Kenny, as far as I am concerned you and I are friends and will remain friends regardless how we disagree politically on issues facing the cattle industry. If that's not the case, it will be by your choosing, not mine. We do have one thing in common. We are both passionate about the future of this industry although we are polarized in our view for how to keep our industry viable.
I am just as convinced that R-CALF is absolutely on the wrong path trying to regulate and sue their way to prosperity as you are convinced that they are on the right path. There was a point when I shared many of your same views until I took the time to learn and understand all the segments of this industry between the rancher and the consumer. My opinions are based on the facts. The same facts that have been absent in R-CALF's dismal record in the court room.
Your mention of my current job is nothing more than a "red herring" to divert from the issues. That dog won't hunt Kenny. Either I am wrong in my views and you can prove it or I'm not. It's that simple.
I have been intimately involved in the cow/calf business my entire life. Anyone that knows me knows that. I have raised cattle since I was a child and continue to raise cattle on my father's ranch at Lowry, SD. I have fed cattle through to fat for many years. If you want to discredit me, discredit what I am saying with opposing facts. If you insist on using my occupation to discredit what I'm saying, that doesn't speak very well of the confidence level you possess in your arguments does it?
Think about it, why would I be so passionate about the cow/calf industry if I or my family was not involved in it directly? Does that even make sense? Like I said Kenny, that dog won't hunt. As I speak, the bulls I purchased this year are being delivered to our ranch. If you want a phone number to confirm this, I can certainly provide it. Ask Herman Schumacher the next time you see him regarding our cattle. We topped his market many times before we started making more money by retaining ownership on our cattle. If that's not good enough, ask JK at the feedlot N. of Quinn regarding how our cattle fed. Then you can tell me why I shouldn't have strong opinions about this industry.
I have many friends in the cattle business that see things exactly as I do and think that R-CALF is wasting a lot of time chasing ghosts and conspiracy theories and making a handful of lawyers a lot of money.
Make no mistake Ken, any new money into this industry will come from the consumer, not from lawsuits against the packer.
With the following comments, I am responding to your message, not to you as the messenger. Keep that in mind as you read them. I appreciate you overall tone and I will respond in kind.
As you said, we do agree that ID should be voluntary and that brand inspection can be a viable part of any source verification program. As you may or may not know, I fed cattle for PM Beef group, the first total process verified branded beef programs certified by USDA. Need the name of the feedlot, I can certainly provide it. Brand inspection was a viable part of that source verified branded beef program.
You and I totally disagree on "M"COOL. "M"COOL, as written, is one of the most poorly written laws I have ever read. That fact is undeniable.
KF: "I oppose mandatory animal ID for several reasons, first in meetings that I have attended on behalf of the South Dakota Stockgrowers and R-CALF in Washington D. C. and South Dakota high level officials have told me that when a national animal identification system becomes mandatory I will not be able to buy or sell without a numbered electronic tag in the ear of my cattle and a premise number."
Again, I agree that we should not be forced, by the government to ID our cattle anymore than the packers should be forced by the government to label their beef to country of origin. I adamantly oppose allowing the federal government to pick and chose who can and who cannot own cattle through the socialistic piece of legislation called the packer ban. I have yet to see my first cow/calf man stand up in the sale barn and declare, "I don't want any packers bidding on my calves". Obviously the packer was the high bid somewhere or they wouldn't be buying cattle would they?
My desire for limited government involvement in this industry extends to the packing industry as well as the cow/calf side of this industry. Any added costs to the packing industry will result in lower fat cattle prices which will result in lower feeder cattle prices. If you listened to the "M"COOL listening session testimonials given by packers and retailers of all sizes, not just the large evil corporate packers, you would have heard how "M"COOL is all cost and no benefit. It's always easier to regulate someone else isn't it?
In both cases, the consumer demands for source verification and country of origin labeling should be the driving force behind those laws, not another federal mandate to wreck havoc with our prices the way MPR did.
The only problems with brand inspection AS PART OF a source verified branded beef program is that there is brand duplications between states that must be accounted for in a viable traceback system.
If consumers are willing to pay more for source verified cattle and packers pay accordingly and feeders pay accordingly, I support your right to receive less money for your cattle if you refuse to participate. That should be your right.
