How much is Tyson Lakeside making?

[Jason]

Funny how the fellows that think Tyson is so all powerful that they control the universe haven't figured out the huge profits they must be making at their Lakeside plant.

I mean after all 1000 workers go to work, inspectors won't cross the picket line so they get paid to stand around.

Randy said if you slow the chain down when you are losing money it is actually a profit, so how big must that profit be when the chain stops all together?

I'd like to own a business that makes money when it produces less. Maybe I should hire the accountants that Tyson has. They can show a profit to investors, a loss to the tax department, make more money doing less. They are invincible to getting caught, not like the stupid accountants that sunk Worldcom.

 

[Econ101]

Funny how the fellows that think Tyson is so all powerful that they control the universe haven't figured out the huge profits they must be making at their Lakeside plant.

I mean after all 1000 workers go to work, inspectors won't cross the picket line so they get paid to stand around.

Randy said if you slow the chain down when you are losing money it is actually a profit, so how big must that profit be when the chain stops all together?

I'd like to own a business that makes money when it produces less. Maybe I should hire the accountants that Tyson has. They can show a profit to investors, a loss to the tax department, make more money doing less. They are invincible to getting caught, not like the stupid accountants that sunk Worldcom.

Jason, they don't control the universe yet. Too bad you will not stand behind a few fellow Canadians on this one. It shows your patriotism and your inability to see any one else's interest but your own. Labor is trying to not get caught in the economic traps Tyson is known for and you decry their efforts. Keep sending your support and taxpayer money to wealthy americans and see if that fixes any of your problems.

 

[rkaiser]

Jason said - Randy said - Jason said

Randy said if you slow the chain down when you are losing money it is actually a profit, so how big must that profit be when the chain stops all together?

When Randy said this Jason, he was refering to the Fairy tale that SH brought to the board about losses in America vs. profits in Canada. You and your fellow packer lovers were telling us all that Tyson was loosing money on every head slaughtered at their two north west American plants. When SH talked about them having to slow their kill line, I suggested that that would save them money if they were losing money on every head anyway.

I guess your economics classes where held at night with the lights off Jason.

 

[agman]

Jason said - Randy said - Jason said

Randy said if you slow the chain down when you are losing money it is actually a profit, so how big must that profit be when the chain stops all together?

When Randy said this Jason, he was refering to the Fairy tale that SH brought to the board about losses in America vs. profits in Canada. You and your fellow packer lovers were telling us all that Tyson was loosing money on every head slaughtered at their two north west American plants. When SH talked about them having to slow their kill line, I suggested that that would save them money if they were losing money on every head anyway.

I guess your economics classes where held at night with the lights off Jason.

I am sorry RK but with all due respect when you slow kills down the cost per head escalates. Those plants did lose money but not enough to offset the gains in Canada during the 2004 period. I hope this clarifies the situation.

 

[rkaiser]

Where does the balance shift Agman. You are claiming that they were losing money on every animal killed. How much was that loss? And then how much does that cost escalate in purportion to the slower line?

If you are going to make claims Agman you need to back them up or you will simply be a dork like Randy with no credibility.

Stopping would obviously cause problems, but maybe they slowed down just enough to not get into trouble.

 

[agman]

Where does the balance shift Agman. You are claiming that they were losing money on every animal killed. How much was that loss? And then how much does that cost escalate in purportion to the slower line?

If you are going to make claims Agman you need to back them up or you will simply be a dork like Randy with no credibility.

Stopping would obviously cause problems, but maybe they slowed down just enough to not get into trouble.

Taking one shift out increases cost by $10-$12 per head. Taking one full day out can raise costs by $25-$30 per head. The cost is curvilinear as you take additional hours out. I do know that losses at times exceeded $125 per head for extended periods.

A plant will not shut down until losses exceeded fixed and variable costs. Please recall that Tyson did shut one of their NW plants down.

If you proceed with your plant you will soon find out what the costs are to run a plant. As I previously stated, be prepared to add a lot of additional equity to stay afloat. I truly wish you all the success in the world but you have much to learn about packing plant profitability, no flame intended.

 

[rkaiser]

Packing plant profitability Agman? I though there was no packing plant profitability. The only reason I would like to see more plants in Canada is to see if competition would once again drive the marketplace like days of old.

 

[Jason]

Randy you want to return to the days of Canada packers controlling 60-70% of the kill? At least now we have 2 big players and several smaller ones. Competition is growing.

The packing industry has some profits, based on volume and tight margins.

We have a big farmer in this area, over 100,000 acres. He is happy if he turns a straight $10 profit after all expenses and depreciation. That's a cool million to pay taxes on and then buy toys. If I made $10 per acre on the 550 acres I farmed this year, I can't feed my family on $5500.

This is why it is dificult to get investors in new ventures that cost $30-50 million to start up with profits of $3.88 long term.

 

[Econ101]

Randy you want to return to the days of Canada packers controlling 60-70% of the kill? At least now we have 2 big players and several smaller ones. Competition is growing.

The packing industry has some profits, based on volume and tight margins.

We have a big farmer in this area, over 100,000 acres. He is happy if he turns a straight $10 profit after all expenses and depreciation. That's a cool million to pay taxes on and then buy toys. If I made $10 per acre on the 550 acres I farmed this year, I can't feed my family on $5500.

This is why it is dificult to get investors in new ventures that cost $30-50 million to start up with profits of $3.88 long term.

Jason, you make the economic argument that I make. When the larger packers play their games they do, they create barriers to entry. There was a real good article in the Wall Street Journal on this same phenomena in the airline industry and it is having some real big ripple effects on our economy.

How would you like it if that big rancher made a deal to sell his cattle to the packer at a higher price than you can get? Happens every day.

 

[Jason]

There you go again Econ, you assume packers play a game so they only make a few dollars and barely survive on purpose.

Canada Packers became inefficient and they opened the door to Cargill and foreign purchase of the Lakeside plant. YES Lakeside was independant when it started. It sold to Japanese interests, but the profits were to small for them to stay with it.

If packers continue to only make small margins and make entry into the business hard for others, that proves they are paying a fair price for the cattle. If they make excess profits then other companies sieze the opportunity to enter and take their share.

 

[rkaiser]

Competition is growing Jason? I guess two players controlling 80% of the packing industry means growing to you.

I don't remember CP ever having 60-70% of capacity Jason. If I would have been involved in the industry at that time, I'd have spoken out against it as well.

The rest of your post is hard to disagree with Jason. The question is, should we applaud the move toward tight profits based on volume and tight margins? Who is this economic ideology really helping. I would much rather see you able to survive on 550 acres and I beleive that your local businesses would as well.

If we all stand back and agree that nothing is illegal and nothing is truely wrong with the current trend, guys like you and me will become even more peasant like.

I realise that you see me as no more than a packer blamer, and some of my remarks certainly deserve that judgement, but I am truely supportive of any way that will help keep family farms on their land and viable at the same time.

WITHOUT government subsidies, or protectionist crap.

Simply by putting a decent dollar in the farmers pocket for the products they produce. No one can tell me that small farmers deserve anything less than a fair shake. No one can tell me that a farmer who has somehow acquired 100,000 acres is any more efficient or uselful than you are Jason. Farming has become a game for the big guys. Good tax advantages, and even fun at times. But something is wrong with a picture that has no room for bright young people to ever have a chance to make it in the industry without cash or land or some kind of inheritance from somewhere other than farming. It can't be done Jason, and on the path we are on with bigger is better, it will never be done. You and I are fortunate enough to have survived, but how many will without outside money?

So Jason, Iagree with the last part of your post, and simply ask you, "What is your plan for the future?" Do you simply plan to watch as that farmer down the road buys out his neighbor while his margin drops to $9.00 per acre.

Or watch as Cargill or Tyson finally buy out the Nillsen Bros. because their profits have dropped to $3.75 from $3.88. (Not that I agree with that number mind you).

Does the $9.00 per acre do you any good Jason? Do you think Cargill and Tyson will squeeze their extra 13 cents out of the consumer, or out of you?

 

[Econ101]

Competition is growing Jason? I guess two players controlling 80% of the packing industry means growing to you.

I don't remember CP ever having 60-70% of capacity Jason. If I would have been involved in the industry at that time, I'd have spoken out against it as well.

The rest of your post is hard to disagree with Jason. The question is, should we applaud the move toward tight profits based on volume and tight margins? Who is this economic ideology really helping. I would much rather see you able to survive on 550 acres and I beleive that your local businesses would as well.

If we all stand back and agree that nothing is illegal and nothing is truely wrong with the current trend, guys like you and me will become even more peasant like.

I realise that you see me as no more than a packer blamer, and some of my remarks certainly deserve that judgement, but I am truely supportive of any way that will help keep family farms on their land and viable at the same time.

WITHOUT government subsidies, or protectionist crap.

Simply by putting a decent dollar in the farmers pocket for the products they produce. No one can tell me that small farmers deserve anything less than a fair shake. No one can tell me that a farmer who has somehow acquired 100,000 acres is any more efficient or uselful than you are Jason. Farming has become a game for the big guys. Good tax advantages, and even fun at times. But something is wrong with a picture that has no room for bright young people to ever have a chance to make it in the industry without cash or land or some kind of inheritance from somewhere other than farming. It can't be done Jason, and on the path we are on with bigger is better, it will never be done. You and I are fortunate enough to have survived, but how many will without outside money?

So Jason, Iagree with the last part of your post, and simply ask you, "What is your plan for the future?" Do you simply plan to watch as that farmer down the road buys out his neighbor while his margin drops to $9.00 per acre.

Or watch as Cargill or Tyson finally buy out the Nillsen Bros. because their profits have dropped to $3.75 from $3.88. (Not that I agree with that number mind you).

Does the $9.00 per acre do you any good Jason? Do you think Cargill and Tyson will squeeze their extra 13 cents out of the consumer, or out of you?

Good post.

A cheap food policy is not always the best policy. To have a large part of our food supply come from just a few companies is strategically a poor choice. It might be an inevitability even without market power plays. Happens a lot faster with them.

When you go into a retail store that has lured you in with loss leaders you end up paying for it by the time you get through shopping. Why do you think you get that great of a deal on turkeys at Thanksgiving?

 

[Jason]

Now Randy this moves into philosophical debates. I would love to sit back and make a good living on 550 acres. Most ranchers would love to never change.

Population growth and resource depletion mean things will change weather we like it or not.

Can I say the neighbor that farms 100,000 acres has no right? If he can make his payments he stays in business. If he can outbid me on more land he gets it.

Why should any person have the right to tell another how much money he can make?

External forces always control things we do. People moving into cities makes the stress on the food service industry more pronounced. Just in time delivery of groceries means millions of people are only days from starving if something drastic were to happen to the transportation or processing of food.

When the price of a product fails to return a profit the supplier of that product will switch. That might mean the trucker that hauls beef to a supermarket. If costs make it so less people can afford beef what is the trucker to do? Haul for free so the rancher can continue to recieve the same price? Everyone along the line will tighten production methods until there is no more efficiency to be gained. Then it will collapse if more costs are incured.

If Cargill and Tyson can continue to run packing interests on $.05 per head whats for me to say they aren't entitled?

Some say just charge more for food at the store. That just raises the level of hungry people. There are some now who can't afford food. Their own fault? Maybe, but that again is another philosophical debate.

Just because I understand reality doesn't mean I am a packer lover. I just see what they really are doing for the beef industry right now.

 

[rkaiser]

I won't disagree with much of what you have just said Jason. My point however is more along the lines of where do we stop. You talk about freedom for the big guy. What about freedom for the little guy. Sure you have no right to stop your neighbor. But the policy of our society that allows him advantages to get where he is has taken away your freedom.

This whole debate about socialism vs capitalism really sucks. A very few in a position of power is socialism in my mind, and that seems to be the direction you support. Yet you will call me a socialist for standing up for the rights of the small guy or the family farm by asking for change to the current trends.

Just because I understand reality doesn't mean I am a packer Bwamer. I just see what they are doing for the beef industry right now.

 

[agman]

Packing plant profitability Agman? I though there was no packing plant profitability. The only reason I would like to see more plants in Canada is to see if competition would once again drive the marketplace like days of old.

Show me where I ever said there was no profitability. Profits are just not as you claim. I track their profitability daily. That means profits AND losses. That aside, you have yet to provide any emperical evidence to support your position. Some things just never change with you, no facts- all talk.

 

[agman]

Randy you want to return to the days of Canada packers controlling 60-70% of the kill? At least now we have 2 big players and several smaller ones. Competition is growing.

The packing industry has some profits, based on volume and tight margins.

We have a big farmer in this area, over 100,000 acres. He is happy if he turns a straight $10 profit after all expenses and depreciation. That's a cool million to pay taxes on and then buy toys. If I made $10 per acre on the 550 acres I farmed this year, I can't feed my family on $5500.

This is why it is dificult to get investors in new ventures that cost $30-50 million to start up with profits of $3.88 long term.

Jason, you make the economic argument that I make. When the larger packers play their games they do, they create barriers to entry. There was a real good article in the Wall Street Journal on this same phenomena in the airline industry and it is having some real big ripple effects on our economy.

How would you like it if that big rancher made a deal to sell his cattle to the packer at a higher price than you can get? Happens every day.

How many new airlines have started up and are they not more successful that the old line airlines that are inefficient and are chocking under union influence? Provide proof for your statement regarding cattle pricing - heresay doesn't get it.

 

[rkaiser]

That's why I am here Agman. To talk. Was it you that gave Jason the figure of $3.88 cents per head over the long term? Sounds like no profit to me.

Too bad there are talkers like me out their Agman. Just think how easy your life would be. You could simply spew your numbers and have everyone beleive that life is good. And then you could leave all of your money in trust and go out and buy a ranch with borrowed money and show us all how to make a profit ranching in your perfect world. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Randy you want to return to the days of Canada packers controlling 60-70% of the kill? At least now we have 2 big players and several smaller ones. Competition is growing.

The packing industry has some profits, based on volume and tight margins.

We have a big farmer in this area, over 100,000 acres. He is happy if he turns a straight $10 profit after all expenses and depreciation. That's a cool million to pay taxes on and then buy toys. If I made $10 per acre on the 550 acres I farmed this year, I can't feed my family on $5500.

This is why it is dificult to get investors in new ventures that cost $30-50 million to start up with profits of $3.88 long term.

Jason, you make the economic argument that I make. When the larger packers play their games they do, they create barriers to entry. There was a real good article in the Wall Street Journal on this same phenomena in the airline industry and it is having some real big ripple effects on our economy.

How would you like it if that big rancher made a deal to sell his cattle to the packer at a higher price than you can get? Happens every day.

How many new airlines have started up and are they not more successful that the old line airlines that are inefficient and are chocking under union influence? Provide proof for your statement regarding cattle pricing - heresay doesn't get it.

By not fully funding those ERISAs the investors were able to take away the gains of corporations at the expense of the worker's pensions (most of upper management is excluded from this fraud). This is becoming a BIG problem with our aging baby boomers.

The real question is, from a societal point of view, is the current system one that benefits society or one that benefits investors at the expense of society. If you measure benefits as profits you get one answer, if you measure benefits with a real cost analysis with promised worker costs you get another. Let me guess where you are, Agman.

 

[agman]

Jason, you make the economic argument that I make. When the larger packers play their games they do, they create barriers to entry. There was a real good article in the Wall Street Journal on this same phenomena in the airline industry and it is having some real big ripple effects on our economy.

How would you like it if that big rancher made a deal to sell his cattle to the packer at a higher price than you can get? Happens every day.

How many new airlines have started up and are they not more successful that the old line airlines that are inefficient and are chocking under union influence? Provide proof for your statement regarding cattle pricing - heresay doesn't get it.

By not fully funding those ERISAs the investors were able to take away the gains of corporations at the expense of the worker's pensions (most of upper management is excluded from this fraud). This is becoming a BIG problem with our aging baby boomers.

The real question is, from a societal point of view, is the current system one that benefits society or one that benefits investors at the expense of society. If you measure benefits as profits you get one answer, if you measure benefits with a real cost analysis with promised worker costs you get another. Let me guess where you are, Agman.

Talk about diversion, why did you change the subject again? Par for you, failing to answer even basic questions is beyond your knowledge. You are just one big bag of accusations and blame.

 

[Econ101]

How many new airlines have started up and are they not more successful that the old line airlines that are inefficient and are chocking under union influence? Provide proof for your statement regarding cattle pricing - heresay doesn't get it.

By not fully funding those ERISAs the investors were able to take away the gains of corporations at the expense of the worker's pensions (most of upper management is excluded from this fraud). This is becoming a BIG problem with our aging baby boomers.

The real question is, from a societal point of view, is the current system one that benefits society or one that benefits investors at the expense of society. If you measure benefits as profits you get one answer, if you measure benefits with a real cost analysis with promised worker costs you get another. Let me guess where you are, Agman.

Talk about diversion, why did you change the subject again? Par for you, failing to answer even basic questions is beyond your knowledge. You are just one big bag of accusations and blame.

Where is the diversion, Agman? Is it in your question?