus and the companies will capture all of the profits in the industry. Tyson already knows that game well.

Again, just because the contracts were not illegal and could have good business purposes, does not mean that they could not also be used as a mechanism for exerting market power and extracting the producer surplus. Don't get the two mixed up and don't keep insulting my intelligence when you do.

Having producers sign contracts that include predatory pricing does not mean that predatory pricing was non existent or that the producers are somehow to blame. The entity exerting the market power and the predatory pricing are to blame, not the many producers seeking to maximize their return in the market.

Again, the remedy of not allowing Tyson to enter into these type of contracts is a legitimate remedy if Tyson used them to exert market power. So what if they are at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors in the market place because of it? So what if Tyson will lose out in the market place and not have as much money to give on capital hill. The armed robber who has gun privledges taken away from him is at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the population in regards to self protection. It is the price he had to pay for the armed robbery.

In response to your last sentence in this quote, using the example of the armed robber; it was not illegal for him to have a gun before the armed robbery, but that did not excuse him for using it during the armed robbery.

Your knowledge of the industry and this particular case does not exclude your incorrect application of logic and economic reasoning that was the basis of the PSA. It does not excuse the appellate judge's decisons either; it just reduces their credibility and compromises their judicial integrity.

If you are correct and I am so wrong then this case will get a quick review and be overturned by the Supreme Court. I will say again, they will not waste their time on a case where the decision of the Appellate court was unanimous. It appears you are the one with misplaced logic. If you could demonstrate that you knew even the basics of how this industry works then you would not be so confused. You have derived your opinions from heresay, not factual events. Do you still think major retailers only sell choice beef? I will save you the effort of checking, they sell predominately select beef.

The one thing you have proven to be adept at is taking one small phrase and implying that constitutes that entire law. Sorry Bud, but you are not the first one to pull that shell game. You are only fooling yourself and some R-Calf sheep.

I never made the claim that retailers sell only choice. I even admitted that I had bought select cuts of meat from the retail markets. It seems you are taking taking one small phrase and implying something different than it is. I do know that most times choice costs more than select. I can look to see if the fat trimmed or not trimmed off a brisket (and yes I cook a mean brisket) is enough to warrant the price/yield spread between two different grades of meat. I do know that some of the best meat I have had came from Ruths Chris Steakhouse and it was expensive and trimmed. I have cut my own beef before and know the difference between yield/grade. I do know that I don't want to eat another brahman beef.

I did not take the PSA phrase out of context. The appellate court did. They don't even know that any breaking of parts a) and b) of Section 202 affects the producer surplus and that any company captures the producer surplus has a competitive edge in relation to its competitors who treat its producers fairly. It is this court that has taken this law out of historical context.

I do know that when 1.28 billion dollars and the possibility of many more billions of dollars is at stake that it is not that hard of stretch that a THREE JUDGE PANEL can either be manipulated or out to lunch or corrupt. Especially when these judges owe their advancement to recommendations of the current judiciary committee.

As for being a sheep, maybe I am a wolf in sheep's clothing.

BTW, Ruth Chris serves only aged Prime beef. My question to you was the difference between carcass yield and red meat yield. You have not demonstrated that you know the difference. As such you cannot understand why Tyson bought ceratin types of cattle to meet their largest customers, who are major retailers, needs.

Also, the more product that goes into case-ready product the more important one of the factors, carcass yield versus red meat yield, is to the packer. You can pick one, your chances are 50/50. Since I am confident that you do not know, Tyson is also the originator and largest manufacturer of case-ready beef, which is all select beef. Would that make a difference in what they buy?

If you are a wolf you have no teeth. Did they fall out trying to catch the R-Calf sheep?

 

[agman]

You have derived your opinions from heresay, not factual events. Do you still think major retailers only sell choice beef? I will save you the effort of checking, they sell predominately select beef. Agman

Webers in Chicago sells PRIME
Good Diners sell the good Choice cuts.
Good Grocerys sell the Selects
Food service and Walmart sells the bottum end with lots of marenated water and salt.
Mickey Dee's and the rest sell cutters and boners. in the form of pressed hamburger patties.

Can you make a better List?

I can assure you I know what major retailers buy and where beef product goes throughout the entire retail and HR&I sector. Econ101 is the one who needs to do a little research.

Tony's in Denver also sells Prime. He has two small but very excellent stores. Most of the money is made in prepared foods and specialty items.

How many stores does Weber have?
How any stores does Good Diners have?

Compare those numbers to Safeway, Kroger, Albertson's, Wal-Mart, Target etc. Safeway and Kroger sell mostly select with a very small section devoted to Choice, usually CAB product.

