Let's stir it up some...

[Mike]

When Tom Greene agreed to grow chickens for ConAgra, Inc. 11 years ago, he thought it would be the fulfillment of a longtime fantasy to make his living working his own land. He and his wife, Ruth, had just bought the 90-acre farm they had dreamed about as a young couple 20 years before.

But these days, their four long, corrugated tin chicken houses are operated by somebody else. In January 1999, Greene, a former military public affairs officer, helplessly watched as his chicken farm went under the auctioneer's hammer because of a dispute with ConAgra.

Greene explains that he, along with 38 other farmers in Enterprise, Alabama objected when ConAgra demanded that they take out loans to invest in costly new equipment. They also balked at signing a contract that would forfeit their right to sue the company in the case of a disagreement.

Greene says he and his neighbors already had as much debt as they could manage. In order to get into the business, farmers must borrow a lot of money -- about $125,000 per chicken house -- to build facilities according to the poultry company's specifications. Since most chicken companies encourage growers to build four or more chicken houses, that represents an initial investment today of at least $500,000.

Like their heavily indebted counterparts throughout the industry, Greene and friends were not in a position to negotiate. That's because the chicken houses that they sunk their financial futures into have one purpose: to grow chickens. Without a steady supply of birds, farmers can't pay their mortgages. When Greene refused to change his mind, ConAgra terminated their business relationship, and he lost his farm.

Most chicken growers are reluctant to talk publicly for fear of reprisals, but many complain of predicaments like Greene's. They say the corporations that control the chicken industry hook new growers on the promise of making a good, steady income at home. Instead, growers find themselves trapped in debt-laden relationships that turn them into serfs at the mercy of the companies that make a fortune on their backs.

Nobody knows how many poultry growers have lost their contracts because only the companies have that information, says Mary Clouse, who runs the Contract Agriculture/Poultry Project at the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI). Poultry companies say the number is very low.

Modern Day Sharecroppers

The way it works is that farmers provide the land, buildings, and their labor. The companies supply -- and retain ownership of -- the chickens, the feed, and any medicine the birds might need.

Growers are paid for growing the heaviest and healthiest birds on the least amount of feed in the six weeks they have the birds. The companies determine how well growers achieve those goals and pay them accordingly, using a complicated formula that ranks each grower's performance against the others who had birds picked up for processing that week.

But chicken growers say their performance is out of their hands, because they have no control over the quality and quantity of the birds, feed, and medicine they receive. They also claim the companies manipulate the ranking system to further erode their pay, a widespread allegation that the companies deny.

"There's no reason a company would discriminate or unnecessarily reward somebody for more than they deserve," says Bill Roenigk, vice president of the National Chicken Council, the industry's trade association in Washington, D.C. He adds that the ranking system is based on the same market-oriented, competitive model as the free market, because "those who work the hardest deserve to be paid the most."

However, several lawsuits have confirmed growers' claims that chicken companies, including ConAgra, have for years engaged in dirty tricks to cheat the farmers, such as delivering unhealthy birds, shortchanging growers on the quantity and quality of the feed, tinkering with the scales, and keeping the birds in hot parking lots for hours before they are weighed to make them drop weight.

How much of a difference can that make to a grower? According to Mary Fortenberry, a poultry grower in Pinola, Mississippi, the top pay and bottom pay scales can vary around $1,500 per batch of chickens -- up to $9,000 per flock on her six-house farm.

Between 1991 and 1995, poultry growers pocketed an average of $11,000 to $25,000 annually, according to a USDA survey. Data from Bill Heffernan, a rural sociologist at the University of Missouri who has studied contract poultry growers for more than 30 years, and Mary Clouse of RAFI, puts it at about $3,000 to $4,000 a year per chicken house -- a meager return. Heffernan says these figures don't include labor or other costs growers have to pay.

 

[Mike]

Readthis to learn how the chicken growers get paid:

http://www.markjenner.com/construction_contract_pay.html

 

[Red Robin]

Here's a more balanced article Mike. Nothing is all roses but I know many people who have created more income and certainly more equity over the last 20 or 30 years .
I don't know how I got stuck defending tyson. I said before I don't think they're the one who will integrate beef , at least I hope not. I'm just saying it is what I think will or could keep the beef industry profitable going into the next 30 or 40 years .


