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

Don't confuse me with the facts ..........

A

Anonymous

Guest
R-calf supporter: "Canadian imports are killing our markets"

Fact: In 2004, the US was not allowed to import Canadian cattle under 30 months of age.

Fact: In 2005, the US border re-opened allowing the importation of Canadian cattle under 30 months of age.

Fact: Feeder cattle prices were higher in 2005 than 2004.

Anyone want to debate that????

How do you argue against something so obvious and so blatant as comparing your own calf checks from 2004 to 2005 in contrast to what you want to believe about imports? Can't you remember your arguments from one year to the next?

Is this the time you're going to say, "well, well, there's a lot more factors that affect cattle prices than imports"?

Hey, wait a minute, if you're going to throw that argument out now, where was that same argument when any drop in the market was blamed on imports, packer concentration, market manipulation, or captive supplies??? Hmmm??? Either other factors affect the markets or they don't!

Here's a real head scratcher for you packer blamers, how do you explain $1.20 fat cattle prices a few years back with the same level of packer concentration and captive supplies? How does that work? Did packers suddenly loose their market manipulation leverage? Were packers suddenly struck with feelings of generosity? Did supplies dry up to the point where packers didn't care if they lost money on a few head? How do you explain it or don't you believe fat cattle prices reached $1.20?

If Packer concentration, captive supplies, and imports are the only reasons you mention for lower cattle prices, you better be prepared to explain how those factors changed when cattle prices move higher.

Oh wait, I'll bet it was the R-CALF lawsuits that scared them into paying up wasn't it?

When cattle prices fall, it couldn't be decreased consumer demand for beef relative to competing meats, it couldn't be attributed to increased carcass weights, it couldn't be related to increased corn prices, it couldn't be a decrease in export markets???? By Golly, it has to be "captive supply, packer concentration, and captive supplies" because that's what Johnny and Herman told us BY GOLLY.

Is it any wonder why R-CALf has lost every court case? It takes quite an imagination to believe that many judges and appeals court judges are wrong and R-CALF right. Yeh, I know, another corrupt system to blame....yada yada. 0 and 9 in court, there's not many NFL teams with records that bad.

What this industry desperately needs is a basic understanding of what factors do and do not affect cattle prices supported by factual information rather than a need to blame. Any volunteers to find out the facts or would you rather stick with the rumors and what you want to believe?

Do you honestly not believe, all other things being constant, that fat cattle prices do not track with boxed beef prices?? Seriously, do you? If you don't, why not just trend the two for a year and see how much correlation there is.

Hey Cinch, cattle numbers are only half the equation. How many pounds of beef you produce from those cattle numbers is the important part of the equation. Why do you think feedlots are so concerned about the "currentness" of fat cattle if it wasn't relevant? Don't you believe that carcass weights are part of the "SUPPLY" and demand equation? Do your calves weigh the same today as they did in those years of higher cattle numbers? I can't believe the cow numbers argument is still be thrown about like an old shoe without also mentioning carcass weights.

Do you R-CALFers ever stop to think how your arguments conflict eachother?

You don't want a traceback system or national ID yet you support brand inspection which is a widespread mandated ID system. You insisted that a beef animal had to be "born, raised, and processed in the US" before it could be labeled as US BEEF yet you oppose a national ID. Now, thanks to your inability to consider the consequences of your short sighted actions, we have "CAN-MEX-USA" on our beef. Gee, can't imagine how that happened??

Here's a hint, you can't prove origination of beef without a traceback system, period. Those import brands you keep parroting don't burn into the packages of beef those animals become. Don't take my word for it, go visit a beef fabrication plant and ask the managers how effectively they can trace beef origination through their system without a traceback system. Will you refuse to believe them? Do you think you know more about beef fabrication and beef sales than those who fabricate and sell beef?

Now don't try to spin that into a promotion of a national ID system. I support a voluntary ID system and I believe in letting producers decide for themselves whether the benefits of traceable ID are worth the costs. Id gladly be a part of a total process verified branded beef program while you continue to contribute to the generic beef market.

Blame yourself for the "CAN-MEX-USA" labels, not the packers. You didn't want the traceback system that was required to implement your beef labeling law.

You say there's no competition in the packing industry then you say smaller packers can't compete with the large packers. What's up with that? If smaller packers can't compete, there has to be competition. If there wasn't competition, smaller packers could compete.