Choice product is sold by some specialty or smaller regional retailers. A lot of choice is sold to the HR&I trade through packers directly or by secondary regional distributors.

You would be surprised how much fed trim, fat and lean, is used by Mickey D's. One major competitor to McD's only uses steer and heifer trim. Did you really think you could stump me?

 

[Econ101]

BTW, Ruth Chris serves only aged Prime beef. My question to you was the difference between carcass yield and red meat yield. You have not demonstrated that you know the difference. As such you cannot understand why Tyson bought ceratin types of cattle to meet their largest customers, who are major retailers, needs.

Also, the more product that goes into case-ready product the more important one of the factors, carcass yield versus red meat yield, is to the packer. You can pick one, your chances are 50/50. Since I am confident that you do not know, Tyson is also the originator and largest manufacturer of case-ready beef, which is all select beef. Would that make a difference in what they buy?

If you are a wolf you have no teeth. Did they fall out trying to catch the R-Calf sheep?

The objective of this experiment was to provide a current evaluation of the seven most prominent beef breeds in the United States and to determine the relative changes that have occurred in these breeds since they were evaluated with samples of sires born 25 to 30 yr earlier. Carcass (n = 649), yield (n = 569), and longissimus thoracis palatability (n = 569) traits from F1 steers obtained from mating Hereford, Angus, and MARC III cows to Hereford (H), Angus (A), Red Angus (RA), Charolais (C), Limousin (L), Simmental (S), or Gelbvieh (G) sires were compared. Data were adjusted to constant age (445 d), carcass weight (363 kg), fat thickness (1.1 cm), fat trim percent (25%), and marbling (Small35) endpoints. For Warner-Bratzler shear force and trained sensory panel traits, data were obtained on LM from steaks stored at 2°C for 14 d postmortem. The following comparisons were from the age-constant endpoint. Carcasses from L-, G-, and H-sired steers (361, 363, and 364 kg, respectively) were lighter (P < 0.05) than carcasses from steers from all other sire breeds. Adjusted fat thickness for carcasses from A-, RA-, and H-sired steers (1.5, 1.4, and 1.3 cm, respectively) was higher (P < 0.05) than for carcasses from steers from all other sire breeds (0.9 cm). Longissimus muscle areas were largest (P < 0.05) for carcasses from L-, C-, S-, and G-sired steers (89.9, 88.7, 87.6, and 86.5 cm2, respectively) and smallest for carcasses from H- and RA-sired steers (79.5 and 78.4 cm2). A greater (P < 0.05) percentage of carcasses from RA- and A-sired steers graded USDA Choice (90 and 88%, respectively) than from carcasses from other sire breeds (57 to 66%). Carcass yield of boneless, totally trimmed retail product was least (P < 0.05) for RA- and A-sired steers (59.1 and 59.2%, respectively) and greatest (P < 0.05) for G, L-, C-, and S-sired steers (63.0 to 63.8%). Longissimus muscle from carcasses of A-sired steers (4.0 kg) had lower (P < 0.05) Warner-Bratzler shear force values than LM from carcasses of G- and C-sired steers (4.5 to 4.3 kg, respectively). Trained sensory panel tenderness and beef flavor intensity ratings for LM did not differ (P < 0.05) among the sire breeds. Continental European breeds (C, L, S, and G) were still leaner, more heavily muscled, and had higher-yielding carcasses than did British breeds (H, A, and RA), with less marbling than A or RA, although British breeds have caught up in growth rate.

My last post should have told you I know a lot more than you think. I do not necessarily go after breeds, there can be much differentiation based on the breeding stock regardless of breed. I know why Tyson went with select for Walmart and that is why I do not buy my meat there anymore. The last time my wife (thinking she was going to do me a favor) bought a piece of meat there I showed her what was wrong. I cut the meat in half and showed her that the nice red color I showed her to look for was really only mm deep. The meat looked as if it were painted. That is what happens when this industry goes for price quantity over price and quality. It makes people eat less beef.

I have continually said that the case revolved around the cash and captive supplies having different prices for the same product. There is no trap that I will fall into on this issue because I know there are a lot of arguments as to why they are different. Given the prima fascia case, Tyson did present a case as to why this was. Pickett obviously made the case that their cash market was of equal or greater VALUE than the captive supplies and Tyson did not refute their case in a believable way. They just remained silent. They relied on people like you to pull the wool over people's eyes after the verdict came in.

I know it takes more money to make a beef fatter as fat is more expensive to put on than meat. I also know that there is an inverse relation between the two and that the approximate two week slaughter time is critical for profitability. I have fed a few cattle out myself. It doesn't matter if Tyson paid more for cutter in the captive supplies if they did not pay as much in the cash market for the same cutter cattle. The question is, did they discriminate against the cash market in their buying. The question is not about anything else. You are full of fish and diverticuli. What more do you want to discuss?

Interesting about the teeth. Had an alligator we thought was dead in our boat that woke up one time. It was about 9.5 feet long. The boat wasn't big enough for the three of us and I quickly realized that I was not on the right end of that one. Jumped out, the boat flipped over, climbed a cypress, gator bit a huge bite in the boat in retaliation for his treatment. We finally got back to the boat and called it a night. Next day I noticed about 7 gator teeth stuck in the boat. I pulled them out and looked at them. They were big, but they were hollow. You see, a gator grows his teeth back after a while. A new one is always ready to replace one that is lost. And so it is.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "The jury was never asked to explain how they reached those damages so stop asking dumb questions."

How the hell would you know that when you didn't even read the court proceedings?

Wrong again!

Judge Strom addressed the jury's inability to come up with their means of determining damages in his ruling so quit making dumb statements.

Econ. 101: "Was he ever convicted of perjury? I thought you believed in innocense until proven guilty or is that only for packers? How did Mike lie to the jury? Please explain."

Mike didn't have to be convicted of perjury to have lied under oath. Mike Callicrate claimed a tape contained information that it did not contain. When confronted with the truth, he started back peddling. This has already been explained by OCM and Agman. Judge Strom instructed the jury to disregard a portion or all of Mike's testimony because he found it to be untrue.

Read the court proceedings.

Econ. 101: "So you are the judge now? We have a system in the U.S. where 12 jurors have to be convinced. They were. What you believe is of no consequence. Would you rather the ranchers that were victims of percieved or real abuse to have the power to hang the packers? They get the same jury system everyone else gets. Was it a conspiracy of 12 jurors that got it wrong?"

Judge Strom said they got it wrong and the 11th circuit upheld his decision unanymously on all accounts.

Admit it, you lost! Quit making up cheesy excuses for losing.

Econ. 101: "You brought up the whole select/choice and shear force tests as justifications for the market wanting less "fat" beef, not me. Where am I lying?"

You said that I claimed "select beef was "SO WANTED BY THE CONSUMER". I never said that. That's where you lied.

Econ. 101: "Where is the conspiracy theory here? Are the packers not using arguments of what the consumer wants to pay the cash market less? Even you have made these arguments, SH."

They don't know what's under the hide of the cash cattle until they are killed.

Econ. 101: "The base price must be a price that is negotiated, not based on last week's price or a future price."

SAYS WHO???

Says you and the "socialized cattle marketing advocates"

Why should a bunch of packer blamers determine how the rest of the cattle feeding industry is going to market their cattle?

HOW ARROGANT!

If I don't like a weekly weighted average base price, I can sell my cattle in the cash market and still get paid on grade and yield if I want.

Nobody is locked into a particular marketing option which is precisely why this "negotiated base price" argument of yours is so stupid.

Econ. 101: "I have not argued against grids. The base price must be a price that is negotiated, not based on last week's price or a future price. If they are, they could be considered captive supplies. Then what is the difference between the cash market and captive supply prices? NOTHING. That is what it should have been. Where is the ignorance here?"

If producers do not like a non negotiated base price, they have the cash market option already so why in the hell do you think you need to save the feeders from themselves?

They can also sell on the Angus Gene Net grid and BID THE BASE PRICE.

That option is already available.

You are just repeating what you heard. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Econ. 101: " You are not the judge. 12 jurors were and they agreed with Pickett. You have brought no evidence to the table to suggest they made a mistake and neither has judge Strom or the appellate courts."

Another lie!

Judge Strom gave many reasons why the jury was wrong in his ruling.

I have gave many reasons why the jury was wrong.

A difference between the cash price and the formula/grid price is not proof of market manipulation.

Lowering your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation.

There simply was no proof of a PSA violation and no proof of market manipulation. If there was, you'd bring it but you can't because it doesn't exist.

Econ. 101: "Where is the contridiction?"

I already pointed out the contradiction.

On one hand, you cuss formula and grid arrangements because you accuse packers of manipulating markets with them ("captive supplies").

On the other hand, you suggest that Tyson should pay based on what consumers want WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT GRID PRICING DOES.

Econ. 101. "Grid pricing, because it was not a negotiated price, had the effect of thinning the cash market."

A non negotiated base price doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. What thinned the cash market is the fact that other feeders already sold their cattle on the formula/grid.

Econ. 101: "If there was no difference in price between the cash and captive supplies as adjusted for yield/grade, etc, then there would not have been a case."

THIS WEEK'S CASH PRICE IS THIS WEEK'S CASH PRICE. THIS WEEKS GRID PRICE IS BASED ON LAST WEEKS CASH PRICE.

THIS WEEK'S CASH PRICE IS NOT LAST WEEKS CASH PRICE!

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT BEFORE YOU GET IT????

To say that this week's cash price should be the same as last weeks cash price is to say that supply and demand factors have no affect on the market.

How can anyone be so stupid?

THERE IS NO ADJUSTMENT FOR YIELD/GRADE BECAUSE CASH CATTLE ARE SOLD BEFORE THEY ARE GRADED!

Econ. 101: "If grid pricing was negotiated and all sellers had the same access to that type of pricing there would be no problem. It would be the cash market."

IF FEEDERS DO NOT LIKE A NON NEGOTIATED BASE PRICE THEY CAN SELL IN THE CASH MARKET!

What part of that can't you understand?

The feeders do not need you packer blamers to save them from their marketing. You packer blamers are so damn arrogant always trying to save everyone from themselves.

Econ. 101: " I am not chronic anything except pointing out where you misquote, misunderstand, or misuse logic in this case. With all your misses in this case it is easy to understand why very few people see you as a straight shooter."

You haven't corrected me on a single point yet. All you have is "theory" and "opinion". You don't have any supporting facts.

Very few people see me as a straight shooter. HAHAHAHA!

Do you honestly think that any packer blamers you associate with are going to give me a good review. They don't care about truth. They don't care about facts. All they care about is blaming packers. Not one of them can step up to the plate and contradict a single thing I have stated with opposing facts and neither can you.

Econ. 101: "I have just pointed out the problems with your arguments."

No, you have pointed out what you "PERCEIVE" to be the problems with my arguments. You have contradicted absolutely nothing and have been corrected many times.

You can't even figure out that this weeks cash price is not last weeks cash price.

You can't even figure out that fat cattle prices fall based on boxed beef price.

You can't even figure out that prices lower as companies meet their needs for raw products.

Econ. 101: "I bet Taylor could explain how the damages asked for were derived."

Taylor could not explain how he came up with his damage figures. Judge Strom stated that in his ruling.

Econ. 101: "Just because I have the right to own a gun does not give me the right to do an armed robbery. I say disarm Tyson for the robbery, it is the law forcaught armed robbers and felons."

Simply owning a gun does not mean you committed a robbery.

Econ. 101: "I even accept the possibilty that the appellate court is just incompetent with their ability to understand the PSA and the Robinson-Patman Act and the economic reasons for the acts. The appellate court showed this incompetence in their brief. For this they should have no right to call Dr. Taylor's testimony into question. They are not credible. Maybe they had some aids make it up while they went fishing. For the appellate court, both possibilities of corruption and incompetence should have consequences and we should all demand an explanation."

Until you can provide the evidence to prove a guilty verdict, you have no credibility.

You packer blamers can't accept the truth because the truth doesn't support your inherant need to blame.

Econ. 101: "How did you prove anything except that you did not understand the case? On the contrary, you have proven that you claim knowledge about an industry, throw a few interesting facts in here or there, and then profess that you are right on everything but will not engage in a good discussion of the issues. I already know who you are, but it doesn't matter anyway. You are being judged on your ability to convince others with your arguments. You claim to be a victorious champion of the arguments but you are just a self-proclaimed idiot who can only repeat the same old thing time and time again."

Listen to you, the self proclaimed moron that keeps repeating the same thing over and over hoping that if you repeat the false accusations enough that they will eventually become true.

I have never seen such a degree of ignorance displayed on these issues.

Do you honestly believe you can have any credibility in your arguments by presenting "theories" and "opinions" with no supporting evidence?

You don't know a damn thing about this industry or how fat cattle are marketed.

More importantly, you have not contradicted a single thing I have stated with opposing facts.

YOU GOT NOTHING Econ, absolutely nothing!


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "I do know that when 1.28 billion dollars and the possibility of many more billions of dollars is at stake that it is not that hard of stretch that a THREE JUDGE PANEL can either be manipulated or out to lunch or corrupt. Especially when these judges owe their advancement to recommendations of the current judiciary committee."

Yet another baseless conspiracy theory unsupported by fact!

GOSH, WHODA THOUGHT?

Econ. 101: "I have continually said that the case revolved around the cash and captive supplies having different prices for the same product."

You are continually wrong in saying that because this week's formula and grid base price is derived from the weekly weighted average of last weeks cash price WHICH CAN BE EASILY PROVEN TO BE BOTH HIGHER AND LOWER THAN THIS WEEK'S CASH PRICE.

To suggest that last weeks price and this weeks price should be the same is to say the market would never move independent of the affect of captive supplies.

With that argument you have cemented your ignorance.


~SH~

 

[ocm]

~SH~, You still think grid and formula are the same thing. You'll never get anywhere until you get that one straightened out.

 

[Anonymous]

Formula pricing and grid pricing is the same thing OCM!

You are wrong about that.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH--
Mike didn't have to be convicted of perjury to have lied under oath. Mike Callicrate claimed a tape contained information that it did not contain. When confronted with the truth, he started back peddling. This has already been explained by OCM and Agman. Judge Strom instructed the jury to disregard a portion or all of Mike's testimony because he found it to be untrue.

Read the court proceedings.

What was the information? Can you put it up on this board?

 

[Anonymous]

I already posted Judge Strom's instructions to the jurors to disregard Mike's testimony in part or in whole because the Judge found it not to be true.

Mike Callicrate lied under oath.

If you want to know the details you can read it in the court proceedings.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

I already posted Judge Strom's instructions to the jurors to disregard Mike's testimony in part or in whole because the Judge found it not to be true.

Mike Callicrate lied under oath.

If you want to know the details you can read it in the court proceedings.


~SH~

The question here is a question of credibility. It is your credibility that you told the truth about Mike C. when you said he lied to the jury. I do not want Judge Strom's take on what was said, Strom's credibility is under question also. What did Mike C. lie to the jury about? What was the lie. Exact testimony will do, if you have it. You only get to the truth by looking closely at the facts. What did Mike C. lie about? Please post it verbatum.

 

[Anonymous]

When you bring the absolute proof of market manipulation presented by the plaintiffs that I have asked for 20 times, I'll start answering your questions.

Until then, you can eat dirt!


~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

In this discussion I am not interested in the rice industry but I will ask a question since my brother went to Rice University and I did not.

What comes out of a China man's butt?

The answer next post.

Very funny...I see you have learned well from SH and Agman.

The relevance of the rice industry is that in the late 70s and 80s, rice producers thought the mills were jacking them around on prices. Instead of trying to sue a profit out of the mills, they put their assets on the line and built mills and formed marketing co-operatives and took control of their destiny through MARKETING THEIR PRODUCT. Riceland Foods is an Arkansas producer owned co-op that sells, raw product to retail ready product, world wide...one of, if not the largest player in the rice market. Being a co-op, all profits go back to the producers...that's true price discovery.

 

[rkaiser]

Now you're talkin Robert Mac.
Cargill and Tyson have more political clout than the government of Canada and weave their way through court like snakes.
The best way to deal with it is to build our own plants.

 

[Sandhusker]

When you bring the absolute proof of market manipulation presented by the plaintiffs that I have asked for 20 times, I'll start answering your questions.

Until then, you can eat dirt!


~SH~

Divertion. If SH had the proof he would post it with his lips a flappin 90mph. He doesn't have it.

 

[Econ101]

When you bring the absolute proof of market manipulation presented by the plaintiffs that I have asked for 20 times, I'll start answering your questions.

Until then, you can eat dirt!


~SH~

And I know you will be eating chicken.

 

[Murgen]

I know it takes more money to make a beef fatter as fat is more expensive to put on than meat

But do you know how much more energy it takes to put on a pound of fat over a pound of muscle?

 

[Mike]

I know it takes more money to make a beef fatter as fat is more expensive to put on than meat

But do you know how much more energy it takes to put on a pound of fat over a pound of muscle?

I think??????? Cornell Univ. research shows that it takes 1.8X more energy to put on a lb. of fat vs. lean muscle. It has been a while since I read that report.

Do I win the prize?

 

[RobertMac]

I know it takes more money to make a beef fatter as fat is more expensive to put on than meat

But do you know how much more energy it takes to put on a pound of fat over a pound of muscle?

I think??????? Cornell Univ. research shows that it takes 1.8X more energy to put on a lb. of fat vs. lean muscle. It has been a while since I read that report.

Do I win the prize?

Simplistically...
Muscle requires protein.
Fat requires starch.

Cattle are fattened on grain(starch).
Look at the USA population on their low fat/high carb diet!

 

[Radar]

But do you know how much more energy it takes to put on a pound of fat over a pound of muscle?

I think??????? Cornell Univ. research shows that it takes 1.8X more energy to put on a lb. of fat vs. lean muscle. It has been a while since I read that report.

Do I win the prize?

Simplistically...
Muscle requires protein.
Fat requires starch.

Cattle are fattened on grain(starch).
Look at the USA population on their low fat/high carb diet!

That's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, especially when comparing a monogastric to ruminant species.