Chicken Still Major Arkansas Business
This article was published on Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:42 PM CST in Business
By Kim Souza
The Morning News
Email this story Print this story Comment on this story Long before Wal-Mart Stores Inc. became a household name, poultry ruled the region and state.

When John Tyson, the founder of Tyson Foods, first introduced the concept of vertical integration in the middle 1940's, it eventually led to more chicken- and related food-processing jobs in Arkansas.

Records from the University of Arkansas Poultry Science Center show that by 1950 there were 19 food processing plants in Springdale, including Campbell's Soup, Swift and Armour.

Now, more than 60 years later, the region is still known for its poultry. According to the National Chicken Council, Benton and Washington counties rank second and third in the nation in terms of overall chicken production. Arkansas ranks second behind Georgia in broiler production.

In the last 12 months, Arkansas produced 1.21 billion broilers compared to Georgia's 1.32 billion, said Richard Lobb, spokesman for the National Chicken Council.

"Poultry remains Arkansas' most valuable commodity. Last year Arkansas broilers had a value of $2.65 billion, which was 42 percent of the state's overall farm receipts," said Larry Traub, agriculture economist for Economic Research Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In contrast, Arkansas rice production ranked second with a value of $713 million.

Arkansas' poultry industry is directly responsible for 45,000 jobs. Another 30,000 Arkansas jobs are indirectly related to the poultry industry in support businesses.

Together, those jobs comprise more than 5 percent of the total jobs in Arkansas. Jenny Popp, associate professor of agricultural economics at the University of Arkansas, said it's pretty significant for one industry to contribute that many jobs.

At the state level, those jobs represent $2.42 billion per year in labor income. (Popp defined labor income as wages, payments and fringe benefits paid by employers and income received from self-employed individuals such as doctors or lawyers.)

In Benton and Washington counties, 9,900 jobs are directly related to poultry producing or processing while another 5,400 jobs are indirectly related to the industry. Labor income for these area jobs totals $515 million per year or 6.7 percent of the regional income earned.

"Much of that money stays in the community and supports other local non-related businesses such as retail shops, bowling alleys and restaurants," Popp said.

Despite the challenges the chicken industry has faced in recent years from global trade instability, immigration, volatile pricing and environmental concerns, the poultry industry is rebounding at a steady pace, Popp said.

Feeding that rebound are people like Randy and Cheryl Robinson, who say poultry farming is a good life.

According to the National Chicken Council's profile, the small family farm continues to be the backbone of America's poultry production. The council estimates that more than 90 percent of all chicken raised for human consumption is produced by independent farmers working under contract with integrated chicken companies like Tyson Foods, George's or Simmons Foods.

The Robinsons own 106 acres in Wedington and operate six poultry houses along with 160 head of cattle. After years of Randy working as an independent truck driver with a cattle business on the side, the couple opted to raise poultry to supplement their income so he could be closer to home.

The investment into the poultry growing business didn't come cheap for the Robinsons 16 years ago, and the cost has continued to escalate annually. The Robinsons estimate a capital investment of more than $660,000 in their six houses, not including maintenance and upkeep.

"Now the estimated cost for a standard chicken house to company specifications will cost you roughly $195,000 just for the tunnel-ventilated house, well house and back-up generator," said Greg Copeland, a long-time poultry grower in Prairie Grove.

Copeland owns and operates four houses and grows broilers for George's of Springdale.

Like the Robinsons, Copeland owns his land and operates a cattle and hay business in addition to growing poultry. Copeland sold a business in Fayetteville and came into poultry business with outside capital, which he said has kept him profitable despite the rising utility costs that are squeezing contract poultry growers.

The average net price paid to growers for large broilers ranges from 5 to 5.2 cents per pound, local growers said.

"The average range in the price paid per pound between the top producer and bottom producer in the group is as narrow as a half of one cent in many cases. The companies have leveled the playing field, and the price paid is pretty much the same for the top half of their producers. But those growers who fall below the average -- and that is half of them -- will get less," Copeland said.