You say that the packers and retailers realize the benefits of the beef checkoff and not the producer yet you support COOL as if that will benefit the producer???

Who actually thinks industry concentration is unique to the packing industry? Look at all the industries around you dominated by 3 - 5 companies and you think the beef industry is unique? Why aren't consumers complaining about coke and pepsi?

If you are so convinced that packers are making so much money off you, why haven't you invested in a packing company? Could it be that you don't really believe what you say enough to put your money where your beliefs are?

One of the biggest threats to the cattle industry is recreationalists buying ranches and running cattle when they don't have to make a living off cattle. Why don't you ever complain about that? At least that complaint has merit. If you complained about good northern cattle competing with dairy cattle, at least that complaint would have merit. The endangered species act and the Obama administration and their liberal agenda is a bigger threat to you than many of the issues you focus on. If you really need something to blame, blame something that facts can support.

If you would just take that blaming energy and direct it towards increasing consumer demand for beef, you'd be better off than blaming the other segments of the beef industry with opinions that cannot be supported by fact.

Hello walls......

I see Sandhusker is a "proud member of R-CALF". What's to be proud of Sandhusker? The lawsuit against the original founder of R-CALF? R-CALF's success in the courtroom? The internal implosion of the organization resulting in the US Cattlemen's Association? The ability to blame something you know nothing about?

I'm incredibly proud to NOT be an R-CALF member because I'd rather my views be based on facts as opposed to a need to blame.

There, I feel better now....

INCOMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And here you thought you had gotten rid of me for good? Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you and what you want to believe with the facts.


~SH~
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
Bashing R-calf is sooooo 2007 SH. You need to get on the Obama bashing bandwagon you and Sandhusker can finally find something you agree on.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
Bashing R-calf is sooooo 2007 SH. You need to get on the Obama bashing bandwagon you and Sandhusker can finally find something you agree on.

That is funny :) , I don't care who you are. Thanks for the laugh. :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bull Hauler: "Bashing R-calf is sooooo 2007 SH."

It's not 2007 until die hard R-CALF supporters stop misleading producers about factors they believe impact cattle prices which can not be supported factually.

I'm of the mindset that cattle producers should know the truth about which factors do and do not affect cattle prices. That's why I have always welcomed the debate. There is no "agree to disagree". There is positions that can be supported factually and there is positions that cannot be supported factually. Those differences can only be sorted out in a court of law which has been done.

When pointing out mistakes or misleading information by either R-CALF or Obama, how is that "bashing"? If Bill Clinton lied about the Monica Lewinsky scandal, is that "Clinton Bashing" or simply stating a fact?

You're right though, it would be nice playing for the same team as Sandhusker for awhile ("Obama bashing") as opposed to trying to correct his empty packer blaming, USDA blaming, import blaming views.

Obama and his liberal mantra of "Queen P", "Dingy Harry", Boxer, and Feinstein and their like are going to put this country in a lot of hurt before it's corrected.


I'm serious when I say that every livestock producer should take the time to understand the factors that impact their cattle markets and understand the factors which are nothing more than baseless conspiracy theories. I don't say that with a "condescending" attitude, I say that with concern for the lack of reliable market information. When you know which factors will affect cattle prices, such as a dairy buyout or a ton of cheap chicken on the market, you can react accordingly to protect your yearlong investment. I care a lot about rural communities and they certainly are not served well with misleading information.


Soapweed,

Hope your family is happy and healthy, the calves are healthy, and the cows are putting on much needed conditioning after a tough winter and I hope we see another $1.40 calf market.



~SH~
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Hey ~Sweet Heart~, are you saying factors like "imports, packer concentration, market manipulation, or captive supplies" are not "factors that impact their cattle markets"????

Bull Hauler: "Bashing R-calf is sooooo 2007 SH."
A vendetta must be hard to let go!!!!
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
sh,did you make parole again :D :D ,glad to see you back on the streets,been meanin to ask,is that brother in law of yours still a "hard core R CALFER " :D :D
good luck

PS Must be plumb terrible.......havin a packer blamer in the family :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hey ~Sweet Heart~, are you saying factors like "imports, packer concentration, market manipulation, or captive supplies" are not "factors that impact their cattle markets"????

No, Robert, I'm saying that the impact of these factors is minimal in comparison with other factors. Care to debate that?

Imported lean trimmings have added value to our 50/50 trim. If you understood the beef industry, you'd know that.

Other beef imports are offset by our beef exports. You can't have "trade" if it isn't both ways.

Packer Concentration has had more positive affect on cattle prices than negative. Large efficient packers competing with other large efficient packers lead to higher cattle prices than would be paid by the less efficient packers they replaced. There is no debate here.

There is no proof of market manipulation. The Pickett case was shot down in flames.

The affect of captive supplies is irrelevant. The cattle feeding industry doesn't need market manipulation conspiracy theorists to save them from their marketing strategies.

How is it that the blamers within the cattle industry think they know more about marketing beef than those who market beef and they think they know more about marketing fat cattle than those who market fat cattle? Isn't that the epitomy of arrogance?

We had $1.20 fat cattle prices with the same level of packer concentration and the same level of captive supplies. How do you explain that FACT in comparison to what you want to believe about packer concentration and captive supplies?

RM (in addition),

Please explain to everyone the relevance of Tyson processing both chicken and beef and how that is relevant to cattle prices?

You keep throwing that empty argument out there. Explain it for once.



~SH~
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
SH said:
Packer Concentration has had more positive affect on cattle prices than negative. Large efficient packers competing with other large efficient packers lead to higher cattle prices than would be paid by the less efficient packers they replaced. There is no debate here.
I use a small packer and pay a higher processing cost and still double my income from each head I sell. I'm down to the last processor in my area because(per USDA inspectors) all others have gone out of business because of the large packers and cost of regulation. I suppose you believe losing an avenue to double producer income is alright as long as we have two large efficient packers. The import story will be told when the large efficient packers are able to import South American cattle. I agree there are many factors effecting prices...not the least of which is the idea preached everyday that "fat kills and beef in full of fat"!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Imported lean trimmings have added value to our 50/50 trim.

I have heard and seen that assumption a few times and do not fully know how it could possibly be true. With the large number of dairy, and cull beef cows that are "lean" beef producers it's awful hard for me to believe it as fact.

Except for some statements thrown around on the subject, is there any absolute proof that imported lean trimmings add value to our fat?

If it is so, why has Tyson built a fuel producing facility that uses beef and chicken fat as the source of the fuel?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Code:
[quote="Mike"][quote]Imported lean trimmings have added value to our 50/50 trim.[/quote]
I have heard and seen that assumption a few times and do not fully know how it could possibly be true. With the large number of dairy, and cull beef cows that are "lean" beef producers it's awful hard for me to believe it as fact.

Except for some statements thrown around on the subject, is there any absolute proof that imported lean trimmings add value to our fat?

If it is so, why has Tyson built a fuel producing facility that uses beef and chicken fat as the source of the fuel?[/quote]

That's the only weak excuse you will hear from the packer gang justifying market manipulation,that and the efficient story,ole sh's theory is the less packers the more efficent they are so they will give the cattleman more for his cattle,that will give you an idea of his intelligence level.
good luck
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I've asked SH and MRJ both several times to show a relationship between the big packer profits and cattle prices. They have never done so, yet continue to preach the doctrine that producers need to take bullets to enhance packer profitability. Their disconnect between theory and reality - and inability/refusal to acknowledge the real world rivals that of the Obamazombies.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RM: "I use a small packer and pay a higher processing cost and still double my income from each head I sell. I'm down to the last processor in my area because(per USDA inspectors) all others have gone out of business because of the large packers and cost of regulation. I suppose you believe losing an avenue to double producer income is alright as long as we have two large efficient packers. The import story will be told when the large efficient packers are able to import South American cattle. I agree there are many factors effecting prices...not the least of which is the idea preached everyday that "fat kills and beef in full of fat"!"

Robert,

You have always had the ability to take the topic of discussion in a different direction than originally intended.

Before I allow you to take this discussion in a different direction, let's revisit the original topic of discussion. The issue here is whether or not larger more efficient packers can/will pay more for fat cattle WITHIN THE COMMODITY BEEF INDUSTRY than smaller less efficient packers. That's the issue we are discussing here within the concern for producer profitability.

Now lets contrast my previous comments regarding packer efficiency with your statement above.

First, you are adding value to the beef you are having processed for you. You take the cattle in and take the beef out. Your profitability is related to the sale of the beef, not the sale of fat cattle. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with what beef packers can and cannot pay for fat cattle within the commodity beef industry due to the efficiency of those packers. In contrast, the profitability of most feedlots has to do with what they will get paid for fat cattle. What the feedlot gets paid for fat cattle determines what they can and will pay for feeder cattle.

Your concern here is who can do you the best job of custom processing your beef and what the cost of processing that beef will be. APPLES AND ORANGES! So the real question here is, who can process your beef to your specifications at the least cost.

In your situation OUTSIDE OF THE COMMODITY BEEF INDUSTRY, I agree, the loss of small packers willing to custom kill your cattle for you could negatively impact your bottom line. Not that the larger more efficient packer couldn't custom process your cattle cheaper, the question is WILL THEY??? I doubt it.

At this point I also want to commend you for stepping outside of the commodity beef industry and adding value to your cattle and profitability to your bottom line.

There is nothing I would rather see than a group of producers using any packing plant to custom process and add value to their cattle by selling source verified branded beef products. That can certainly be a better option than contributing to the commodity beef industry and competing with lower quality cattle.

No, I do not believe that losing an avenue for processing your cattle is alright, the point is, WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT??? If that smaller packer is willing to custom kill your cattle and you can add value to those cattle by selling a branded beef product, that's great. That smaller packer might not be able to compete with the larger packer on a cost per head basis but if you can add value and the smaller packer still stay in business, that's a win-win situation. The unfortuante thing is that the smaller packer is not going to be able to compete with the larger packer on a processing costs per head basis UNLESS they can add value to the beef.

You mention the "cost of regulation". Just like any other costs, the costs of regulation hurt the smaller packers more than the larger packers due to the volume of cattle they can spread those costs over. The ironic thing about the "cost of regulation" is that large corporate packer blamers scream the loudest for regulation which once again works against the smaller packer. Same with the implementation costs of "M"COOL. It will affect the smaller packers the most which is supposedly who the packer blamers are most concerned about. One more example of the self defeating position of your typical emotionally driven packer blamer.

On the importation of South American cattle, I agree that the importation of SA cattle should be a huge concern for US cattle producers. I also agree that we need to stay vigilant in protecting our domestic markets from that threat. With that said, I am also under the realization that the consumers outvote the producers 98% to 2% if even that. The votes are not going to be with the US cattle producers when it comes to importing cheaper food. What we need to do is compete with that threat with source verified branded beef programs that instill consumer confidence in the health and safety aspects of those products in comparison with SA beef. We have the best beef cattle in the world BUT the "M"COOL US beef label, IF IT COULD BE VERIFIED (it can't without a traceback system), still promotes US dairy cattle as US beef. I don't particularly want to compete with SA cattle or US dairy cattle.

I also agree with your concerns regarding the health of beef fat.


Mike: "I have heard and seen that assumption a few times and do not fully know how it could possibly be true. With the large number of dairy, and cull beef cows that are "lean" beef producers it's awful hard for me to believe it as fact.

Except for some statements thrown around on the subject, is there any absolute proof that imported lean trimmings add value to our fat?

If it is so, why has Tyson built a fuel producing facility that uses beef and chicken fat as the source of the fuel?"


You obviously have done no research on your own to sort fact from fiction. You throw out the doubt hoping someone else will do your homework for you only to turn around and throw out more doubt. Same-O Mike!

First off, there is not enough cull cows and/or dairy cows to supply the necessary amount of lean trimmings required to add value to all the 50/50 trim produced.

Just stop and think about it Mike instead of casting doubt. Look at the number of fat cattle processed in the US in relation to the number of cull cows. Due to this industry misconception that "choice" trumps wet aged select, we will continue to have a mountain of 50/50 trim with the choice Y3 industry standard carcass.

The second important part of the equation is the cost of the lean trimmings. Again, stop and think about it Mike. If imported lean trimmings cost less than domestic lean trimmings, wouldn't this industry be money ahead by adding value to our cull cows and dairy cows with other markets and importing lean trimmings to add value to the 50/50 trim.

