COOL closes border to Canada and Mexico live beef imports.

[Beefman]

What costs of MCOOL? People throw numbers around, but can't ever seem to say why the costs will be what they will be. I don't see it. A large part of it is already done, and has been for quite some time!

Explain how I can't go into any feedlot in the country and NOT pick out the Canadian/Mexican cattle TODAY.

I'm sure you can pick these cattle out. I would imagine those feeding Mex / Can cattle would pen and feed them separately. Otherwise, go grab a sort stick, sort by brands and have a great time.

The link below provides pricing info on approx 100 different primals (more if you're counting ground beef). ttp://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lm_xb402.txt
This is reported info for Choice and Select / thus a different label for each line item. Segregation for CAB, Cert Hereford, all the other branded products, which no doubt has significant cost, requires its own label. It must be cost effective, or else no one would do it. COOL adds a new layer of administration from grass roots to dinner plate. What's the quality or safety message with COOL? If consumers are in fact paying premiums for beef now that COOL is installed, all will be well. Otherwise, we're spinning our wheels.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Haymaker: Here's what SH had to say about trade: If you combine the value of imports and exports of live cattle, beef, beef variety meats, and hides and ofal. We have historically had a trade surplus in dollars but I have never seen a trade agreement that allowed exports but not imports.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why?

I would have to have the dollar surplus deal explained in detail,tell me more about the dollar surplus deal,post some reliable information as to how we can import beef, live, or boxed and get around the simple fact that..........The industry rule-of-thumb adopted by the International Trade Commission (ITC) is that a 1 percent increase in supply causes a 2 percent decrease in price. It really is that simple.
I think the ole packer game of playing boths ends against the middle are coming to a close,use canadian captive supply to manipulate the US markets,then use the lower US price to manipulate canadian cattle prices
Some of us around here have trouble believing how packer controlled trade and packer controlled usda benefit the cattleman.
good luck

 

[Beefman]

It's just one reason he's suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to rewrite the beef labeling provision in what could be one of several attempts to overturn a law long sought by consumer and farm groups.

Beefman, why would you think that the industry could thumb their nose at consumers and they still expect them to buy our product?
Lack of demand is what is hurting our industry...consumer consumption creates demand. As Agman used to say...all dollars come from the consumer. It's time we stop ONLY thinking about "low cost" and start listening to the source of our dollars...consumers. Beef will never compete with pork and poultry on price. It's time to stop worshiping at the feet of the chicken pluckers...beef producers must start selling our beef and giving consumers reason to buy.

I've not seen recent numbers, but I'm not aware that beef demand has gone in the tank. Demand for branded products / opportunities at the producer level have never been greater. You'd stated in a previous post there is "only 10% of the processing capacity to form producer-owned branded programs...the only way producers will effect their bottom line!" If your numbers are accurate, what was that percent 5 or 10 years ago.......I'd bet a whole lot less than 10%. Isn't this responding to consumer demand? How is this thumbing our noses at consumers?

 

[Sandhusker]

What costs of MCOOL? People throw numbers around, but can't ever seem to say why the costs will be what they will be. I don't see it. A large part of it is already done, and has been for quite some time!

Explain how I can't go into any feedlot in the country and NOT pick out the Canadian/Mexican cattle TODAY.

I'm sure you can pick these cattle out. I would imagine those feeding Mex / Can cattle would pen and feed them separately. Otherwise, go grab a sort stick, sort by brands and have a great time.

The link below provides pricing info on approx 100 different primals (more if you're counting ground beef). ttp://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lm_xb402.txt
This is reported info for Choice and Select / thus a different label for each line item. Segregation for CAB, Cert Hereford, all the other branded products, which no doubt has significant cost, requires its own label. It must be cost effective, or else no one would do it. COOL adds a new layer of administration from grass roots to dinner plate. What's the quality or safety message with COOL? If consumers are in fact paying premiums for beef now that COOL is installed, all will be well. Otherwise, we're spinning our wheels.

My point, as you pointed out, is that packers are already seperating US for Korea, they're seperating for CAB, Hereford, etc.... and is must be cost effective or else they wouldn't be doing it. They've shown that they can seperate quite easily and are already doing it, thus, where are all the costs the naysayers are wailing about?