The pricing structure that penalizes half of its growers could use some adjustment, Copeland said. Pricing issues are just one of the concerns growers have expressed with the present system.

"We are continually seeing our propane, natural gas and electric costs go up, and sponsoring companies have offered very little support relief to help the growers with our expensive utility bills," Robinson said.

Meanwhile, poultry companies are making money and the American consumer is enjoying a quality product at a low price, while the grower is the one being squeezed, Copeland said.

Local poultry companies report no openings for new growers at this time. But Cheryl Robinson remembers not many months ago as many as 10 real estate agents knocking on their door in one week wanting to list their property.

"Many of the local poultry growers sold out because the land price was too good to pass up, and now those new farmers are having a tough time because they are still paying for the property and their payout profits hardly cover the expenses," she said.

Both Copeland and Robinson agree that making a profit hinges on if a farmer is still paying for the farm.

"It took us several years to realize any profit, and we don't have nearly as much money invested as the new farmers would," Randy Robinson said.

The Washington County Extension Agency estimates that 75 percent to 85 percent of local poultry growers have other jobs to help support the family in addition to their poultry operations. The National Chicken Council estimates that nationwide growers earn a gross average of $25,000 to $32,000 per year for each chicken house. They said poultry growing is not usually considered a full-time job.

"Today, farms are larger and most growers have four or more houses to operate which makes growing more like a full-time job," Randy Robinson said.

"Growing poultry may not be considered a full-time job but it does confine you. We haven't taken a vacation in many years," said Cheryl Robinson.

Copeland said it's been at least six years since he had vacation.

"Even though the houses are equipped with automatic temperature controls, you still have to pick up the dead animals each day and dispose of them. You have to be there to run interference if the climate control alarm sounds. There is no such thing as a day off," Cheryl Robinson said.

Local farmers agree continual price hikes in utility costs are cutting into profits. They are also troubled by the environmental concerns with poultry litter, avian influenza and the soon-to-come animal identification requirements, Copeland said.

"Even though there are challenges in the industry and some growers are having a really tough time, if local companies advertised for growers tomorrow there would probably be a waiting list for the positions," Cheryl Robinson said.

In their 50's, the Robinsons said their three children work in agri-related industries; but with land prices rising and increasing poultry set up costs, it's not feasible for young families to get into the growing business, they said.

Ken Knies, the regional vice president for Farm Credit Services of Arkansas, said there is some interest towards poultry farming among young people but there are challenges. He said the value of real estate, the cost of building facilities and the environmental issues can make the business tough.

Fast Facts

Tyson Foods Inc. employs more than 22,000 in Arkansas -- 8,000 in Benton and Washington counties. George's of Springdale employs 4,000 with facilities in four states. Simmons Foods based in Siloam Springs has 4,000 employees in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Missouri.

Reader Comments (1)The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.

Click here to read the Editor's Blog.

 

[Sandhusker]

I've spoken personally with a grower who, along with several others in his area, got fed up with the changing demands Tyson put on them - demands that kept them sinking more money into their farms. The straw that broke the camel's back came when Tyson demanded they put in new feed bins, even though the bins they had worked fine. The growers said, "Fine, you want the bins, you buy the bins and we'll be happy to use them." Tyson said, "no bins, no chicks" and now these guys have payments to make and no way to do it. That, Robin, is complete horse crap and the exact same thing that will come cattlemen's way if V.I. gets started.

That is one of the things that scares me as a lender. When somebody is seeking long-term credit as would be needed in building chicken houses, one of the things I look at is other expenses that may pop up - expenses like equipment. You can't build a tight cash flow for very long (like what the chicken growers have) simply because equipment will wear out. Sure, you budget for repairs, but there is no way to budget for what the company will throw at you. There was no way my friend could budget for those expensive new feed bins when he first signed on because he didn't know about it until they popped it on him. Nobody likes surprises like that, especially your lender.

You back up and look at the big picture and you see all the risk on the producers, but the company having all the control! That's bass-ackwards! Tyson controls $500,000 of equipment, yet they didn't put a penny in! If, for some reason, the chicken market goes belly up, what is Tyson out and what are producers out?