KF: "Second, I do not want to be saddled with a system that is based completely on plastic electronic ear tags that can be cut out, lost, duplicated, stolen or can't be read at all because of computer malfunction."
And you shouldn't be! Source verification should be consumer driven, not government driven.
KF: "Third, no one has ever given a cost benefit analysis of the proposed national animal identification system, in fact USDA has said they are not going to pay for animal ID."
That's fine but where was this cost/benefit analysis request with "M"COOL?
Why the inconsistancy in your arguments?
What's good for one law should be good for the other.
KF: "We at the SD Stockgrowers have maintained that the use of existing programs makes a lot more sense than reinventing the wheel with a new very burdensome expensive program that has proven, in pilot projects, funded by USDA to not be any better than what we already have."
I agree. Brand inspection can be a viable part of any source verification program.
KF: "USDA to date has spent 84 million dollars and proposes to spend millions more on pilot projects on animal ID when they could have hired inspectors and stationed them at our borders to prevent diseased livestock from entering our country instead of tagging animals so they can manage disease after the fact."
What diseases do you believe they should be monitoring that they currently are not?
Anaplasmosis? Blue tongue? Hoof and Mouth? BSE?
Please explain!
KF: "As for tracking cattle with a tag goes, when the first case of BSE was discovered in a cow in the state of Washington, USDA Officials knew immediately the cow was from Canada because the cow had a Canadian tag in her ear but it took nearly a month to admit the cow actually came from Canada. So what good did the tag do? The market for live cattle was devastated to the tune of about twenty dollars per hundred yet we in the United States took the blame for BSE and lost our export markets."
In your previous argument you said,
"In fact, when Canada discovered their very first case of BSE in May 2003, the Montana Department of Livestock contacted our chief brand inspector about some bulls that had been sold from Canada into Montana and subsequently into South Dakota. The bulls were half-brothers to the infected cow. Within about three hours, our chief brand inspector called the Montana department back with full details about the movements of each bull, all the way to slaughter."
Right there you made the case for traceback! Either you understand the value of tracing our cattle in situations such as BSE or you don't.
Obviously consumers do see the value in traceback or branded beef programs derived from Angus Gene Net and US Premium beef wouldn't be paying premiums for source verification would they?
What about SD Certified? Obviously consumers see the value in knowing EXACTLY where their beef comes from or they wouldn't be offering premiums for it.
Why is R-CALF suddenly so concerned about our export markets? Bill Bullard stated at a Texas Farm Bureau meeting and I quote,
"You don't need an export market to distribute your production because you haven't produced enough beef to satisfy our own domestic market".
Does that statement sound like a concern for our export markets?
In Colorado, Bill Bullard was asked what it would be like without an export market. He response was and I quote, "
we'd be in a very favorable position because we don't produce enough beef to satisfy our own domestic market now".
Neither statement seems to show much concern for our export markets, why the sudden change of attitude?
KF: "When it comes to BSE a tag does not help much to maintain consumer confidence because the United States has a policy that downer cows are condemned and can not enter the food supply."
Are you suggesting that only downer cows can test positive for BSE?
If not, moot point!
Isn't it ironic that Canada had the same policy and R-CALF claimed their beef was "contaminated" and "high risk" in their Washington Post add and court documents? I only wish the media had put a little heat on R-CALF to justify their conradicting arguments when Canadian beef was supposedly "contaminated" and "high risk" due to BSE in their native herd but we had "the safest beef in the world" due to our BSE precautionary measures, which were the same as Canada's, when we had our first native case of BSE.
I thank my lucky stars every day that the media did not see R-CALF as a credible source of information on BSE or you would have seen cattle prices tank. Fact is, NCBA and USDA were there to tell the media the truth about BSE, not R-CALF. In contrast, R-CALF used BSE "fear mongering" in their attempt to stop Canadian imports. A very foolish move politically.
Our BSE precautionary measures have gone far beyond just banning downer cows. We banned ruminant bone meal from feed. We increased our BSE surveilance testing. We removed SRM's from cows older than 30 months of age.
Despite those efforts, consumer confidence is higher when USDA officials can offer guarantees that the cow has been traced, the herd quaranteened and tested, and all possible beef removed from the food supply. Those are the efforts that have removed some of the market scares due to BSE.
Consider the fact that Canadian consumers stayed loyal to Canadian beef after their initial BSE case. Why? Because they had a valid traceback system. Ask Canadian producers about the value in tracing cattle.
KF: "And then there is e-coli which has absolutely nothing to do with animal ID, but instead, sloppy slaughter practices by the packers that causes contamination of the carcass - yet another reason to oppose mandatory animal ID. The packers will try every trick in the book to blame livestock owners for their mistakes."
You can blame the packers for ecoli Kenny but the fact remains ecoli is an industry problem that needs to be addressed by the industry. Any ecoli recall will result in hurting consumer demand for beef. Some branded beef programs are requesting feeders to feed certain roughages prior to slaughter to reduce ecoli contamination. I'd say that was a more responsible approach to the issue than blaming the packers after the fact. Yet another difference between NCBA and R-CALF. NCBA works with packers to reduce ecoli outbreaks and R-CALF blames packers for ecoli outbreaks. Who is working for the cattlemen in that situation?
KF: "Consumers don't want animal ID. In a recent poll in the Farm Forum Newspaper 469 people were asked if they were in favor or against mandatory animal ID. 92% were opposed to mandatory animal identification."
Consumers don't want animal ID based on a poll of 469 FARM FORUM NEWSPAPER READERS?????
Come on, you're going to have to do better than that.
Actual consumer signals that have led to premiums being offered for source verified cattle through Angus Gene Net and US Premium beef trumps a phony poll of ag producers.
KF: "I ask where does the food service industry and the retailers purchase the meat they sell?"
From the packers. What's your point?
80% of the beef consumed in the United States is from the United States and 20% is from imports.
50% of all the beef consumed in the United States ends up in food service.
75% of all imports end up in food service which is exempt from "M"COOL.
You do the math!
KF: "All of the meat the United States imports is already labeled at the packing level so if the packers were required to pass this information along to the food service industry the food service industry could choose to purchase meat that was labeled, born, raised and slaughtered in the USA."
Food service was exempted from Country of Origin Labeling Kenny! That is a fact. 75% of all imports end up in food service and would not be required to be labled.
That leaves a measely 5% of the total U.S. beef consumption that would be labeled as imported under this flawed law at the cost of labeling all beef when consumers are not asking for Country or Origin labeling. If country of origin was so important to consumers, why does Walmart sell so many products of China?
Your personal consumer desires for U.S. products is not the same desires shared by the average US consumer. Whether you like it or not, that's just a fact. Consumers outvote producers 98% to less than 2%. Same reason some of your friends roll bales to their cattle with Belarus tractors instead of American tractors. PRICE!
Following Canadian imports, most of our imports are lean trimmings that are imported from Australia and New Zealand to blend with all that 50/50 trim that comes from those choice Y3 angus calves in the feedlots. Unless blended with lean beef, that 50/50 trim is basically worthless. There is a shortage of CHEAP lean trim in the United States. Why? Because we are adding value to the chuck and rounds rather than grinding them into cheaper hamburger.
Pay more for cull cows you say? Keep in mind that 80/20 lean ground beef is competing with poultry and pork and consumers will buy what offers them the most value.
Herman Schumacher recently stated that no single factor has a bigger affect on live cattle prices than boxed beef prices. That's a true statement which is totally contrary to Mike Callicrate's previous argument that cattle prices are totally arbitrary and have nothing to do with supply and demand. I bet those two giving back to back testimony could keep a jury scratching their heads for hours.
Which situation do you think is better for the U.S. producers? To add value to our chucks and rounds and grind cheap lean imported trimmings to add value to our worthless 50/50 trim or would you rather we devalued our chucks and rounds by grinding them so we didn't import cheap lean trimmings?
Are you afraid to trade? Do you dislike the idea of taking cheap imported lean trimmings to add value to our otherwise worthless 50/50 trim while we add value to our chucks and rounds resulting in higher cattle prices? Here's where I can ask, whose side is R-CALF really on with their anti-import positions considering that imported lean trimmings add value to our 50/50 trim?
Which senerio do you think will result in higher prices for US cattle producers? The answer is obvious! Without CHEAP lean trim to blend with that 50/50 trim, it has the value of dog food.
KF: "Isn't it true that the food service industry buys their meat from the packers?"
Yeh, so what's your point? Most of the beef sold at retail level at Walmart, Krogers, Safeway, etc. also comes from the same packers.
KF: "The real reason the meat packers are opposed to COOL is that they would not be able to purchase cheap foreign meat and deceive people into believing it is US meat because it has received the USDA grade stamp. Even NCBA, in their 11 point directive, stated their opposition to the use of the USDA grade stamp on imported beef."
USDA inspected means just that, USDA inspected. The intent of the USDA inspected stamp was to assure that the beef has been inspected, not to "deceive consumers into believing a sliver of foreign beef is US beef". That's a weak argument.
Most of the imported beef is lean trimmings that are blended with our 50/50 trimmings. Blended beef would receive a "blended" label if sold at the retail beef counter which would be absolutely meaningless to consumers and do nothing but add expense to the industry. Expense that would be passed on to the producer in the form of lower cattle prices.
I opposed 2 of NCBA's 11 directives and removing the USDA stamp from beef that was inspected by USDA was one of them. Doing so would create the appearance that the beef had not been inspected. Talk about a consumer deterrant.
KF: "Scott have you noticed lately that since a good portion of the cattle coming out of Canada are now ready for slaughter that our markets have dropped 15 to 20 dollars per hundred? So much for record high cattle prices!"
Do you honestly believe that Canadian imports are the only factor affecting our markets??? Seriously, DO YOU??????
What about all the cheap chicken on the market due to the avian bird flu problem? You don't think that has an affect on cattle markets?
What about the increase in carcass weights? You don't think that has an affect on our cattle markets??
Let's look at the facts Kenny. Calf prices in the fall of 2005 were higher than calf prices in the fall of 2004. The Canadian border was closed in the fall of 2004 and opened in the fall of 2005. That is an undeniable fact. Now you tell me how big a factor the Canadian border is having on our markets. You can't deny the obvious. R-CALF "doomsday prophets" were predicting that the bottom was going to drop out of the cattle market when the border opened. Instead, cattle prices went higher. Do you not remember that?
Here's another fact, after Canada resumed boxed beef trade what happened to our live cattle prices Kenny? They continued to climb. That is a fact. WHY? Because Canadian imports are not the only factor affecting our cattle prices.
I call this the old R-CALF "supply and supply" theory which totally neglects consumer demand.
The rule of thumb is that each 1% increase in supply decreases prices by 1 1/2%. Canadian LIVE CATTLE constitutes about 4% of our total US beef consumption. You do the math. That would be the affect of Canadian live cattle imports on our markets. I understand that historically, Canadian imports, including boxed beef imports, constituted about 9% of our total US beef consumption. I singled out live cattle because that seems to be the biggest concern of R-CALF's.
Those high cattle prices were a result of consumers spending more of their dollars on beef. As I said, before, packer lawsuits will not restore profitability to this industry, only a willingness by consumers to pay more for more beef products will.
I also find it quite ironic that there was some influential R-CALF members who were buying these supposedly "UNSAFE", "HIGH RISK", and "CONTAMINATED" cattle with the anticipation of the border opening. Talk about a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.
KF: "And don't give me that nonsense about competing meats because the price of beef at the grocery store has not come down in comparison to the price of fat cattle."
Where was the price of beef at the grocery store when fat cattle prices were $116?
When you look at the price of beef at the grocery store, are you looking at carcass equivelant portions? The chucks, the rounds, the 80/20 ground beef, etc. etc.
You can't look at the price of one item in one store to determine the profitability of the retail beef industry. There is always a lag time between live cattle prices and retail beef prices. Retailers and packers either "sell it or they smell it". Like Herman said in his recent testimony in Aberdeen, there is no greater factor that affects live cattle prices than boxed beef prices. What drives boxed beef prices? Retail beef prices.
Using your logic, Mike Callicrate's "born, raised, and processed in the U.S." branded beef products should be making huge profits. Are they? According to R-CALF's interview with Mike Callicrate, Mike had yet to realize a profit at the time of the article despite charging consumers 10% to 20% more for his beef. What happend to those "HUGE" $400 per head profits that he was telling everyone about? What's up with that? Either Mike wasn't telling the truth then or he's not telling the truth now. I'll let you sort it out.
Mike cited "consumer apathy" as a reason for his lack of profitability. How ironic considering he was one of those claiming consumers would be scrambling to buy a "born, raised, and processed in the US" branded beef product.
I'd say IBP's $26 per head profits as reported in the Pickett vs. IBP case might shine a little light on the truth of that issue.
If you are so convinced all this money is being made in the packing and retail beef industry, why don't you make that investment?
Why did Future Beef go broke? Does it all add up for you? It doesn't for me.
KF: "It is a proven fact that when the Canadian Border was closed to live cattle our live cattle markets jumped 15 to 20 dollars per hundred practically over night."
It is proven fact that when the Canadian border was opened to live cattle, our feeder cattle prices continued to climb. Go ahead Kenny, refute that fact.
Now don't spin that to suggest that I'm saying Canadian imports do not have an impact on our markets. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm only saying that Canadian imports do not have the impact that you believe they have and no further proof is needed than to compare 2004 and 2005 feeder calf prices.
KF: "R-CALF has put money in the pockets of grassroots cattle producers and independent cattle feeders the past 2 years by keeping the Canadian Cattle out of the United States."
As I have stated, it is an absolute undeniable fact that feeder cattle prices were higher in 2005 when the border was opened than in 2004 when the border was closed. Go ahead Kenny, take a run at that one.
KF: "If Japan wants Canadian Cattle let them have them."
That's fine, then don't complain when Japan needs less cattle from us. What we lose in imports we will eventually lose in exports. Trade is not a one way street.
Prior to BSE being discovered in Canada, contrary to the phony chart that R-CALF shows producers which singles out beef and live cattle trade, we were in a $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus for the average of 7 years with the combined trade of live cattle, beef, beef variety meats, and hides. That amounts to about $28 per head on a fat animal. That is a fact! You can get the information through the US Dept of Commerce - Bureau of Census. Are you willing to give up an additional $28 per head in order to be an isolationist country?
Sure, I realize the cards are different now post-BSE but that's how trade was. Had we not had a trade surplus in those years, cattle prices would have even been lower.
This is the reason why NCBA sees opportunity in trade, while the R-CALF crowd sees trade as the back of Canadian truck heading South.
When R-CALF was filing the dumping case against Canada that they lost, Mexico was filing a dumping case against the U.S. What does that tell you about trade?
The global market for beef will go on with or without us and consumers will outvote producers 98% to 2%. World beef consumption will also go on. We either compete in the global market or we build a fence around the US and stay "afraid to trade".
KF: "We don't need anymore cattle."
We don't need cattle backing up in the feedlots either and putting on an additional 25 pound per head either but it's a fact isn't it?
We don't need investers paying $600 per acre for cattle ranches that will barely pencil for $150 per acre either do we but that's still reality.
If you guys want to ban Canadian cattle, don't use BSE fear mongering as the means to accomplish it and risk the integrity of 80% of our US beef consumption. What an insane move that was. I still can't believe that R-CALF used BSE as leverage to stop Canadian imports.
KF: "We have not been able to raise enough cattle to meet the demand of the US market for many years."
Explain that statement Kenny! Of course there is always a demand BUT AT WHAT PRICE????? The issue in not what consumers are willing to consume, the issue is what price they are willing to consume it at.
KF: "R-CALF proved a point that the big packers are using the Canadian cattle for their captive supply to keep the US cattle price low as has been evidenced the past 2 to 3 months."
R-CALF proved that they had no clue of the impact of Canadian live cattle on our markets when feeder cattle prices were higher with the Canadian border opened than when it was closed.
Had the media viewed R-CALF's "BSE fear mongering" as credible information, they could have taken the credit for lowering consumer demand for beef and taking cattle prices with it. I somehow believe they would find a way to blame packers for that too. That seems to be R-CALF's MO, how to blame your way to prosperity while questioning the value of increasing consumer demand through the beef checkoff.
KF: "Scott since when did you become an expert about who is the US cattle producer."
I never claimed to be an expert on who is the US cattle producer. I only know that R-CALF doesn't represent my views and many others like me because I don't believe you can blame or sue your way to prosperity in this industry. I believe that the future of this industry lies in the ability to add value at the consumer level. Higher cattle prices will only be accomplished by an increase in consumer demand and/or a decrease in supply. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it will always be.
I find it ironic that Harlan Hughe's data revealed a $250 per head difference in profitability between high cost and low cost producers while R-CALF is worried about ibp making $26 per head (according to Pickett vs. ibp) in their most profitable years. There must be some logic in that somewhere but I sure as heck can't find it.
KF: "Last time I checked you are an employee of the State of South Dakota hired to trap predators and own very few cows if any."
Yeh, so what's your point? Either my statements can be supported with facts or they can't. My occupation is nothing more than a feeble attempt to discredit what I have stated. Nothing more, nothing less. Either I speak the truth or i don't. If you would like to debate the content of my responses for the facts that support them, by all means, please do so. Show me the error in my ways. I own cattle and since when were numbers equated with knowledge. Some of the largest most successful cattle operations I know share my views. So much for that.
KF: "I have to make my living with what ever the price of cattle is and yet you sit here with your talk in support of policies supported by the packers that can put me and my family out of business."
That's really sad if you actually believe that. What could put you out of business qiicker than the media picking up R-CALF's shortsighted BSE fear mongering statements and holding them to it when we had our native BSE case? R-CALF's BSE "fear mongering" could have put you out of business quicker than anything I could think of.
Back that statement up Kenny. Explain to me how presenting the facts on these issues is going to put you and your family out of business. That really cuts!
I can just as easily have stated that R-CALF's constant packer blaming and conspiracy theories will keep this industry from going forward because the real issue is getting consumers to consume more beef, not some packer conspiracy theories that have failed to be proven in a court of law. Last I checked, our judicial system is still based on the "presumption of innocense" while R-CALF operates on the "presumption of guilt".
Let me give you R-CALF's track record Kenny to refresh your memory.
1. Dumping case against Canada - LOST
2. Injunction against USDA - LOST
3. Injunction against USDA on appeal - LOST
4. Pickett vs. ibp - LOST
5. Pickett vs. ibp on appeal - LOST
6. Pickett vs. ibp review by the supreme court - LOST
7. CAFTA - LOST
8. "M"COOL - flawed law
9. Allowing the government to pick and chose who can and who cannot own cattle in the US - i can only hope that loses BIG TIME.
10. Constitutionality of the beef checkoff - LOST (R-CALF claims to be neutral on the checkoff but we know who their biggest advocates are and who filed the lawsuit against the beef checkoff).
That's quite a track record Kenny!
Can that many court systems be wrong and R-CALF right or perhaps there is a little thing called truth getting in the way of a good story?
KF: "If we all subscribed to your theories we would be out of business and there would be no need for a man of your talents."
Nobody will ever blame or sue their way to prosperity in this industry. How much money does R-CALF need to funnel towards lawyers before they get that figured out? The recent $9.25 million dollar settlement against the packers, if it stands, will mean $9.25 million dollars that will have to come out the hides of someone else's cattle. The packers will pay Peter a lower price to pay for Paul's lawsuit. You call that a victory for producers? For some producers at the cost of others at best.
Let me describe what I see as a perfect world in the cow calf industry. I see producers owning their product from pasture to plate. No packers to blame, no retailers to blame, nothing but the producer and the consumer. That's why I am such a proponent of USPB and NPPB before it. Not the exact plan per say, but the concept. While some producers are blaming packers, others are being packers.
I don't give a darn about the packers but they are still the link between the cow/calf man and the consumer. Without them, we have no market for our cattle. If you think they are making too much money at your expense, you should have been the first to invest in USPB or buy shares in a packing company.
With that said, I support any actions against PROVEN market manipulation and price fixing. IBP dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market is not market manipulation unless order buyers dropping the price they are willing to pay for feeder calves in the sale barn to reflect their purchases on Superior Livestock is also market manipulation. Tyson is not "THE MARKET", Tyson is "A MARKET WITHIN THE MARKET". If Tyson is full of cattle, Excel, Swift, and USPB are probably still buying.
KF: "As you recall Scott, when you came to me and asked me to take a position on the South Dakota Stockgrowers Board of Directors you said you were resigning due to a conflict of interest and that conflict was you were employed by the state of South Dakota."
That's exactly right but I'll be darned if I am going to watch R-CALF risk the integrity of 80% of our US beef consumption with their BSE fear mongering to stop Canadian imports and not say anything about it. I care too much about this industry to support actions that are totally contrary to increasing consumer demand for our products.
I'm also sick and tired of these packer blaming conspiracy theories that have been proven false repeatedly in a court of law. Did you know that Mike Callicrate's testimony was dismissed in Pickett vs. IBP because the Judge found his statements to be untrue? The same Mike Callicrate that said
"packers and retailers were making huge $400 per head profits at the expense of producers". The same Mike Callicrate that said
"ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks". The same Mike Callicrate that said
"ibp had contractual arrangements with the other packers". ALL PROVEN TO BE LIES IN A COURT OF LAW.
Following this, SDSGA has Mike Callicrate as their guest speaker. Some example of the honor and integrity that this industry is supposed to be based on. That's why I am proud to be a member of the SDCA as opposed to the SDSGA.
At this point, I don't care if I lose my job for standing up for what I know is right. That would just allow more time to fight for what I believe. Either way, I will stand up for the facts and the truth whether it's popular or not.
There is a lot of cattle producers in this area that see things the same way I do but don't say anything. I feel the way about R-CALF that you feel about NCBA. R-CALF and the LMA do not speak for me.
KF: "I have stood back for the last several years and said nothing but this time I have to speak up and rebut your statements to clear the air."
I would like you to point out the statements that you feel you have rebutted and what air you think you cleared?
KF: "When someone like yourself, whose livelihood does not depend on the price of live cattle, tries to ruin my business with childish attacks, I will stand up and fight."
Again, that dog won't hunt Kenny. Either you can refute my statements with facts to the contrary or you can't. That's all there is to it.
There is many cattle producers whose livelihood depends on the price of live cattle that feel the same way I do. My family has always relied on the price of live cattle for their livelihood.
As far as childish statements, did you happen to hear Leo McDonnells' radio broadcast in Nebraska where he imitates Forrest Gump's "stupid is as stupid does"? There's plenty of mud being tossed on both sides of the fence. Nobody has the high ground there. For the last 10 years I have listend to the self proclaimed saviors of this industry lie to me about the affects of packer concentration, captive supplies, and imports.
How ironic that we just came off the highest cattle prices ever recorded with the same level of packer concentration and virtually the same level of captive supplies. I'd call that a conspiracy theory unsupported by fact.
KF: "If you want to invest in packing companies go right ahead, but don't try telling us what is good for the live cattle business because there is a difference between the cattle and beef industries."
The beef industry drives the cattle market. There is no denying that the two industries are intertwined. If that wasn't the case, your group wouldn't be filing so many lawsuits against packers and your leaders wouldn't be claiming in court that there is no greater factor affecting live cattle prices than the price of boxed beef.
If there is such a difference between the cattle and beef industries, why the concern with "M"COOL? Using your arguments that would only serve to benefit the packer. After all, the industries are seperate remember? See how your arguments conflict? One minute the cattle industry and beef industry are seperate and the next your trying to tell the beef industry how to market beef for producer benefit.
Stick to the issues because when you resort to personal attacks on me and my job, you only show the weakness in your arguments which has already been proven in numerous court cases.
Still friends I hope? I have an immense respect for you as a person and your sons but I am not going to stay silent on issues I am passionate about for fear of hurting that friendship. Just because R-CALF is popular with some in our industry does not mean they are right. I would rather be factual and accurate than popular.
Personally, I don't see Canadian cattle as being any different than Montana or Texas cattle. The reputation of quality "Northern Cattle" didn't stop at the Canadian border and I am more sickened by the thought of Louisiana "swampers" being blended with the mix than I am of Canadian cattle of which we obtained a lot of our best genetics.
Go back to the early 80's and see how many ABS sires were Canadian bloodlines. Our competition is poulty and pork, not Canadian imports.
~SH~
