How many Canuck producers would support this?

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Thats an interesting article, however I'm not completely sure what it has to do with producer livestock co-ops in Canada. Could we have that post moved to its own thread somehow?

Rod

 

[flounder]

why start manipulating my post, about what you call off topic, when it happens all the time with my threads on BSE. is it because some don't want the correct data on BSE? first it's post shorter threads terry. then some complain about having to move the bar, too much trouble. that's because i post the source to the research i find. it's for you folks that don't have it, i have it. can't help it if the url are so long. when i post about bse, anything, it is followed by nuclear power plants and other sh!t like mri's cause CJD. i can't believe anyone could be that ignorant, or are they? why is it a flood of stuff follows critical data on BSE on this board?
who are these people?


example


BSE case: six-year-old cross-bred born and raised in Alberta
[ Goto page: 1 ... 3, 4, 5 ]



see where this threads leads, and then ask yourself are you going to change all threads that are off topic now???


hmmm, what's up here???


tss

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

why start manipulating my post, about what you call off topic, when it happens all the time with my threads on BSE. is it because some don't want the correct data on BSE?

So two wrongs make a right? I'm sorry if some of your threads have went astray, but you were well within your rights to ask people to bring it back to the original topic. And some threads just deviate in a natural progression. I wasn't trying to be a wiseguy or insulting, I just simply didn't understand what the post had to do with producer livestock co-ops. I didn't see any clear connection.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

why start manipulating my post, about what you call off topic, when it happens all the time with my threads on BSE. is it because some don't want the correct data on BSE?

So two wrongs make a right? I'm sorry if some of your threads have went astray, but you were well within your rights to ask people to bring it back to the original topic. And some threads just deviate in a natural progression. I wasn't trying to be a wiseguy or insulting, I just simply didn't understand what the post had to do with producer livestock co-ops. I didn't see any clear connection.

Rod

Diamond,

I had the opportunity to talk to one of the cattle organization leaders in another state than where I am from. He told me that the USDA inspectors had made and changed the rules so much and selectively enforced them against small plants that some of them had to shut down. This is the one thing that could be a monkey wrench in what was otherwise a good plan. Something to consider when undertaking such an investment. You have to have enough govt. support to kill political actions such as this.

 

[flounder]

rod wrote ;


> So two wrongs make a right?


NO, your correct. ...tss



>I wasn't trying to be a wiseguy or insulting, I just simply didn't understand what the post had to do with producer livestock co-ops. I didn't see any clear connection. <




i posted that in a topic of it's own, and will attemt to delete my original post.......



kind regards,
terry

 

[rkaiser]

Packers only have power when producers willingly give them that supply.

The producer controls this industry until the point that they sell the cattle. Without cattle, the packing industry does not exist.

With this "PRODUCER LEVERAGE" in mind, WHY DOES ANYONE NEED THEIR OWN PLANT???

Why not approach Tyson and Cargill and say, "here's the deal, we want to control this product from pasture to plate. You (Tyson and Cargill) need our cattle to run your plants. Instead of fighting, why don't you give us a per head bid to process our cattle? That way we both stay in business. We own the cattle going in and the beef coming out and you have a consistant supply of cattle to run your plant more efficiently. A win-win situation".

If you think you can do a better job, buy their plants and run them yourselves. Without producers selling them cattle, they don't have a need for those plants anymore.

They've got the cattle processing experience and labor force already in place. WHY NOT WORK WITH THE SYSTEM INSTEAD OF AGAINST IT???

NPPB died! Future Beef died! USPB is going "great guns".

What's the difference? USPB utilized the existing system.

Those plants would have a guaranteed supply of cattle without having to fight over price and put up with bullsh*t conspiracy theorists like Conman. Producers would control their destiny from beginning to end.

There is no need to re-invent the wheel when efficiecy is what allowed the existing plants to survive as long as they have.

Oh, I can hear it now, "waaaaaah, we would be serfs to Tyson and Cargill, waaaaaaah". Like I said, the ones who bench the loudest about the packing industry are the least likely to do anything about it.

Randy Kaiser, have you reviewed any of the Northern Plains Premium Beef information? If not, I can send it to you along with their equity drive video. Perhaps it can help you avoid some of the problems that NPPB encountered.

Want to look at some other success stories besides USPB? Check out Harris Ranches and Oregon Country Beef (which may have changed their name, not sure).

How anyone can make a stupid comment about "barriers to entry" (like Conman just did) when some progressive producers went from owning 38% to full ownership of the 4th or 5th largest packing company in the nation (National Beef) is beyond me. Defeatests like Conman only serve to drag this industry down.

At the same time Randy, it would be worth your time to research why Future Beef and Beef America failed. Future Beef fell on hard times with their retail beef prices. THEY PAID TOO MUCH FOR YEARLINGS WITH NO GUARANTEE OF THEIR RETAIL BEEF MARKET. Beef America went under due to an ecoli. outbreak that they could not recover from.

The more you research about the packing industry, the less blame you will lay on them.

The ignorant producers that would have the concentration in the cattle industry broke up resulting in having more less efficient packing companies that payed less for fat cattle would only serve to break this industry financially as competing meats became more efficient.

Giving up profitability to the less efficient packing companies due to their inefficiencies driven by market manipulation conspiracy theories would only serve to set this industry back 30 years.

As I think about the NPPB venture, more issues come to mind. Another huge hurdle is to have a consistant supply of cattle that are available for year round slaughter. That requires traditional spring calvers, backgrounders, grass yearling operations, fall calvers, and summer calvers. You have to have a year round supply of cattle to keep those plants running at peak efficiency. That creates organization. Once you delve into this aspect, you will quickly understand why some packers feed their own cattle to fill those seasonal voids.

You have to have a CEO with his/her feet firmly planted on the ground as opposed to "pie in the sky" ideas without supporting facts.

Randy,

You will need to elaborate on the details of a "producer owned brokerage company".



~SH~

_________________

It tempts me to agrue the statement about

"There is no need to re-invent the wheel when efficiecy is what allowed the existing plants to survive as long as they have."

Or

The more you research about the packing industry, the less blame you will lay on them.

However the rest of your post makes some sense.

Don't think for a minute Scott that you are going to convert me into something. Efficiency is not the only thing that has allowed the mutinational packers to thrive AND I have witnessed an ash kicking by Cargill and TYson up here in Canada the likes of which the industry has never experienced, and you and the rest of the American Army will never tell me that Cargill and Tyson never had options.

If you want to cut and paste that part and jump all over me, your choice. I would like to continue discussion on

Packers only have power when producers willingly give them that supply.

This is the concept that was discussed at our meeting last night, along with using Cargill or Tyson, if they bid properly to kill OUR cattle. Or even to own the cattle in large enough numbers to cause a situation of better offers for live cattle from the said packers.

But the part I am starting to like about this multi facitated idea, is one step further yet. Why would producers not be in the position to broker beef aquired from Cargill or Tyson to clients in whichever part of the world they desire to explore.

I beleive that Cargill and Tyson are comfortable marketing product into the USA due to convenience and their American roots. Even an event like BSE did not force these giants to change their course since the rules and the boxed beef trade made BSE a minor hiccup for Cargill and Tyson in Canada.

Would it not be interesting if we were to work within the framework built by these mutinational corporations and their political freinds and force change.

The market for the kind of beef that Canada has the ability to raise is growing globally despite this BSE crap. Europe has gone from a net exporter to a net importer of beef, and China is poised to overtake the USA as the largest economic power of the world. When this BSE situation finally sorts itself out, the potential is unlimited for the excess product that Canada can produce.

We use the best marketing that beef has to offer - "Direct from the Producer" and buy back our product from the packers adding value through markets that have potential to be better than, but in addition to the American market.

Please attempt to keep this thread clean of your name calling for a while SH. I have asked some guests to join in on this discussion and it don't want them to start calling me a thumbsucker at our next meeting.

 

[rkaiser]

Thanks Mike for the info as well.

I have to say however that Randy Kaiser has no dream of becoming a packer. Our little beef program takes enough time and energy and has all the potential for profit that I personally have as a goal in life.

My interest in BIG C has been, and will always be to find a way to change the mainstream beef industry in Canada. The word BIG in our title is there for a reason. We do not like the way that the current system has served our interests despite the perfection that guys like Scott seem to see.

If myself and this group are to attempt anything, it will be something big, something that has potential to change things from the way they are. Otherwise, I'll simply go back to raising bulls and selling a some nice quality beef into High end shops and maybe a restaurant or two in Montana. :wink:

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

We use the best marketing that beef has to offer - "Direct from the Producer" and buy back our product from the packers adding value through markets that have potential to be better than, but in addition to the American market.

Its an interesting idea, Randy, but I don't think we should be selling to the packers in the first place, and then buying back. Contract or license them to package for a Producer concern, but never let the ownership go. Otherwise they'll be tempted to add more than just a packaging profit margin onto the product.

If the big guys won't package for us, I'm sure there are a few smaller packing plants with plenty of capacity to do it (someone correct me if I'm wrong here. Thats pure speculation). As the producer concern grows in size, then it can look into its own packing plant.

Rod

 

[rkaiser]

I hear you Rod. The idea is more than that however. Take a look back and read my post again. The strategy you talk of would definately be a major component, however brokering beef through Cargill for those ranchers who have no interest in working with us could only be done if we were to buy that beef from Cargill and re sell it. This is the part that took me a while to get my head around as well. Maybe a bit of a pipe dream, but worth discussion.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Ah, I gotcha now. I hadn't thought of it that way, as I'm still in my 'co-operative box'. One of my pet peeves with selling my stock to a publicly traded corporation is that I lose the 'gravy'. Profits get paid back to shareholders who likely don't have any stake in the venture at all, beyond owning a few shares. A co-operative venture takes care of that issue.

So, with the co-operative in mind, any profits from brokering would simply be dispersed among the producers who did deal with the co-op?

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Randy Kaiser: "Or even to own the cattle in large enough numbers to cause a situation of better offers for live cattle from the said packers."

Be careful, packer blamers like Conman might decide to bring said packer up on discrimination charges or PSA violations for preferential treatment.

The biggest problem with most of these ventures is that producer have an unrealistic view of the profitability in the packing and retail beef industries.

Read the excellent article Mike posted on Future Beef and sink your teeth into it. There is a lot to be learned from that. Future Beef had some of the brightest minds in the industry working for them. They didn't understand the retail beef industry and that was their biggest downfall.

Isn't it amazing how Future Beef couldn't compete in an industry that is supposedly "anti competitive"?

Randy, you didn't answer my question. Do you want me to send you the NPPB information? If you do, PM me your snail mail address and I'll send it to you with your promise that I get it back eventually.

Take a look at what NPPB did becuase it's just as important to realize why some plans fail as it is to determine why others succeed.

My advise to you would be to get a few producers together that were committed to the concept, and sell your own beef on a smaller scale and work up from there. You need a willing packer and a willing retail beef outlet. You'll get quite an education in the process.

I still think it would be funny to label your beef "SOURCE VERIFIED MAPLE LEAF BEEF" and use the "M"COOL concept to introduce the R-CULT isolationists to themselves.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Randy Kaiser: "Or even to own the cattle in large enough numbers to cause a situation of better offers for live cattle from the said packers."

Be careful, packer blamers like Conman might decide to bring said packer up on discrimination charges or PSA violations for preferential treatment.

The biggest problem with most of these ventures is that producer have an unrealistic view of the profitability in the packing and retail beef industries.

Read the excellent article Mike posted on Future Beef and sink your teeth into it. There is a lot to be learned from that. Future Beef had some of the brightest minds in the industry working for them. They didn't understand the retail beef industry and that was their biggest downfall.

Isn't it amazing how Future Beef couldn't compete in an industry that is supposedly "anti competitive"?

Randy, you didn't answer my question. Do you want me to send you the NPPB information? If you do, PM me your snail mail address and I'll send it to you with your promise that I get it back eventually.

Take a look at what NPPB did becuase it's just as important to realize why some plans fail as it is to determine why others succeed.

My advise to you would be to get a few producers together that were committed to the concept, and sell your own beef on a smaller scale and work up from there. You need a willing packer and a willing retail beef outlet. You'll get quite an education in the process.

I still think it would be funny to label your beef "SOURCE VERIFIED MAPLE LEAF BEEF" and use the "M"COOL concept to introduce the R-CULT isolationists to themselves.


~SH~

I see you are giving free advice, SH. Sometimes it is worth what you pay for.

 

[rkaiser]

Or sometimes Econo, you simply take what you need and let the rest flow through the other ear.

For instance SH says -

Be careful, packer blamers like Conman might decide to bring said packer up on discrimination charges or PSA violations for preferential treatment.

Scott somehow beleives that cases like this could never happen under our current system. I know for a fact that they do. Large players are ALWAYS treaterd differently than small players. That's life in a capitalist society.

It is also undeniable that ownership of large numbers of cattle will effect profit. Call it accidental or planned - when demand increases in even a very small way which was not predicted by a wholesaler; ownership of product at the time will affect that companies profit. Call it fortune or good timing. Another thing that Capitalism brings to an economy is the the unpredictable. No one ever knows for sure when the wholesaler has this opportunity. Eliminating some of the variables is what business, BIG business is all about.

That being said --- And yes we are all trying to attempt to swing people one way or another on this board -----

I would like those I would like that NPPB information SH. I have already printed off Mike's post for future reference, and see no need for anything other than open forum at this point.

I came to this site with my name in front of everyone and continue to see that as the main point of this type of engagement. If we cannot learn even from the most radical posters or take the judgement of the most disagreeable to your words,,,,, you might as well stay off and truly put that thumb in your proverbial mouth.

Your advice about where to start is likely where this will start Scott, but it will certainly not stop there. Like I said to Rod, --- already doing that.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Future Beef had some of the brightest minds in the industry working for them. They didn't understand the retail beef industry and that was their biggest downfall.

Actually, I think they didn't understand industry period and it certainly helped their downfall. They trusted Safeway to honor the agreements that were set in place, and of course, they didn't. A large corporation is only going to operate under circumstances that are beneficial to the corporation, and agreements will be ignored if the corporation thinks it can get away with it. Which Safeway was able to do because of the costs of litigation these days.

This is a common downfall of small businesses: expecting large business to behave in a moral, versus profitable, fashion. It just doesn't happen as often as we'd like.

A wise old businessman once told me that only fools lock themselves into a single supplier or a single consumer, unless you are in a position to dictate terms.

Rod

 

[Jason]

There are some absolutes on the benefits of size as to profit.

The total demand from consumers can't be forced higher than they are willing to pay even if you own every beef animal in the system.

Buying from packers and reselling is an interesting concept, but would be a definate loss at times. If Cargill/Tyson have contracts for said beef, they wouldn't be able to sell it to another group anyway (not without a lawsuit). If they know bids for boxed beef are $x and they have $w costs into it, the price they would sell it at is the difference. The reseller would somehow have to be able to get more than the market boxed beef price for the beef to profit.

Buy using the packers to custom kill, they avoid the boxed beef volitility, risk of spoilage etc. The beef owners would assume that risk. In this scenario, they would be finding 'new' markets for beef, not affecting the contracts the packer already has in place with retailers.

It comes back to having a market for the beef before the cattle are killed.

 

[Northern Rancher]

Really it comes down to the basics-there are no sure things-in life,packing plants or the rest of the cattle business-the nature of the beast is that some big companies are needed to move the bulk of the production-they have the infrastructure in place-the expertise in management in place etc-love them or hate them they are a necessary evil-that being said there is plenty of opportunity on the edges for profit. I think you have to crawl before you walk or have some very wealthy and patient financial backing.I'm sure it would take a high six figure investment just to kickstart the marketing and promotion of a niche product.

 

[rkaiser]

Do you really beleive that Cargill\Tyson (have to laugh at the way you grouped these two competitions :lol: ) have contracts for all of their beef ahead of time Jason. Talk about having a clue about the industry.

And yes, if a broker, (like the ones that operate in the system now) were to source product from Cargill OR Tyson, they would be in competition with Cargill AND hopefully Tyson AND the other brokers as well. If it does not work that way Jason, then we really have a problem.

Rod - Your post about Future beef is right on the money. They can list the problems and ad to them if they like, but this situation with Safeway was the nail in the coffin in my mind.

Kinda like a story I may have already related where a Niche marketer called the eclectic marketer that we use in our Celtic Beef program. He had a deal with a retailer to take his trim at a conventional rate if he supplied them with his branded product. Cargill offered the retailer ground beef at a better price than our niche fellow priced his trim. Retailer not only saw benefit from price, but was allowed to sell equipment and lay off help which helped solidify a future position for Cargill.

