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

I suppose OT will disagree

mrj

Well-known member
That guy wouldn't have a career if he didn't have a 'big' outfit to attack.

He's big on accusations and entirely lacking details and facts to back them.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
That guy wouldn't have a career if he didn't have a 'big' outfit to attack.

He's big on accusations and entirely lacking details and facts to back them.

mrj

Which guy? What facts? You don't believe anything anyone puts out unless its been blessed and anointed with Colorado springwater by your precious NCBA...
How about Mabel who is a rancher :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The next step is to develop an open and competitive market by requiring packers to pay a firm bid price for all livestock they procure and require them to sell in an open public market where all buyers and sellers have access.

WE (market manipulation conspiracy theorists in the cow/calf sector) HAVE TO SAVE THE FEEDING INDUSTRY FROM THEMSELVES AND THEIR MARKETING SCHEMES!

WE (market manipulation conspiracy theorists in the cow/calf sector) KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THE FEEDING INDUSTRY!

"FORGIVE THE FEEDERS FOR THEY KNOW NOT HOW TO MARKET THEIR FAT CATTLE"

Arrogant #%^#%@!


How do these packer blamers explain recent fat cattle prices in light of this "supposed" market manipulation? Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious for a packer blamer.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The proposed rules prohibit packers from selling livestock to each other and end discrimination against producers based upon volume of cattle sold. The rules restrict livestock buyers from acquiring cattle for more than one packer.

Answer this OT, how can you distinguish "preferential treatment" based on QUALITY OF CATTLE from "preferential treatmet" based on QUANTITY OF CATTLE???

What's the opposite of differentiating between the cattle you buy?

Can you say, "SOCIALISM"??

Everyone receives the same price regardless of quality.

MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD FILE A LAWSUIT FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A BETTER MARKET FOR HIGHER QUALITY CATTLE.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hey OT, now that you have presented an "OPINION" by Alan Guebert and Mabel Dobbs that supports what you want to believe, how about providing some factual documentation for the following allegations.....

AG: "For proof, look no further than the June 30 announcement by JBS SA to buy the 130,000-head McElhaney Feedyard in Arizona. According to published reports surrounding the deal, the purchase would give the giant Brazilian meatpacker, now on par in the U.S. with meat masters Cargill and Tyson, a yearly cattle-feeding capacity of nearly 2.5 million head."

What's the point OT? That JBS should not be allowed to BUY FEEDER CALVES???

Hey, I hate to point out the obvious to you OT but the only way JBS can fill that feedlot IS TO PAY MORE FOR FEEDER CALVES THAN SOMEONE ELSE??

Care to argue that? Didn't think so!


MD: "A tiny handful of giant meatpackers and processors have been underpaying and unfairly treating livestock producers for decades. These packers control the livestock markets and their market power harms independent producers and the prosperity of rural communities."

Where's the proof to back that statement? You think listening to everyone repeat that over and over will make it come true?

It's no mystery why R-CALF & Co. has such a dismal record in the court room (0 & 9).


MD: "These companies manipulate the market and keep the real prices they pay for hogs and cattle a secret. Packers use livestock they own and control under contract to drive down prices to livestock producers. When the cattle prices are high, packers slaughter the cattle they already own or control. When the prices are low, they slaughter my cattle."

Tell me OT, when does "captive supplies" (cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter) drive down prices?? What chain of events has to occur in order for this to happen because it obviously didn't happen when fat cattle prices recently passed $1.00.

So what are you supporting here, that feeders should not be allowed to sell cattle on the grid? That all fat cattle should receive the same price in the cash market and eliminate incentives for higher quality carcasses?

Heck might as well get rid of all the carcass epds on the bulls you buy because it won't have much meaning if all fat cattle receive the same price.

MD: "This manipulation impedes the ability of ranchers to earn a decent price for their cattle sold on the cash market. A 2006 USDA study found that use of these “captive supplies” cost cattle producers $69 per head and hog producers $32 per head. In total, captive supplies cost family farmers and ranchers nearly $2 billion in 2006 - four years later those losses continue to increase."

Absolutely untrue! "Captive supply" cattle, which is defined as those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter, can only become captive supply if they have been willingly sold to a packer as fat cattle through a forward contract or if a packer bought those cattle as feeders from a willing seller. So common sense would suggest that if one side could be hurt by packers owning cattle, there is another side that benefitted from selling those fat cattle through forward contracts or selling the packers feeder cattle. SO HOW COULD THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY SUFFER A $69 PER HEAD LOSS???

Ridiculous!

Bottom line, packer blamers like you want to ban packers from buying fat cattle through forward contracts and ban packers from buying feeder calves to feed in their own feedlots. In the name of competition, you want to reduce competition in favor of a socialized cattle marketing agenda.

Unbelievable!

May this "socialized cattle marketing agenda" get shot down in flames!


~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sorry I didn't make it simple enough for you OT. Not having time to do the quote thingy that day, I hoped you would realize when I wrote "that guy", you would realize from my comment re. his 'editorial' was toward Guebert rather than the lady you quoted in the same post.

For the record, however, Guebert often makes charges, and rarely if ever, brings ANY supporting factual evidence against NCBA and others. But he is on a particular vengeful campaign against NCBA and the Pork guys at this time.

He, and you, both ignore the fact that many of the DUES PAYING CATTLE PRODUCER members of NCBA decided the policy of opposition to proposed GIPSA rules.

BTW, how many members of Ms. Dobbs' WORC actually pay dues, OR are even cattle producers themselves, AND who truly funds those groups???)

Beefman, the quote from Mr. Johnson on the beef blog illuminates just one problem our family has with the rules. Thanks for sharing.

Another is that the comment period ends BEFORE the hearing in Colorado Springs next month. That just isn't right to stop taking comment EXCEPT for those at that meeting!

The potential for damage to producers in branded beef programs, as well as the demand all cattle receive the same price regardless of quality, which may not be easily discernible on the hoof, of discrimination AGAINST quantity, such as one guy with a pot load of calves SHOULD get paid more than severa people with small 'packages' share in the efficiency of the buyer not needing to TRY to put together a full load of cattle of equal quality???

Ms. Dobbs also fails to provide proof of her charges despite the many investigations also failing to substantially verify them over years time. Her solutions remain beneficial more to attorneys and government growth and maybe even auction markets grtowth of commisions, with the producers STILL paying for it all.

Some of us do understand that we can neither litigate nor regulate ourselves into prosperity, and that we can choose marketing methods suitable for our businesses better than can any organization or government.

mrj
 

Latest posts

Top