Is it time to double the checkoff?

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "SH, the feeders are a part of the marketing channel just like the packers are. Why do big packers get the opportunity of always making their spread like you suggest and feeders do not?"

The packers don't always make their spread. Where the hell did you pull that from?????? Gawd I get sick of continually correcting your ignorance.

The packers run in the red when they pay more money for cattle than they can get for the boxed beef. If you knew anything about this industry, you'd know that too.

Why do you get involved in discussions you know absolutely nothing about yet pretend that you do?

Randy the packer blamer: "Come on you checkoff supporters, prove to us lame brains that our checkoff dollars are going back into producers pockets."

Why? You wouldn't believe it anyway. Why would I waste my time proving anything to someone who has his little victim mentality mind already made up?

Believe what you want to believe, I don't care. Your ignorance is your enemy, not mine.

Randy the packer blamer: " According to SH, if the packers decided it was time to run some advertising of their own, they would simply take it from the producers pockets anyway so maybe I'm flogging a dead horse."

Only if all the packers shared that added expense equally. Any expense added to the industry is passed on to the producers.

Do you think you will receive more or less money for your cattle if the cost of trucking cattle to the feedlot increases?

You probably don't know that either do you?

Randy: "These producer groups collecting checkoff could do a lot better if they offered help and assistance rather than the whole ball of wax promoting beef for Cargill and Tyson."

What an ignorant statement.

As if higher retail beef prices only benefit Cargill and Tyson. What a pathetic little blamer. Go suck your thumb again Randy Kaiser.

Randy: "Show me the money SH or Tam. Show me more than your opinion on how much good the checkoff advertising does for the producers of North America. You know me, I'm all about opionion and that's about it."

Believe what you want to believe. There is no bigger waste of time than to try to educate a blamer who only wants to blame.



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

How on earth do you get blame out of every statement I make you pathetic wimp. You are so pissed that you lost the bet to Sandman that you are really on a mission now. You poor little looser. Talk about sucking their thumb. How about sucking something else for John Tyson you wimp.

 

[Jason]

How on earth do you get blame out of every statement I make you pathetic wimp. You are so p****d that you lost the bet to Sandman that you are really on a mission now. You poor little looser. Talk about sucking their thumb. How about sucking something else for John Tyson you wimp.

That just proved a lot about you Randy.

SH is a bit agressive, but the way he is attacked he has provocation.

Willful ignorance is what has been displayed by many who don't want to acknowledge the packers are just part of the beef industry and not the evil empire.

Ranchers.net provides a source for innocent ranchers to get a taste of what really happens in the beef industry, rather than coffe shop bs from sorry blamers.

 

[rkaiser]

Thats right Jason, I reach my limit as well. You and SH and your righteous BS about truth and proof in the industry we share makes me sick to my stomach. Enjoy spewing your packer loving crap Jason, I'll leave you alone for a while.

ash kissing packer lovers like yourselves will survive, but so will I. And by the way, Jason, judge my comments to Sh as worse than his to me all you like. What I would truely like right now is a meeting in a Lethbridge bar with Scott the wimp and you could tag along as well.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH is a bit aggressive? :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Is the ocean a bit wet?


I don't think "aggressive" is the most fitting adjective you could come up with. :wink:

 

[Jason]

SH is a bit aggressive? :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Is the ocean a bit wet?


I don't think "aggressive" is the most fitting adjective you could come up with. :wink:

At least SH has integrity to admit when he has made a mistake. Some on the board switch positions with every post then claim they never said that.

SH has never found a taker that can prove how the markets can move higher while they are supposedly being controlled by the packers. That is a fact.

Packers and feedlots never set out to lose money, but in times of flux they get caught. Some on here think because there are those of us that realize the truth about the industry, and we realize we need to keep abreast of new developments, that we just accept everything packers do. If they don't pay enough for you to stay in business, is that their fault? Do they owe every producer a profit? I would rather they pay more, but I know it can't happen and them stay in business too.

I know when margins get pinched I don't want to try to compete on $10 a head. I won't bench and moan about leaving the industry either. Lots of feedlots operate on that margin, and packers work on less. Ranchers are heading there fast.

 

[rkaiser]

No Jason you don't bench and moan, and neither does SH. You are all bout the truth and proof, and being right.

I've had enough of you guys.

See you all in the funny papers, I'm out of here.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH is a bit aggressive? :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Is the ocean a bit wet?


I don't think "aggressive" is the most fitting adjective you could come up with. :wink:

At least SH has integrity to admit when he has made a mistake. Some on the board switch positions with every post then claim they never said that.