Why in the world would we want this same system in the cattle industry? It's just a losing situation 10 different ways! Put yourself in my chicken-growing friend's shoes and make the cattle industry like chicken. Tyson tells you to redo your corrals - on your dime. They then tell you that you need a new hydraulic chute and deeper wells, again you have to pay. The next year, they say your calving shed is not to their specs and you have to put in a new heated Morton building. You point out that you have been calving 98%, so obviously your calving barn is not a problem. They don't care and say build or you're violating your contract. You tell them to piss off, but what then? Smithfield isn't going to pick you up because they and Tyson don't want producers playing them against each other. You can't go to the cash market because, thanks to the spread of V.I. that you wanted, there is no cash market anymore. You, my friend, are screwed and you didn't even get a peck on the cheek. You either bend over and go deeper in debt, or you sell out your property that is devalued now because nobody else wants to get in the same deal you were in and there are no other uses for that ranch.

I'll now give you the floor to tell me how this scenario won't happen.

 

[Econ101]

RR, there are a couple of things about the chicken industry that you just don't know about. They are the "dirty little secrets". One is that the complex around your area is not treated as the complexes around the nation. Tyson is able to pay different amounts to different farmers in the base pay, even though they all compete in the same "tournament system". This is for the same birds. They get paid different amounts for the base pay for the same birds. I bet in the Tyson plant around their headquarters they are pretty decent to those farmers. Many times they are pretty decent to the farmers until the older barns are paid off then they start pulling their tricks. You see, a farmer in debt is a farmer who will continue to give consistent supply to the plant. If anyone steps out of line, the integrators just start giving worse chicks and feed and then claim they are a "bad farmer" and cut them off. Tom Green was a pretty decent farmer who got tired of being "held up" by continuing demands of equipment and upgrades at his expense. The big issue, however, is that they didn't want to sign away their rights to a jury trial instead of a rigged arbitration system that Con Agra was forcing on the growers. I talked to Tom. He and his family went through a lot. I also talked to his lawyer. Unfortunately, much of his story was squashed because of the terms of his settlement. I forget how long it took him to eventually collect, but I can find out for you if you are interested. The settlement did not pay for all he lost. Justice denied is justice delayed. The onerous terms of the settlement so others will not find out the details is also outrageous.

Everything may be fine in your small complex, but don't extrapolate. In doing so you dismissing a huge number of real complaints.

On the other case, the Townsend case, those farmers were tricked from the beginning. They were promised returns based on a certain type of breed and the amount they were paid for those eggs. Townsend's barns were egg barns used to hatch out the broilers. After Sanderson Farms got the egg laying barns built, they changed the breed of chickens and those new chickens laid less eggs. All of the income projections were out the window. In addition to that, the bank was in on the scam, as was the closing agent. As the producers made money from the contract, the bank would hold the money, pay the notes due, and never give a statement of any remaining to the growers. So even with this, the growers were not receiving their full share of the contract. Then came the additional upgrades the companies required. Those growers were cash pinched. The company later made all the growers sign an arbitration contract or lose their contract. This was all after the barns were built.

In addition, the property was accessed by the company, at any and all times of the night and day. They required growers to give them unlimited access and keys to the joint. Growers could not even lock the door when working in the barns so they wouldn't get startled.

I know for a fact that some of those growers went and complained to Bill Hawks, who was supposed to know something about the industry. He did nothing. Under the PSA, although the company was defined as a poultry dealer and met all of the definitions under the PSA for action, the company brought up the fact that the Sanderson egg barns were not poultry producers--they were egg producers and hence did not fall under the definition of the PSA protections. There was no justice to be found, a lot of hard work, as essentially the farmers had no other option than to grow eggs and pay for the facilities or lose the farm. Many of these were homesteads that had been in the family for years.

Townsend went into that office in Bryan Texas, told the manager to pick up the phone, call his wife, apologize to her for the scam they got into, and then he killed the manager and shot another manager. He then shot himself. When you are pushed so far, sometimes things happen. They did that day in that office.

If you want to continue to argue your point that Tyson and other integrators help farmers without cheating them, you need to talk to some of these people personally as I have. If you don't change your pollyanna viewpoint after that, you never will.

 

[Texan]

I'll play devils advocate here-- You talk about developing one quality/type of uniform cattle/beef-- What uniform type will that be?

I hate Lauras Lean type beef-- Give me a steak with heavy marbling and chunks of juicy fat hanging off it...At least has some flavor.... I can name you many of the steakhouses in the state that serve "Prime or Choice" only-- cause thats the place I'll go to and spend extra to get something good to eat when I'm out of town....

If the "chickenized" beef industry decides the Lauras Lean type is what they want to sell- that leaves out a section of the population/consumers...

I think there is a place for many types of beef- and all of it is available in the good old USA- and could be promoted as such if we had a way to identify it (like M-COOL)...Get folks to liking/preferring this before Tyson/Soros/Texas Feeders get their beef coming in....But it has to be labeled and it has to be promoted as "Raised in USA BEEF"... To do otherways is to just give up and let those import folks have free run....

I agree with OT that there is a place for different quality grades of beef to suit the individual preferences of consumers. I prefer a well-marbled steak, also. I've never seen any of the Laura's Lean beef, but I have seen an ad picture of one of their steaks. I really think my dog would turn his nose up at that type of steak. But, as long as some consumers prefer that lean 'healthy' beef, there will always be somebody to provide it. That's just one of the reasons that we'll never have a one-size fits all cattle industry.

In talking about developing more uniformity or consistency, I think we need to be focusing on tenderness. The consumer spending eight or ten dollars (or more) per pound on a steak deserves to get get one that he/she can chew. We need that consumer to want another one just like it - not tell themselves that they would have enjoyed chicken just as much for less money. I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Texan]

I think a person can make a pretty good analogy by comparing V.I vs cash markets with bank CDs and the stock market. Bank CDs are slow and sure plodders, but you never really create any wealth with them. The stock market will give you gray hair every now and then, but it averages out double what CDs make.

I think that's a pretty good analogy, Sandhusker. Many people want the security that contracts such as CD's or AMA's offer. Others are more satisfied with the potential of greater rewards for more risk. Both types of investors/producers should be able to have what they want, shouldn't they?

I've talked to guys with Tyson and guys with Pilgrim's and it seems that the younger ones are often more satisfied with their operations. It seems that they are often more concerned with the 'security' of a contract than the older producers are.

I visited with one older guy not long ago that had been put out of the chicken business several years earlier when a tornado took out his houses. He told me that the day the tornado hit was the best day of his life. :lol:

 

[Texan]

Here's a more balanced article Mike. Nothing is all roses but I know many people who have created more income and certainly more equity over the last 20 or 30 years .
I don't know how I got stuck defending tyson. I said before I don't think they're the one who will integrate beef , at least I hope not. I'm just saying it is what I think will or could keep the beef industry profitable going into the next 30 or 40 years .

I think there are probably many success stories in the poultry business. Stories that we don't hear about because it's just much more sensational to publish the types that Mike posted. Mike's articles made for some interesting reading - the happy chicken farmer probably wouldn't be so interesting. That's just the way journalism is.

I agree with you about several things, Red Robin. The influx of capital from the chicken business has been good for east Texas, too. Poultry supply businesses, tractor dealers that advertise certain models that will fit in houses, hardware stores, banks, etc. Although the demand for chickens would probably still be served without them, east Texas would sure feel the impact of losing Tyson and Pilgrim money.

One of my observations from reading Mike's articles is that many of these guys are doomed to fail before they even get their first chicks. Having a crooked banker in cahoots with the companies is a disaster waiting to happen. But some of these growers have to bear some personal responsibility for bad business decisions, as well.

I can't even imagine taking out a loan for $900,000 to start a business that I know nothing about when I was only relying on one company to deal with. Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems pretty damn stupid to me - to invest that much money with all of your ability to pay it back resting with a relationship with one company.

That's one of the biggest problems I see with the chicken model - the territorial dividing that they do. Pilgrim's takes this area, Tyson takes that one, Con-Agra a few miles over, etc. That leaves the growers with no alternative when something bad happens.

I'm sure that the shrinkage on livehaul has something to do with the way houses are located in relation to a company's processing plants. But it's obvious that divvying up the territories like they do takes the last chance for any competition away from the growers.

 

[Sandhusker]

Texan, " think that's a pretty good analogy, Sandhusker. Many people want the security that contracts such as CD's or AMA's offer. Others are more satisfied with the potential of greater rewards for more risk. Both types of investors/producers should be able to have what they want, shouldn't they?"

Should they be able to do what they want? That's a tricky question. Should people be able to drive as fast as they want? It's kind of the same deal - there's a lot more people involved and affected. It not only affects the individual, but the entire industry, local and regional economies, etc..... and if you look at the poultry industry, when you go V.I., there's no going back.

 

[Red Robin]

Because that's what most consumers are interested in. Cheap. They don't care where it comes from, just so it's cheap.

I think you're wrong here. My wife and I are pretty typical consumers I think. I'm personally becoming very leery of cheap. Cheap parts, cheap tools, cheap equipment and cheap food is becoming unappealing to me. I would assume that we're on the lower end of the buying power especially compared to those NY city folks you mentioned and I'd assume it's becoming less appealing to the rich. I agree with the rest of your Texas tirade though and I think that the chickenization of the beef industry will bring about some changes on the consumer level that I am interested in, quality, safety, and repeatability. From a producers standpoint, I'd like to roll the clock back to 1930 when production and processing was more localized and more profitable but we can't do it.

Gentlemen, here was my original post on this thread. It's coming and there's nothing in a democratic and free society that you can do to stop it. You can be one who is involved and see that everyone gets a fair shake. You can be the one who starts it and see that everyone gets a fair profit. I guess also you can be one who opposes it happening in your county but if it becomes unfeasable to do it in the U.S. I will guarantee you in writing that Brazil would love for it to happen to their country. I bet they'd even give incentives to one of the big 4 to start it over there. If that happens , you and I had better have a wonderful relationship with a neighbor who likes to eat beef because I don't see another profitable market. Just my thoughts. Econ, I have the best Pollyanna viewpoint in the whole world. :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

I don't believe it's inevitable and I don't see the value of putting a gun to my temple. This is too big to roll over on.

 

[Mike]

Here's a more balanced article Mike. Nothing is all roses but I know many people who have created more income and certainly more equity over the last 20 or 30 years .
I don't know how I got stuck defending tyson. I said before I don't think they're the one who will integrate beef , at least I hope not. I'm just saying it is what I think will or could keep the beef industry profitable going into the next 30 or 40 years .

I think there are probably many success stories in the poultry business. Stories that we don't hear about because it's just much more sensational to publish the types that Mike posted. Mike's articles made for some interesting reading - the happy chicken farmer probably wouldn't be so interesting. That's just the way journalism is.

I agree with you about several things, Red Robin. The influx of capital from the chicken business has been good for east Texas, too. Poultry supply businesses, tractor dealers that advertise certain models that will fit in houses, hardware stores, banks, etc. Although the demand for chickens would probably still be served without them, east Texas would sure feel the impact of losing Tyson and Pilgrim money.

One of my observations from reading Mike's articles is that many of these guys are doomed to fail before they even get their first chicks. Having a crooked banker in cahoots with the companies is a disaster waiting to happen. But some of these growers have to bear some personal responsibility for bad business decisions, as well.

I can't even imagine taking out a loan for $900,000 to start a business that I know nothing about when I was only relying on one company to deal with. Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems pretty damn stupid to me - to invest that much money with all of your ability to pay it back resting with a relationship with one company.

That's one of the biggest problems I see with the chicken model - the territorial dividing that they do. Pilgrim's takes this area, Tyson takes that one, Con-Agra a few miles over, etc. That leaves the growers with no alternative when something bad happens.

I'm sure that the shrinkage on livehaul has something to do with the way houses are located in relation to a company's processing plants. But it's obvious that divvying up the territories like they do takes the last chance for any competition away from the growers.

The way that chicken growers are paid, by gauging each growers' feed conversion and gain (which equals profit for the processor) by the others in his area has way too many holes in it.............