This reminds me of Sandhusker's ridiculous suggestion of devaluing chucks and rounds to grind with our trim as opposed to selling them as higher valued chucks and rounds while importing CHEAPER lean trimmings. Sandhusker would have rather took less money for his cattle from devaluing chucks and rounds as opposed to realizing additional profits passed to the producer from adding value to our bloated supply of 50/50 trim. Real man of genius!

Sandhusker (attitude): "I know more about selling beef than those who actually sell beef"

Supply of lean trimmings is half the equation. Cost of those trimmings is the other half. Doesn't matter if you have the supply if it's cost prohibitive.

Why has Tyson used beef and chicken fat as a source of fuel? TO ADD VALUE TO FAT. simple as that. Fat has nothing to do with 50/50 trim. One is 50% beef, the other is 100% fat. APPLES AND ORANGES!

Once again, I'm quite sure you will find your comfort zone in casting doubt towards this as opposed to doing your own research to find out the truth.

It's kinda like when packers and retailers of all shapes and sizes testified in opposition to "M"COOL at the "M"COOL listening sessions but industry blamers thought they knew more about processing and selling beef than those who actually process and sell beef.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "We have the best beef cattle in the world BUT the "M"COOL US beef label, IF IT COULD BE VERIFIED (it can't without a traceback system),"

Every animal in this country and every single box of beef can be identified as to country of origin TODAY, THIS VERY DAY.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker: "I've asked SH and MRJ both several times to show a relationship between the big packer profits and cattle prices. They have never done so, yet continue to preach the doctrine that producers need to take bullets to enhance packer profitability. Their disconnect between theory and reality - and inability/refusal to acknowledge the real world rivals that of the Obamazombies."


I was hoping you'd come out of your sandbox. There is no relationship between packer profits and cattle prices. The relationship that exists is between boxed beef prices and live cattle prices. You got nothing AGAIN!


Here, I'll give you something to think about and I welcome anything you won't provide to the contrary.


Packer profits are affected by numerous variables in no particular order:

1. The available supply of fat cattle.

Obviously, the more cattle that can be run through a plant with it's fixed costs, the more profit potential is available ALL OTHER PROFIT FACTORS BEING EQUAL.


2. Chain speeds.

How quickly can the available supply of cattle be processed?


3. What is paid for the live cattle relative to what is received for the boxed beef and beef by products.

This is the most important aspect affecting the profitability of any large packer.

Assuming that the value of ofal, hides, and beef variety meats (tongues, livers, etc.) remains relatively stable, you will see a direct relationship between boxed beef prices and live cattle prices. If the prices of boxed beef decreases between the time live cattle are purchased and the boxed beef sold, all other things being equal, packers will realize losses. If the price of boxed beef increases between the time live cattle are purchased and the box beef sold, all other things being equal, packers will realize a profit.

Packers are handling a perishable product. Therefore, the packers either sell it or they smell it. Consumer demand for beef determines the price of beef and the price of beef determines the price of live cattle, all other things being relatively equal. Simple basic common sense for anyone who knows anything about beef processing and fabrication which would exempt Sandhusker.

When profits or losses are realized, live cattle prices fluctuate accordingly. They always have and they always will.

For those of the conspiracy mindset that believe there is a price fix or collusion between the packers, how do you explain live cattle market fluctuations? How can a "CONTROLLED MARKET" move??? How do you explain the obvious??

Once again, the obvious is simply too obvious for someone bent on blaming other segments of the industry.

Once again, there is no relationship between packer profits and live cattle prices. Nobody suggested there was. There is a relationship between live cattle prices and boxed beef prices for anyone so inclinded to track the two.

Care to explain your contention that producers need to take packer bullets to enhance profitability. In typical Sandhusker fashion, you throw out empty statements like this with no explanation and nothing to support your contention. Same-O you! EXPLAIN IT! What packer bullets are producer taking to enhance packer profitability??? Let's hear more than the empty rhetoric of a packer blamer.

As far as our "disconnect between theory and reality", why don't you disprove anything I have stated above with facts to the contrary JUST ONCE? You haven't done so in how many years of debate? Think I'm going to hold my breath now and assume you finally have something relevant to back your views? Won't happen!

Once again, Sandhusker is left holding fools gold with an empty irrelevant argument.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "There is no relationship between packer profits and cattle prices."

They why do you continue to advocate that producers make concessions that hurt their profitabilty in order to enhance packer profiitabilty?
 
Top