SH has never found a taker that can prove how the markets can move higher while they are supposedly being controlled by the packers. That is a fact.

Packers and feedlots never set out to lose money, but in times of flux they get caught. Some on here think because there are those of us that realize the truth about the industry, and we realize we need to keep abreast of new developments, that we just accept everything packers do. If they don't pay enough for you to stay in business, is that their fault? Do they owe every producer a profit? I would rather they pay more, but I know it can't happen and them stay in business too.

I know when margins get pinched I don't want to try to compete on $10 a head. I won't bench and moan about leaving the industry either. Lots of feedlots operate on that margin, and packers work on less. Ranchers are heading there fast.

I think saying the big packers "control" the market is a bit large, but if you can't admit that 1 outfit controling 30% or 4 controling over 80% of a market has no negetive effects on those depending on the big outfits, you're in denial.

If they don't pay enough to keep you in business, it may very well be by design, not just mere happenstance.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "How about sucking something else for John Tyson you wimp."

Bwahahaha!

Poor little packer blaming Randy. Just can't stand the thought that some producers would dare to form their opinions on facts rather than a compelling need to "BWAME DA PACKAH".

Randy the packer blamer: "You and SH and your righteous BS about truth and proof in the industry we share makes me sick to my stomach."

Of course it does because you are a chronic packer blamer. Truth doesn't matter to you what matters is that you have someone or something to blame.

Randy the packer blamer: "What I would truely like right now is a meeting in a Lethbridge bar with Scott the wimp and you could tag along as well."

BLAH BLAH BLAH!

Let me guess, I'll bet you can crush a beer can against your head too can't you?

Perhaps you and Hayseed should go have a beer. You have the same level of intellect.

Randy the packer blamer: "See you all in the funny papers, I'm out of here."

Good! Go find yourself a packer blaming support group. That should help compensate for your inability to back your positions with anything of substance.

Sandman: "I think saying the big packers "control" the market is a bit large, but if you can't admit that 1 outfit controling 30% or 4 controling over 80% of a market has no negetive effects on those depending on the big outfits, you're in denial."

The level of concentration in this industry has had a positive impact on cattle prices, not negative. When the efficiencies of the packing industry are such that they sell everything but the "moo" and can keep their doors open with a $3.88 per head margin through the 90's, it doesn't get much more efficient than that.

Concentration is not unique to the beef industry. Every major industry is operating with fewer more efficient players.

More packers does not mean more money for producers. There is nothing wrong with 4 companies controlling 80% of the packing industry. That's where increased efficiency has led us.

Highest cattle prices ever recorded and your are still bitching about packer concentration. WAKE UP!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH, I have a deal proposal for you. I will take off your little trap thing off of my posts if you will stop calling everyone names.

Do we have a deal?

 

[rkaiser]

I must apologize to everyone and especially you SH. I was in a pretty shitty mood this afternoon and I simply couldn't take your cut and paste name calling game in the moment.

Go ahead SH, cut this one up and call me more names. I am back on track.

At least I am able to say that packers are vital to the industry, but need some direction just like the rest of us. You SH want everyone to get on your red liberal bandwagon and salute the liberal government backed mutinational packers packers every step of the way.

I'm sorry if someone with a different point of view than yours bothers you so much that you cannot stop your name calling and degrading games. I'm sorry that you lost the bet to Sandhusker, and that you cannot prove me wrong saying that Cargill and Tyson enjoyed the closed border.

I hope you have a better evening SH than I had an afternoon, but somehow I doubt it. You will come back Bwammin me for being a bwamer and ruining your perfect industry with my lies and opinion. And Jason, the innocent rancher will back you up.

OHMMMMMM OHMMMMMM Do you have a relaxation mantra SH?

 

[agman]

Agman, "Regarding cattle imports, many of those cattle when fed to U.S specs for grading ended up in the export market also. The U.S benefits from the added value of those exports also."

That statement really bothers me. Agman, you chose the words, "The U.S. benefits" as if we all benefit, when actually the greatest benefit goes to only the outfit doing the exporting.

WRONG

 

[agman]

I must apologize to everyone and especially you SH. I was in a pretty shitty mood this afternoon and I simply couldn't take your cut and paste name calling game in the moment.

Go ahead SH, cut this one up and call me more names. I am back on track.

At least I am able to say that packers are vital to the industry, but need some direction just like the rest of us. You SH want everyone to get on your red liberal bandwagon and salute the liberal government backed mutinational packers packers every step of the way.

I'm sorry if someone with a different point of view than yours bothers you so much that you cannot stop your name calling and degrading games. I'm sorry that you lost the bet to Sandhusker, and that you cannot prove me wrong saying that Cargill and Tyson enjoyed the closed border.

I hope you have a better evening SH than I had an afternoon, but somehow I doubt it. You will come back Bwammin me for being a bwamer and ruining your perfect industry with my lies and opinion. And Jason, the innocent rancher will back you up.

OHMMMMMM OHMMMMMM Do you have a relaxation mantra SH?

RK, since you made the statement regarding Tyson and Cargill why don't you prove your point? While you have expressed your opinion you have provided no proof to back that opinion.

 

[Tam]

It is not that I don't believe in advertising Tam. I simply question the sytem in place in the Cattle/Beef industry. Does Ipsco steel advertise for Ford?

Come on you checkoff supporters, prove to us lame brains that our checkoff dollars are going back into producers pockets. Supply and demand all you want; that is no proof. Export tariffs and subsidies can change price in this industry faster and more dramatically than any switch from a flank steak back to a burger. AND that flank steak is not a bad idea. As well as anything else that has come from DEVELOPEMENT work.

According to SH, if the packers decided it was time to run some advertising of their own, they would simply take it from the producers pockets anyway so maybe I'm flogging a dead horse.

These producer groups collecting checkoff could do a lot better if they offered help and assistance rather than the whole ball of wax promoting beef for Cargill and Tyson.

Show me the money SH or Tam. Show me more than your opinion on how much good the checkoff advertising does for the producers of North America. You know me, I'm all about opionion and that's about it.

Your question about Does Ipsco steel advertise for Ford? :roll: no and as far as I know the beef industry checkoff doesn't advertize for McDonalds either. We, like Ipsco, advertize the product we produce BEEF not what somebody else makes of it.

Your Comment about offering help and assistance do you mean in building and paying for packing plants to compete with the plants that have private producer dollars invested. :wink: As far as I see they do provide assistance in developing new products and they help raise the awareness of the consumers to what beef has to offer and that beneifits all producers like it was meant to do.

Show me Why should I waste my time showing you anything? All you bring to the debate is your opinions with no intentions on backing them with any proof. You have already admitted to that and until you change your stand on bringing proof to back what you claim I'm not wasting any of my time on proving anything to you. :x You could start by proving Tyson didn't want the border to open because they were mading so much money in Canada that the losses that they were taking in the US didn't matter. Come on Randy SHOW ME your proof, you expect everyone else to show you. Ask only what you are willing to provide yourself, PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS.

 

[rkaiser]

You and your proof Agman. I told you I can't prove it any more than you and SH can prove it wrong. My theory (shall we say) is based on excessive profits in Canada which you yourself have agreed to, and the monopoly game going on since. Major expansion by both Cargill and Tyson with the war chest they built up as well as new purchases by Cargill.

Tell me how that is bwamin the packers Agman. It is simply telling the truth.

SH has a phone call from a guy at Tyson. What the heck is that all about. :lol:

You guys are supposed to be all about business and you can't see the amazing business move that was made by Cargill and Tyson?????

Let Rcalf take the heat and sit back and enjoy!

I don't have any more proof than that Agman, I'm sorry. If you want to call me an idiotic ignorant bwamer, go ahead. My eyes are wide open, and I'm up to taking a punch again.

In fact - I never really had anything to do with the packing industry until about three years ago when we started our project. Then came BSE. I saw first hand the ability of the packers to take full advantage of the situation here in Canada and probably became more jealous of them than anything. How could they get away with something like this and be fully legal.

Then I started reading posts from people like SH, and saw how blind some people could be to the obvious. If anything SH has strenthened my resolve to see some change in this industry. While he pounds away on anyone with a conservative, right wing idea, his liberal backed mutinationals expand their political and economic power base. If this socialist type top heavy power base is the only way for this industry to survive, I say God help every producer in both of our countries with less than 200 cows unless their lips are stuck to a mutinational packers ash.

There's a bunch more for you to go to work on SH.

 

[rkaiser]

You seem to be pretty well read Tam, but I guess I'll have to try and explain the BIG C plan to you again since you have some distorted view of it.

After a fully democratic vote among all the producers in Canada, or at least Western Canada ------ the federal government would LOAN BIGC the money to build a plant or plants (bridge financing), and the checkoff (seperate from any other checkoff and unrelated) would pay down the loan. Every dollar from the checkoff would become a share for the producer in the plant or plants.

But don't worry Tam, you're plant that you and your investors are building will never have to worry about competition from BIG C because it will never happen. Too many insulated producers like yourself who oppose the idea and have dreams of your own to take on the packers that you ironically support every day on this site. Guess what Tam, they'll bury your butt the first chance they get. Ask Swift about their bid on the Better Beef plant, or get your plant up and running and try to sell some trim. You might float under their radar like our little Canadian Celtic program, but you sure as hell will not help out the cattle industry in Canada.

You are right Tam, the checkoff does not advertise for McDonalds. The mark up at that level affords more than enough for marketing. Margins are not extreme in the packing industry (beyond BSEconomics), so why wouldn't the packers enjoy a free ride from the cattle industry when it comes to advertising.

How much of our checkoff dollars go to CBEF Tam? I'll tell you it's a lot. Once again, I cannot PROVE that the money doesn't make it's way back into the pockets of producers, but you and your buddy SH cannot PROVE that it does either.

Advertising works, I do not deny that. But how it works in an industry where so many players are involved,---- nobody can really know.

:wink: If you don't like my opinion Tam, why keep coming back for more?

 

[Tam]

You seem to be pretty well read Tam, but I guess I'll have to try and explain the BIG C plan to you again since you have some distorted view of it.

After a fully democratic vote among all the producers in Canada, or at least Western Canada ------ the federal government would LOAN BIGC the money to build a plant or plants (bridge financing), and the checkoff (seperate from any other checkoff and unrelated) would pay down the loan. Every dollar from the checkoff would become a share for the producer in the plant or plants.

But don't worry Tam, you're plant that you and your investors are building will never have to worry about competition from BIG C because it will never happen. Too many insulated producers like yourself who oppose the idea and have dreams of your own to take on the packers that you ironically support every day on this site. Guess what Tam, they'll bury your butt the first chance they get. Ask Swift about their bid on the Better Beef plant, or get your plant up and running and try to sell some trim. You might float under their radar like our little Canadian Celtic program, but you sure as hell will not help out the cattle industry in Canada.

You are right Tam, the checkoff does not advertise for McDonalds. The mark up at that level affords more than enough for marketing. Margins are not extreme in the packing industry (beyond BSEconomics), so why wouldn't the packers enjoy a free ride from the cattle industry when it comes to advertising.

How much of our checkoff dollars go to CBEF Tam? I'll tell you it's a lot. Once again, I cannot PROVE that the money doesn't make it's way back into the pockets of producers, but you and your buddy SH cannot PROVE that it does either.

Advertising works, I do not deny that. But how it works in an industry where so many players are involved,---- nobody can really know.

:wink: If you don't like my opinion Tam, why keep coming back for more?

Maybe Randy I just like seeing what you will come up with next that you have no intention of proving. And if you will ever bring anything other than your opinion to the debate. :wink:

I know what Big C's plan was and that is not what the Checkoff is for. I thought you said once that 95% of the producers you talked to agreed with your plan. I guess that was just another opinion not backed up by facts. :wink: Now you are saying your plan will never happen because of Too many insulated producers like myself who opposed the idea. Well I'm glad to see I was in the majority on this issue. If you are so sure you can run a profitable plant why don't you write a business plan that investors will look at and get your own funding like some of these other plants have done. Or will Big C's business plan only work if you don't have to pay back your debts? :?

Randy if the increase in the price of beef that is a result of increase in demand that is a result of advertizing doesn't affect the price you get for your cattle why do cattle prices fluctuate? Why don't we get a very stable price that is the same no matter what the demand for Beef is?

 

[Econ101]

Tam, Are you saying that advertising makes cattle prices fluctuate?

I know you are asking Rkaiser the question.

 

[Tam]

Tam, Are you saying that advertising makes cattle prices fluctuate?

Demand of beef that can is affected by a good advertizing campaign can but that is just my opinion :wink:

 

[rkaiser]

I guess you can't read hey Tam. Who the hell ever said anything about not paying back debt?

95% of the people who came out to BIG C meetings did agree with the concept Tam. Because they came out and listened and did not twist the idea into whatever they saw fit as you do. A checkoff for a producer owned plant would have nothing to do with ABP or CCA, but somehow you have things figured out in your own mind.

That's quite an opinion you have there about price fluctuation and advertising Tam. I said that I believe advertising is advantageous, just question the advertising we do with producer dollars, and how much actual advantage it gives to producers of Canada and the USA.