The quality/safety message with COOL is that you're not buying mystery meat from places across this globe that you suspect are substandard sources. Also, you've just provided the identification method to be used in a focused US product marketing campaign.

Another huge benefit is that you've taken away a tool that the multi-national packers use to depress domestic prices. This is a win/win/win deal for US producers.

 

[Kato]

Do you honestly think they don't have other 'tools' they can use? If it's not one thing it will be another. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Do you honestly think they don't have other 'tools' they can use? If it's not one thing it will be another. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

So then you're advocating surrender?

 

[Anonymous]

RM: "The majority of beef is sold by corporations that also sell poultry and pork...what does that do to competition?A"

What's your point RM? Are you suggesting that Tyson favors one protein at the expense of others? You've always thrown out that "red herring" with nothing to back it.

If you are implying that beef competition is hurt by Tyson also selling poulty, back it up with supporting evidence. Perhaps you will fare better than the Pickett plaintiffs did with their "untested theories".

Explain to me why Tyson would buy into the beef industry and try to compete with the other major packers to sacrifice their beef division to the benefit of poultry?

Wanting to believe that doesn't prove it Robert. We live in a "presumption of innocense" based system of law or didn't you realize that?

The notion is absolutely ridiculous and you will provide nothing to support it just like always.

RM: "Selling mystery meat has helped producers, how?

It hasn't! That's my point! "M"COOL proponents didn't want to be burdened with traceback so they watered down the enforcement aspect of their flawed law to the point that the only way to comply is with a mystery meat label. "M"COOL proponents have nobody to blame for this mystery meat label then themselves because they didn't want a traceback system. Tough facing the consequences of your short sighted decisions isn't it?

RM: "The top five processor's market share has gone from ~40% to ~90%...how has that benefitted producer's profits?
There is only 10% of processing capacity to form producer-owned branded programs...the only way producers will effect their bottom line!"

Let me answer that by giving you one of my favorite packer blamer conflicting quotes.

"There's no competition in the packing industry"
"Smaller packers can't compete with the large packers"

I can't tell you how many times I have heard packer blamers use those same two quotes. You can't have it both ways. If smaller packers cannot compete, there is competition. If smaller packers can compete, there is no competition. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

So which way is it Robert? Can smaller packers compete or can't they? Is there competition or isn't there?

Let me help you by answering the question. There is fierce competition between the top 5 packing companies. You and other packer blamers don't believe there is because of the shallow observation that their bids are so close? Their bids are so close because their efficiency and markets are so similar. As boxed beef prices rise, what happens to the price of live cattle? Well, if the markets are controlled, why are the markets constantly moving? You can't explain that can you? Try opening a packing company and see how long you last and then tell me there is no competition in the packing industry.

Not what you wanted to hear I know but the facts just the same.

If larger packers are paying enough for cattle that smaller packers cannot pay the same and compete, there is competition, PERIOD! It's not even debateable. It was the same industry concentration, imports, and all the other things you blamers blame when fat cattle prices reached $120. What do you think caused that? A period of packer generousity? How do you explain the highest fat cattle prices ever recorded in an era of packer concentration and imports. How do you deny the obvious facts?

You darn straight there is competition between the 5 major packers regardless of industry concentration or they wouldn't have replaced the smaller less efficient packers before them. This is not rocket science and concentration is not unique to the packing industry. Look at the world around you for crying out loud. Do I really need to list off all the concentrated industries again?

Directly to your question, producers are helped by the fact that larger more efficient packers have reduced their processing costs to the point where they can and do pay more money for cattle than less efficient packers. How sad that you have to even ask such a basic business question but hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

RM: "Large packers eliminate small packers to increase market share!"

Larger packers eliminate smaller packers by paying more for the cattle than their competition can because they can process them for less money. This is such a "no-brainer".

RM: "BSE has scared consumers away from beef...not implementing an effective and reassuring testing program has kept them away. Not testing as also given the anti-meat fear mongers a bigger stick to beat us with."

The markets certainly didn't reflect that fear or fat cattle prices woudln't have been what they were before the economy scare. Again, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story. BSE testing on cattle under 20 months wasn't justified then and it's not justified now. It's just another unnecessary expense for the industry to bear so you USDA blamers can think you know more than USDA about food safety.

