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~