Good business by Cargill,,,, of course you say, or was it simply a trusting marketer who should have read the Future Beef fiasco first.

 

[Jason]

Did I say Cargill/Tyson had all the beef they sell contracted? No.

However you can bet they have contracts on much of their product. The contracts will also stipulate the price is determined as per boxed beef and cutout values.

If Cargill doesn't have a contract with the hotel chain you had your product in, you could sell to the one hotel under their nose. The contract Cargill would have put out is the hotel chain has to buy all their beef from them to get the pricing they negotiated.

 

[Anonymous]

RK: "Scott somehow beleives that cases like this could never happen under our current system. I know for a fact that they do. Large players are ALWAYS treaterd differently than small players. That's life in a capitalist society."

That's a lie Randy ("Scott believes cases like this could never happen")!

I know very well that there is preferential treatment for volume customers from the bull sales, to the salebarns, to the feeders, to the packing companies.

That is exactly what you wanted Randy when you stated:

Randy Kaiser: "Or even to own the cattle in large enough numbers to cause a situation of better offers for live cattle from the said packers."

My point is that packer blamers like you criticize the packers for prefenential treatment than ask for that very thing. Meet yourself Randy!

That is the part of the Packers and Stockyards Act that is totally outdated. Buyers of any commodity should be able to give preferential treatment to volume suppliers. As you pointed out, preferential treatment is part of the business climate but it sure as hell should never have been considered illegal.

For example, no packer should be forced to buy cattle from the likes of Mike Callicrate. If Mike wants to lie about their buying practices, they should have the right to refuse to buy from him. That's how I feel.

RK: "I would like those I would like that NPPB information SH. I have already printed off Mike's post for future reference, and see no need for anything other than open forum at this point."

I'm not going to spend hours typing the NPPB business perspective on this site for your benefit. If you want the information I'll send it to you and you can wade through it. If not, then forget it.


Rod,

Because Safeway is a large successful corporation, you automatically assume that Safeway was responsible for Future Beef's demise because someone from Future Beef needed someone to blame since they couldn't blame the packer anymore. If they were honest, they would blame the consumer for not paying more.

The other side of this story is that Future Beef wanted Safeway, BECAUSE OF SAFEWAY'S SIZE, to take the financial fall for Future Beef spending too much money on yearlings. Bullcrap! Safeway agreed to market their product, not to shore them up if retail beef prices slid.

You can't blame Safeway for consumer's not being willing to pay more for beef. Future Beef forgot that they cannot control the consumer. They had no guarantees from Safeway that consumers would pay enough extra for their beef products to offset the exhorbant prices Future Beef paid for yearlings.

It always results in a "BWAME DA PACKAH" or "BWAME DA RETAILAH" situation. ALWAYS!

Future Beef paid too damn much for yearlings. Safeway had nothing to do with their hide and pet food failures either.

Future Beef was overly confident.

Safeway didn't need to take a hit for Future Beef. Future Beef should have been appreciative of the fact that Safeway was willing to sell their product.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:"That's a lie Randy ("Scott believes cases like this could never happen")!

I know very well that there is preferential treatment for volume customers from the bull sales, to the salebarns, to the feeders, to the packing companies.

That is exactly what you wanted Randy when you stated:

Quote:
Randy Kaiser: "Or even to own the cattle in large enough numbers to cause a situation of better offers for live cattle from the said packers."


My point is that packer blamers like you criticize the packers for prefenential treatment than ask for that very thing. Meet yourself Randy!

That is the part of the Packers and Stockyards Act that is totally outdated. Buyers of any commodity should be able to give preferential treatment to volume suppliers. As you pointed out, preferential treatment is part of the business climate but it sure as hell should never have been considered illegal.

For example, no packer should be forced to buy cattle from the likes of Mike Callicrate. If Mike wants to lie about their buying practices, they should have the right to refuse to buy from him. That's how I feel."


We already know you are a packer backer that does not believe in any enforcement of the law against market power abuses and discriminatory conduct against anyone who does not do what they want or act the way they want. You just want a packer controlled industry and not a market controlled industry.