RM: "All the major packers are moving away from that label."

They won't if they can't trace the beef. If they trace the beef, "M"COOL proponents are opposed to a traceback yet support brand inspection. Haha! Such a quagmire!

RM: "Too bad therapy isn't helping...your hatred for R-CALF continues to cloud your judgment!!!!"

I don't hate R-CALF, I simply strongly oppose their twisted logic. If my judgement is clouded, perhaps you will finally step up to the plate and present some cold hard facts to prove me wrong but I won't hold my breath. Hasn't happened yet.

The one thing I have learned from these many debates is the power of the need to blame. How anyone can support a position despite the facts that prove it incorrect is beyond logic but don't let logic stand in your way either. Haha!


Hayseed,

Do you have indoor plumbing yet?



~SH~

 

[Kato]

I'm not advocating surrender.

Just pointing out the fact that this back and forth maneuvering between buyers and sellers never ends. Just because someone manages to pass a protectionist law to stop one so called loophole to their perceived benefit doesn't mean the packers will roll over and quit looking for bargains and ways to source cheaper product.

 

[Sandhusker]

I'm not advocating surrender.

Just pointing out the fact that this back and forth maneuvering between buyers and sellers never ends. Just because someone manages to pass a protectionist law to stop one so called loophole to their perceived benefit doesn't mean the packers will roll over and quit looking for bargains and ways to source cheaper product.

Yes, they will continue to try other things, but that just means that producers have to be vigilant and prepared to take on the next challenge. If you snooze, you lose.

 

[RobertMac]

SH wrote:Our competition is not Canada, our competition is poulty and pork in a global market.

RM: "The majority of beef is sold by corporations that also sell poultry and pork...what does that do to competition?A"

What's your point RM?

Pork and poultry are our competition in the protein market. To compete, you work to increase demand and market share(taking market share from pork and/or poultry). How does Tyson and Cargill compete against themselves?

RM: "Selling mystery meat has helped producers, how?

It hasn't!

RM: "The top five processor's market share has gone from ~40% to ~90%...how has that benefitted producer's profits?
There is only 10% of processing capacity to form producer-owned branded programs...the only way producers will effect their bottom line!"

Directly to your question, producers are helped by the fact that larger more efficient packers have reduced their processing costs to the point where they can and do pay more money for cattle than less efficient packers.

Packers can and do pay the least amount possible to buy cattle.
Packers use their reduced processing costs to increase market share...not pay more for cattle. How would, paying more money for cattle than they have to, help their margins?

But don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

RM: "Large packers eliminate small packers to increase market share!"

Larger packers eliminate smaller packers by paying more for the cattle than their competition can because they can process them for less money. This is such a "no-brainer".

Larger packers buy out smaller competing packers...then there is less competition.
"No-brainer" when you selectively use facts.

RM: "BSE has scared consumers away from beef...not implementing an effective and reassuring testing program has kept them away. Not testing as also given the anti-meat fear mongers a bigger stick to beat us with."

Anyone with half a brain knows BSE has effected beef's demand...well, almost anyone. Not effectively addressing BSE will continue to be a burden on beef's demand and market share. Testing for Japan would have regained that market.

RM: "All the major packers are moving away from that label."

They won't if they can't trace the beef.

All they have to know is country of origin...segregation is easy and being done now. Just more expensive to process a few hundred imported head in the middle of a several thousand head shift.

RM: "Too bad therapy isn't helping...your hatred for R-CALF continues to cloud your judgment!!!!"

I don't hate R-CALF,...

Like I said,"Too bad therapy isn't helping..."

The one thing I have learned from these many debates is the power of the need to blame.

My "blame" is that large business is detrimental to small business and new entrepreneurship. I am small business and have to compete with large business. When two meat inspectors tell me that the regulation that are enforced on small and large packers are forcing small packers out of business, I tend to believe them. When they tell me E.coli is a large packer problem, I tend to believe them. When Tyson gets involved in how my small processor is regulated, I'm concerned!!!

~SH~

 

[burnt]

If you snooze, you lose.

Then judging by their track record, rcalf must be quite a bunch of snooooooozzzers! :lol: :lol: :lol: