How do you packer blamers explain this?

[rkaiser]

Like I have said many a time, it's the folks who believe the fox news stories about Tyson that make me sick, the company itself---- I actually respect for their think tank and strategic maneuvers.

Tyson and Cargill are letting things run for a bit to try and break a few other players who have struggled due to their lack of plants in Canada and lost export markets for America.

Our processing capacity is a pittance beefman, and the Beef Initiative Group plan to build a competitive plant beside Cargill and Tyson slipped off the drawing board with an open border and major expansion by both these companies here in Canada.

Hate Tyson.--- read my post above beefman. Scott Huber is the guy who wants you to beleive that with his consant rhetoric. I hope to use Tyson in the future when our beef brokerage company starts selling Canadian product off this continent in large amounts.

Those of you who do not believe that every move Tyson and Cargill make is not strategic can fool yourselves all you like.

More if you like -
Randy

 

[Tam]

As a feeder it is going to hurt. It just takes away one more outlet for cattle slaughter. I like how Tyson cares for the community. No warning at all to those it would affect the most. the towns and employees. The trouble with the plant closing they usually don't open up again cuz they don't resale. That would add to Tyson's competition.

Feeder what happen to your concern when plants were closing and cutting shifts in the Northwest because of R-CALF's injunction. All we heard from most of you R-CALFers were comments like oh so what it is just a bunch of Mexican wetbacks out of work, they don't do anything for the US economy anyway. Now you are all over Tyson because they are closing a couple of plants. If R-CALF causes the closures with their crap law suits it's Oh well and if Tyson does it to save their bottom line it is a different story. :roll:

 

[HAY MAKER]

Tyson will close two Nebraska plants
As part of its strategy to operate more efficiently and maintain best cost-management practices, Tyson Foods Inc. is consolidating beef operations in northeast Nebraska. Effective this week, Tyson will permanently close its beef-processing plant in Norfolk and its beef-slaughter plant in West Point. Production will be shifted primarily to the company's beef complex in Dakota City, Neb., which is completing a new beef-processing addition. To read more, go to drovers.com.

If Tyson is making so much money on slaughtering fat cattle off the backs of the poor little packer victims, why would they be closing plants instead of expanding them?

Once again, the obvious it too obvious for a conspiring minded packer blamer.


~SH~

They are expanding them,we have explained this to you many times,are you deaf & dumb or just dumb.
Let me ask you a question Einstein,if you were tyson where would you wanna do buisness,here in the states,or in S America where you could source cheap cattle and labor,boot leg em into the USA as home grown beef with the good ole usda stamp of approval..........good luck

 

[feeder]

I don't believe I ever posted a concern over plants cutting shifts due to the border being closed. But I do remember many to my north were very concerned. I just like the way Tyson said one of the reasons was lack of cattle. They didn't build that expansion at Dakota City overnight. That was in the works for quite awhile. Tam, I don't know if it is the same in Canada as in the US but big packers are buying plants, using them for a time and then closing the doors to eliminate their competition. Look into what Packerland has done to local plants. As for the illegals that are working at the plants, it is to the plants best interest not to announce a closure till the day of, due to the illegals would all split to find other plants to work for. They are only used as long as it is the best for the company in my opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

The answers are right here...............

Tyson said the consolidated beef operations and reduced costs should provide an annual savings of $ 40 million. The Dakota City plant is building an 84, 500-squarefoot addition that will start production in March.

"We've worked hard over the past year to try to keep these plants open and I appreciate everyone's efforts. However, we've concluded we can operate more efficiently by permanently consolidating operations," John Tyson, chairman and chief executive of Tyson Foods, said in a statement.

How ironic, Tyson has to remain competitive in an industry that is "ALLEGED" as anti competitive.

Tyson has to become MORE EFFICIENT to remain COMPETITIVE.

There it is. If Tyson could manipulate markets as some claim and if Tyson was not competitive as some claim, there would be no reason to consolidate plants. Those plants would be expanding, not closing.

Tyson holds a 26 percent share of the U. S. beef market.

MARKET POWER!!!!!!! WOOHOO!

Yet they have to consolidate plants to stay competitive in a "SUPPOSEDLY" uncompetitive market???? Hahaha!

How do you packer blamers explain that???? You can't!

Actions speak louder than cheap talk from thumbsucking packer blamers.

"They've got to continue the process of getting more efficient so they can stay competitive with other countries and other processors," McCracken said. "In a better market environment, it will help them recover faster, but it's not going to change things overnight."

WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO STAY COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER PROCESSORS WHEN THE PACKER BLAMERS SAY THERE IS NO COMPETITION?????

Tyson said Jan. 30 that firstquarter earnings fell 19 percent to $ 39 million, or 11 cents a share, and the beef unit reported a $ 64 million loss in profits. "Our beef business has undoubtedly been facing difficult market conditions," Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said.

WHAT????

That must mean this "so called" SALMON RUN is over huh????

$64 MILLION LOSS????? AND THEY DIDN'T SUE THE FEEDERS FOR MARKET MANIPULATION WHEN THE FEEDERS HELD OUT FOR BETTER PRICES????? YOU'RE KIDDING ME????

THEY MUST BE LYING ABOUT THEIR LOSSES BY GAWD, TO LISTEN TO THE PACKER BLAMING CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, THEY HAVE MARKET POWER AND CAN MANIPULATE MARKETS THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE LOSSES.

Why would they consolidate plants if they were so profitable and had market power???

You packer blamers can't explain it. The obvious is that COMPETITION creates the need to become more efficient. More efficient packing companies pay more for cattle. Meanwhile, some of you packer blamers think the solution is to go in the opposite direction of having more packing plants thinking that would somehow result in more money for cattle.

Rod, here it is right in front of your eyes. How can you believe that having more plants would result in more competition WHEN COMPETITION IS FORCING THESE COMPANIES TO CONSOLIDATE PLANTS TO BECOME MORE EFFICIENT???

SINK THIS POST INTO YOUR DAMN HEADS PACKER BLAMERS (for all the good it will do to spawn another conspiracy theory)!

Companies that are profitable and NON COMPETITIVE do not close plants, they expand plants.

Actions (Tyson consolidating plants) speaks louder than cheap packer blamer talk ("there's no competition, there's no competition, follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road")!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH, the time periods are important. Of course when looking at marketing agreements you totally missed that. There are different strategies for different time periods. We will have to wait and see what this one is.

 

[rkaiser]

We all knew that was coming Scotty. You are the best media manipulator that Cargill and Tyson could ever hope for.

Your opinion should even make the folks that support you on this site hoist their Cargill and Tyson flags even higher. :lol: :lol:

Go Scott Go.... I can hear John Tyson and his war room cheering you on. :lol: :lol:

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod, here it is right in front of your eyes. How can you believe that having more plants would result in more competition WHEN COMPETITION IS FORCING THESE COMPANIES TO CONSOLIDATE PLANTS TO BECOME MORE EFFICIENT???

Theres no proof in front of me at all. Even a non-competitve company is going to cut costs whereever possible to increase efficiency and increase profits. Actually closing down plants in certain areas and reducing their exposure in those areas would lead me to believe they are comfortable enough with their position that feedlots will ship a greater distance. In other words, there isn't any true competition in the area.

Companies that are profitable and NON COMPETITIVE do not close plants, they expand plants.

Did you miss the original post stating that they were EXPANDING the consolidated plant? And profitable companies will close plants down if they can switch production to another more efficient plant. Look at Chrysler. They're more profitable than they have been in years, and they just closed down two plants last year.

You seem to be under the impression that competition is the only driving force behind increasing efficiency. Its not. MAXIMIZING PROFITS is what drives a company to be more efficient.

Rod

 

[RobertMac]

SH, when you ramble on like this, be specific as to 'competition'....competition from other beef processors or competition from other protein sources.

More efficient packing companies pay more for cattle.

There is no way that a beef processor can become efficient enough to pay $1.00/lb for fats and work in the 'black'. To pay more for cattle and both the cattle and beef sectors making money, the consumer has to pay more for meat. And you know as well as I do that retail beef prices are tied to pork and poultry prices. Your efficiency argument may work if plants were running 24/7, but that would mean the consumer would have to be eating a lot more beef or THERE ARE A LOT FEWER PROCESSING PLANTS. If your company sells poultry and beef and poultry has a higher profit margin at a lower per lb capital expense, are you going to work to shift market share from poultry to beef? Or would you work to limit your down side on beef(consolidating processing to "become more efficient" and reduce your cost of raw product by supplementing supply with inexpensive imports) and then promote and expand the market for your high profit margin product to the public (pushing chicken in traditional beef markets...MacD, Wendy, Burger King)?

Care to take a shot at answering my questions?

 

[Sandhusker]

Rod, here it is right in front of your eyes. How can you believe that having more plants would result in more competition WHEN COMPETITION IS FORCING THESE COMPANIES TO CONSOLIDATE PLANTS TO BECOME MORE EFFICIENT???

Theres no proof in front of me at all. Even a non-competitve company is going to cut costs whereever possible to increase efficiency and increase profits. Actually closing down plants in certain areas and reducing their exposure in those areas would lead me to believe they are comfortable enough with their position that feedlots will ship a greater distance. In other words, there isn't any true competition in the area.

Companies that are profitable and NON COMPETITIVE do not close plants, they expand plants.

Did you miss the original post stating that they were EXPANDING the consolidated plant? And profitable companies will close plants down if they can switch production to another more efficient plant.

You seem to be under the impression that competition is the only driving force behind increasing efficiency. Its not. MAXIMIZING PROFITS is what drives a company to be more efficient. So you can forget your competition arguement. It doesn't wash here.

Rod

Well said, not that it'll make a difference, though.

 

[RobertMac]

Well said, not that it'll make a difference, though.

Battle hardened experience! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Beefman]

FYI from today's Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_3518121

Meat plant will slice jobs
Greeley's Swift facility to lose one shift in April
By Beth Potter
Denver Post Staff Writer

About 300 workers will lose their jobs in April at Swift and Co.'s packing plant in Greeley because the company is eliminating one of its two meatpacking shifts.

Some of the jobs will be replaced by new processing equipment that Swift is adding to become more efficient, company spokesman Sean McHugh said Thursday.

Also, a Japanese ban on U.S. beef exports has driven down price margins and accelerated an industry downturn, McHugh said.

"This is a challenging, low- margin industry in the midst of the most challenging conditions of its life," he said. "The prices of cattle are extremely high, and they're also high in relation to the value of the boxed beef."

Swift, which is based in Greeley, bills itself as the world's second-largest processor of beef and pork, with $10 billion in yearly sales. It employs 2,000 workers at its Greeley plant.

The assembly-line cutting jobs pay $11.25 to $12.35 an hour.

McHugh said the company may rehire workers when demand picks up in the summer.

Cutters aren't sure how to react to the news yet, after dealing with an 800-person layoff in December 2004, said Fernando Rod riquez, union director of packing for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 in Greeley. In that case, everyone who was laid off was rehired over time, Rodriquez said.

Greeley/Weld County economic-development group Upstate Colorado Economic Development played down the impact of the layoffs on the regional economy.

"Obviously, it's a lot, but the positive is the historical perspective. When they've had layoffs, they've been able to hire people back through attrition," said Larry Burkhardt, Upstate's president.

Meatpacking companies and others that deal in commodities have seen operating margins drop steeply in recent years, said Gregg Warren, an equities analyst at Morningstar Inc.

"The downturn doesn't surprise me very much, but the key in the last month is the expectation of lower export demand," Warren said.
After the U.S. confirmed its first case of mad cow disease in December 2003, Japan banned U.S. beef. It reopened its beef market after intense lobbying from U.S. politicians but closed it again last month after veal cuts containing backbone were found in an export shipment. Asian countries consider the backbone a mad-cow risk.

Arkansas-based Tyson Foods said this week it would shut two beef-processing plants in Nebraska - laying off about 1,500 workers - citing difficult beef conditions in the United States.

Packing-plant closures also may squeeze area ranchers, said Kenny Rogers, a Yuma cattle rancher.

"It will add costs," Rogers said. "Any time you take a player out of the game purchasing our end product, it will trickle down eventually."

At the same time, the 2,100-employee Cargill packing plant in Fort Morgan plans to hire about 40 new workers in the next few weeks, said Mark Klein, a spokesman for the Kansas-based company.

"It's a tough market out there for the packer. Like all processors, we have not been running at capacity," Klein said. "But this, too, shall pass. It's a cyclical market."

Staff writer Beth Potter can be reached at 303-820-1503 or [email protected].

 

[Tam]

I don't believe I ever posted a concern over plants cutting shifts due to the border being closed. But I do remember many to my north were very concerned. I just like the way Tyson said one of the reasons was lack of cattle. They didn't build that expansion at Dakota City overnight. That was in the works for quite awhile. Tam, I don't know if it is the same in Canada as in the US but big packers are buying plants, using them for a time and then closing the doors to eliminate their competition. Look into what Packerland has done to local plants. As for the illegals that are working at the plants, it is to the plants best interest not to announce a closure till the day of, due to the illegals would all split to find other plants to work for. They are only used as long as it is the best for the company in my opinion.

I like how Tyson cares for the community. No warning at all to those it would affect the most. the towns and employees.

Look at your two comments Feeder. You don't seem to care for Tysons actions in the first one you posted but then explain it away in the second by saying "it is to the plants best interest not to announce" I just find that a bit funny. And you may not have said anything I would have to go back and check but alot of your fellow R-CALFers sure did and I doubt you spoke up against them and explained to them that the closing of plants and cutting of shifts because of R-CALFs injunction would hurt the towns and the employees. Why Not Feeder maybe because you saw what R-CALF was doing was good for your pocket book even if it was hurting someone elses. Why is it terrible for Tyson to do what they have to to protect their bottom line when R-CALF lied to protect yours?

 

[Econ101]

I don't believe I ever posted a concern over plants cutting shifts due to the border being closed. But I do remember many to my north were very concerned. I just like the way Tyson said one of the reasons was lack of cattle. They didn't build that expansion at Dakota City overnight. That was in the works for quite awhile. Tam, I don't know if it is the same in Canada as in the US but big packers are buying plants, using them for a time and then closing the doors to eliminate their competition. Look into what Packerland has done to local plants. As for the illegals that are working at the plants, it is to the plants best interest not to announce a closure till the day of, due to the illegals would all split to find other plants to work for. They are only used as long as it is the best for the company in my opinion.

I like how Tyson cares for the community. No warning at all to those it would affect the most. the towns and employees.

Look at your two comments Feeder. You don't seem to care for Tysons actions in the first one you posted but then explain it away in the second by saying "it is to the plants best interest not to announce" I just find that a bit funny. And you may not have said anything I would have to go back and check but alot of your fellow R-CALFers sure did and I doubt you spoke up against them and explained to them that the closing of plants and cutting of shifts because of R-CALFs injunction would hurt the towns and the employees. Why Not Feeder maybe because you saw what R-CALF was doing was good for your pocket book even if it was hurting someone elses. Why is it terrible for Tyson to do what they have to to protect their bottom line when R-CALF lied to protect yours?

Tam, did the USDA first stop Canadian cattle or did rcalf? How long did each of them close the border?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Why is it terrible for Tyson to do what they have to to protect their bottom line when R-CALF lied to protect yours?

Two wrongs don't make a right Tam. The packing industry has been consolidating like crazy on both sides of the border, yet government anti-competition bureaus aren't stepping in. Why? Because the silent majority doesn't say anything. Every single time an independent packer is bought out by the big 2 (in Canada) or the Big 5 (in the US), it HURTS the cow/calf producer. Its time for producers to not be silent anymore and let your elected representatives know that you are offended by their lack of action, otherwise there will not be a cow/calf industry left for anyone other than large corporations. Do you really want to see that happen?

Rod

 

[mrj]

Why is it terrible for Tyson to do what they have to to protect their bottom line when R-CALF lied to protect yours?

Two wrongs don't make a right Tam. The packing industry has been consolidating like crazy on both sides of the border, yet government anti-competition bureaus aren't stepping in. Why? Because the silent majority doesn't say anything. Every single time an independent packer is bought out by the big 2 (in Canada) or the Big 5 (in the US), it HURTS the cow/calf producer. Its time for producers to not be silent anymore and let your elected representatives know that you are offended by their lack of action, otherwise there will not be a cow/calf industry left for anyone other than large corporations. Do you really want to see that happen?

Rod

Rod, do you believe it will serve the cattle producer well if small packers are forced to stay in operation when they are going broke? Or should the government subsidize them to keep them open and able to compete with the "big 5"? Is it better for cattle producers if the plants that can't survive are bought by a bigger packer, or if they must just close if we had government intervention preventing the big packers from buying out the smaller ones?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Why is it terrible for Tyson to do what they have to to protect their bottom line when R-CALF lied to protect yours?

Two wrongs don't make a right Tam. The packing industry has been consolidating like crazy on both sides of the border, yet government anti-competition bureaus aren't stepping in. Why? Because the silent majority doesn't say anything. Every single time an independent packer is bought out by the big 2 (in Canada) or the Big 5 (in the US), it HURTS the cow/calf producer. Its time for producers to not be silent anymore and let your elected representatives know that you are offended by their lack of action, otherwise there will not be a cow/calf industry left for anyone other than large corporations. Do you really want to see that happen?

Rod

Rod, do you believe it will serve the cattle producer well if small packers are forced to stay in operation when they are going broke? Or should the government subsidize them to keep them open and able to compete with the "big 5"? Is it better for cattle producers if the plants that can't survive are bought by a bigger packer, or if they must just close if we had government intervention preventing the big packers from buying out the smaller ones?

MRJ

MRJ, how about just a little enforcement of the PSA? We don't need a bunch of new laws here in the U.S., we just need some competent enforcement. We don't need producers to be subsidized, we need to let natural forces of supply and demand to dictate price and quantity---not market power moves by packers or little bits of help in the govt. to the packers in the regulatory agencies. It doesn't help to have people like you who don't know a thing about market power or market frauds to support the packers. Canada needs enforcement also. I don't know if Canada has a PSA equivilent or other competition laws but they don't need laws that are not enforced either. It is just a false sense of security for producers.

You just can't see beyond your own nose and your beloved NCBA and it seems like you are doing nothing but diverting to social welfare here. Nobody is asking for that except diverters from the real issues like yourself.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod, do you believe it will serve the cattle producer well if small packers are forced to stay in operation when they are going broke? Or should the government subsidize them to keep them open and able to compete with the "big 5"? Is it better for cattle producers if the plants that can't survive are bought by a bigger packer, or if they must just close if we had government intervention preventing the big packers from buying out the smaller ones?

MRJ, during my prowlings, I found out that 3/4 of the small plants that sold in Canada over the past 10 years were PROFITABLE, and that the larger foreign owned companies were simply able to pay enough money to induce the owners to sell. Everything is for sale for the right amount of money.

I always hesitate to use the term "packer-backer", because I don't want to see another thread reduced to name calling, however the packer camp seems to be sure that smaller packers cannot survive. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this at all.

I find it staggering that producers are unable to comprehend how concentration is hurting producers. I also find it staggering that producers are unable to comprehend how having a company who is invested in COMPETING industries is bad for them. I know producers who supported the break up of Microsoft, and supported not allowing them to invest with Intel, but are fine with the idea that Tyson should be allowed to invest in chicken, pork AND beef industries.

Rod

 

[mrj]

Rod, do you believe it will serve the cattle producer well if small packers are forced to stay in operation when they are going broke? Or should the government subsidize them to keep them open and able to compete with the "big 5"? Is it better for cattle producers if the plants that can't survive are bought by a bigger packer, or if they must just close if we had government intervention preventing the big packers from buying out the smaller ones?

MRJ, during my prowlings, I found out that 3/4 of the small plants that sold in Canada over the past 10 years were PROFITABLE, and that the larger foreign owned companies were simply able to pay enough money to induce the owners to sell. Everything is for sale for the right amount of money.

I always hesitate to use the term "packer-backer", because I don't want to see another thread reduced to name calling, however the packer camp seems to be sure that smaller packers cannot survive. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this at all.

I find it staggering that producers are unable to comprehend how concentration is hurting producers. I also find it staggering that producers are unable to comprehend how having a company who is invested in COMPETING industries is bad for them. I know producers who supported the break up of Microsoft, and supported not allowing them to invest with Intel, but are fine with the idea that Tyson should be allowed to invest in chicken, pork AND beef industries.

Rod

Do you also want government to dictate who may or may not own all businesses?

Are we going to demand no cattle producer may also produce pigs? chickens? sheep? Where does this sort of thing end?

Personally, I believe we who understand cattle and are capable of properly managing and taking care of them would be better off if there was a means test requiring cattle owners be good cowboys. There wouldn't be nearly as many people owning cattle as there are now!

I want to see some proof of market manipulation or details of lack of enforcement of the PSA. All we have seen presented here is accusations.

Why do you, Econ, claim I'm supporting packers when all I'm asking for is details and proof of your allegations against them? You castigate me as "people like you who don't know a thing about market power or market frauds", yet you do not tell us by providing actual examples of your alleged abuses. You simply say, and expect me to believe, that they happen. Not knowing who you are doesn't add anything to my ability to trust you, either.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, the time periods are important. Of course when looking at marketing agreements you totally missed that. There are different strategies for different time periods. We will have to wait and see what this one is."

Oh, yeh, here we go again, the "UNEXPLAINED SELECTIVE PERIODS OF MARKET MANIPULATION" theory. Hahaha!

Go take your stupidity to another forum where people don't know any better. What an idiot!

What factors allow them to manipulate markets at some times and not at others Conman?

Watch the circus chicken dance around that question folks! Conman couldn't explain his theory on "PERIODIC MARKET MANIPULATION" if his phony life depended on it. Conman won't even try to explain it.

JUST WATCH! The Conman can make the statements but runs like a scalded dog when challenged to defend them.

Rod: "Even a non-competitve company is going to cut costs whereever possible to increase efficiency and increase profits. Actually closing down plants in certain areas and reducing their exposure in those areas would lead me to believe they are comfortable enough with their position that feedlots will ship a greater distance. In other words, there isn't any true competition in the area."

What are the things we know for sure Rod?????

We know their profits have dwindled to losses unless you think they are lying to their investers. Now that would really take a stretch of the imagination.

We know that closing plants means taking jobs away from people. That is never easy for any company.

We know this is a move to increase efficiency and cut costs? WHAT DRIVES THAT DECISION????? COMPETITION!

That's the hypocrisy! You can't claim on one hand an industry is "NON COMPETIVE" and then face the cold hard facts that Tyson is closing plants to remain competitive.

Hell, one of those plants was BEEF AMERICA that shut down due to an ecoli outbreak. DID YOU THINK IBP/TYSON BOUGHT BEEF AMERICA PLANNING TO SOMEDAY SHUT IT DOWN?????

What do you think that would cost them?????

USE YOUR HEAD ROD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact is the packing industry is highly competive and the most efficient plants are going to pay more for the cattle than the less efficient plants OR THEY DON'T GET THEM BOUHGT. EVERY PACKER NEEDS THOSE CATTLE TO FUNCTION.

PROFITABLE PLANTS DO NOT CLOSE DOWN ROD, THEY EXPAND!!!!!!!

Why can't you get it ???? I know idiots like Conman are incapable of reason but you should be able to figure this out.

Do you think it's easy for Tyson to tell those workers they are out of a job???? What company does that unless they are forced to BECAUSE OF COMPETITION. If those plants were profitable, they would not be closing. If they are closing THERE HAS TO BE COMPETITION IN THE INDUSTRY.

You can't explain it any other way. If efficiency was the only reason to close these plants, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT A LONG TIME AGO.

Rod: "Did you miss the original post stating that they were EXPANDING the consolidated plant?"

WHICH COSTS MONEY!!!!

Some of the cattle from the feedlots that were close to the plants that are closing will now go to Tyson's competition (Excel and Swift) due to transportation costs. Did you think of that? NO! This is not a move that doesn't have negative consequences. You have to see the big picture here. This is a FORCED MOVE to squeeze every dime out of this industry!

Closing these plants may prove to be a big mistake financially but obviously Tyson sees no option.

AGAIN, THIS IS A FORCED MOVE WITH FINANCIAL RISKS!

If this move was not forced by competition, THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER BOUGHT THE BEEF AMERICA PLANT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Rod: "You seem to be under the impression that competition is the only driving force behind increasing efficiency. Its not. MAXIMIZING PROFITS is what drives a company to be more efficient."

This move is being forced by high priced cattle in relation to boxed beef prices. Those plants are losing money.

Do you see how hypocritical your arguments are???? On one hand you believe the industry needs more competition and you mistakenly believe more plants means more competition without considering plant efficiency and economies of scale. On the other hand you understand that companies consolidate to be more efficient. IF THERE WAS NO COMPETITION, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO CONSOLIDATE!

If the industry was anti-competitive, those companies would be expanding rather than closing. AFTER ALL, ONE PLANT IS EXPANDING WHICH COSTS MONEY.


Robert Mac,

I am speaking about competition from other packers to buy those same cattle not about competition from competing meats.

RM: "There is no way that a beef processor can become efficient enough to pay $1.00/lb for fats and work in the 'black'. To pay more for cattle and both the cattle and beef sectors making money, the consumer has to pay more for meat. And you know as well as I do that retail beef prices are tied to pork and poultry prices."

EXACTLY!

Or all the packers will be forced to pay less for cattle.

There is clear choices here:

1. Packers get more efficient. Highly unlikely because they are about as efficient as they are going to get.

2. Consumers pay more for beef. As you stated, that depends on the supply and the demand FOR ALL COMPETITING PROTEINS. Because consumers have other protein choices and only so much money to spend on food, they are only going to pay a certain amount FOR THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY OF BEEF relative to pork and poultry.

3. Packers pay less for cattle.

4. Packers lose money and close plants.


At some point, either consumers are going to pay more for beef and beef by products or packers are going to pay less for cattle. That's all there is to it because packers are not going to go broke for the sake of producers and they can't cut their processing costs anymore than they have. WOULD YOU????

That's just the cold hard facts!

RM: "If your company sells poultry and beef and poultry has a higher profit margin at a lower per lb capital expense, are you going to work to shift market share from poultry to beef?"

RIDICULOUS!

That's the same stupid conspiracy argument that Conman and Sandbag believe. Tyson would not allow beef profits to suffer to benefit poultry.

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!

Robert, Tyson's beef losses will be Excel and Swift's beef gains. Can't you understand that???? Those beef processing plants still have to make a profit or there is no reason in having them. Tyson is not going to carry their beef division with their poultry division. To do so would be the stupidist business move ever. Why would Tyson invest in the beef industry if those plants were not profitable? What possible advantage would there be to doing that???

ONCE AGAIN, THEIR "INTENTIONAL" BEEF LOSSES WOULD BE EXCEL AND SWIFTS GAIN.

As you can plainly see, SWIFT IS IN THE SAME BOAT so that can only mean one thing. FIERCE COMPETITION!



Here, let me explain it this way. Tyson would not be losing money if the markets were truly anticompetitive. Consolidation and plant closings is a direct result of competition. When plants are not carrying their weight from a profitability standpoint and they are as efficient as they can get, they have one of two choices. Either close their doors or consildate/merge further concentrating the industry.

The irony is that you guys (Rod and Robert Mac) and the usual team of packer blamers (Conman, Sandbag, and Randy Kaiser) hate both sides of the equation. You hate the packers if they are too profitable and you hate consolidation YET A LACK OF PROFITABILITY LEADS TO CONSILDATION AND CONCENTRATION.

CATCH 22!!!!!!!

Rod: "Every single time an independent packer is bought out by the big 2 (in Canada) or the Big 5 (in the US), it HURTS the cow/calf producer."

A LACK OF PACKER PROFITABILITY IS CREATING THAT SITUATION ROD!!!!

The alternative is for the government to step in and shore up the less efficient packing companies so they can compete. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT???

You can't have it both ways. You can't have a highly competitive packing industry that maximizes the price that can be paid for cattle and maximizes their efficiency without it leading to concentration and mergers.

YOU HAVE A CLEAR CHOICE HERE:

1. LARGER PACKER PROFITS

or

2. CONCENTRATION AND CONSOLIDATION.

You can't have slim profit margins without encouraging consolidation and concentration (mergers).

Conman: "MRJ, how about just a little enforcement of the PSA? We don't need a bunch of new laws here in the U.S., we just need some competent enforcement. We don't need producers to be subsidized, we need to let natural forces of supply and demand to dictate price and quantity---not market power moves by packers or little bits of help in the govt. to the packers in the regulatory agencies. It doesn't help to have people like you who don't know a thing about market power or market frauds to support the packers. Canada needs enforcement also. I don't know if Canada has a PSA equivilent or other competition laws but they don't need laws that are not enforced either. It is just a false sense of security for producers."

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!

Here packers are closing their doors due to a lack of profitability and you are still pissing and moaning about anti competitiveness.

Rod: "I find it staggering that producers are unable to comprehend how concentration is hurting producers."

I find it staggering that SOME producers are unable to comprehend how tight packer profit margins leads to consolidation and concentration. I also find it staggering that SOME producers are unable to comprehend that less efficient packers cannot pay more for cattle than more efficient packers. It boggles my mind that someone could be so naive about business.

CATTLEMEN ARE GETTING LARGER AND MORE EFFICIENT and yet you cannot reason why packers are doing the same thing.

WHAT ABOUT RANCHER CONCENTRATION???

How big is too big???

Do you want laws to govern rancher concentration so the less efficient smaller rancher can compete????? SAME DAMN LOGIC!

Rod: "I know producers who supported the break up of Microsoft, and supported not allowing them to invest with Intel, but are fine with the idea that Tyson should be allowed to invest in chicken, pork AND beef industries."

Either you have a free economy or a government run economy.

SOME CHOICE?

Right here in this thread we are seeing the clear differences between the "please government, save us from ourselves / shore up poor management" attitude and the "free market economy" attitude.


Randy Kaiser, you can't even get past believing that Tyson is losing money so your packer blamer pom pom waving is nothing more than a subtle distraction. Show a little more leg and you might get Conman's attention. LOL!



~SH~