If the grower has no conrol over the genetics or quality of chicks he gets, no control over the feed or medication he receives, means that the only thing he can contribute to his chickens is comfort via equipment and management. This basically means he has little control over his chicken crop and profit.

1/3 of each area's chicken growers will be satisfied with his paycheck because he happened to be paid more than the other 2/3.

The middle 1/3 will be somewhat satisfied and the lower 1/3 will be disatisfied. Just keep in mind this guy on the bottom 1/3 had little to do with the quality of his chicken crop except spending a lot of money for equipment and furnishing labor at less than $5.00 per hour.

V.I. will be devastating to the small cattle producer. Write it down.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Mike you said VI will be devastating to the small cattle producer.
How Small is small?

 

[Sandhusker]

It will be devastating to all producers, big and small.

 

[Mike]

Mike you said VI will be devastating to the small cattle producer.
How Small is small?

Small is less than large.

How large is large?

 

[andybob]

I doubt breeders running less than 200 breeding females ae worth the trouble of contracting to supply weaners (from company owned genetics)
to contract finishers, single source supplies are preferred for bio security and recording purposes, tracibility is everything in these situations. Once the independent packers are bought out, or put out of business, there will be few market options for the small producer. Small and medium producers need to network to give a consistant product, and to give strenghth in the market place, keeping smaller packers open, and even possibly owning shares as a co-operative, in the packer, and selling a branded, quality product that will stand up to to competition from the multinationals. Something to consider about Brazilian beef, while cheap, it has a reputation internationally for poor quality.

 

[Red Robin]

I doubt breeders running less than 200 breeding females ae worth the trouble of contracting to supply weaners (from company owned genetics)
to contract finishers, single source supplies are preferred for bio security and recording purposes, tracibility is everything in these situations. Once the independent packers are bought out, or put out of business, there will be few market options for the small producer. Small and medium producers need to network to give a consistant product, and to give strenghth in the market place, keeping smaller packers open, and even possibly owning shares as a co-operative, in the packer, and selling a branded, quality product that will stand up to to competition from the multinationals. Something to consider about Brazilian beef, while cheap, it has a reputation internationally for poor quality.

Thanks Andybob. At least it's an idea. Any of your other fellas got a plan other than the kill the tyson one you put forth here? Sandhusker? Mike? Oldtimer?

 

[RobertMac]

I doubt breeders running less than 200 breeding females ae worth the trouble of contracting to supply weaners (from company owned genetics)
to contract finishers, single source supplies are preferred for bio security and recording purposes, tracibility is everything in these situations. Once the independent packers are bought out, or put out of business, there will be few market options for the small producer. Small and medium producers need to network to give a consistant product, and to give strenghth in the market place, keeping smaller packers open, and even possibly owning shares as a co-operative, in the packer, and selling a branded, quality product that will stand up to to competition from the multinationals. Something to consider about Brazilian beef, while cheap, it has a reputation internationally for poor quality.

Thanks Andybob. At least it's an idea. Any of your other fellas got a plan other than the kill the tyson one you put forth here? Sandhusker? Mike? Oldtimer?

Excellent idea!

 

[Sandhusker]

I doubt breeders running less than 200 breeding females ae worth the trouble of contracting to supply weaners (from company owned genetics)
to contract finishers, single source supplies are preferred for bio security and recording purposes, tracibility is everything in these situations. Once the independent packers are bought out, or put out of business, there will be few market options for the small producer. Small and medium producers need to network to give a consistant product, and to give strenghth in the market place, keeping smaller packers open, and even possibly owning shares as a co-operative, in the packer, and selling a branded, quality product that will stand up to to competition from the multinationals. Something to consider about Brazilian beef, while cheap, it has a reputation internationally for poor quality.

Thanks Andybob. At least it's an idea. Any of your other fellas got a plan other than the kill the tyson one you put forth here? Sandhusker? Mike? Oldtimer?

How about just not do anything stupid! :lol: Anything is better than V.I.

 

[Econ101]

I doubt breeders running less than 200 breeding females ae worth the trouble of contracting to supply weaners (from company owned genetics)
to contract finishers, single source supplies are preferred for bio security and recording purposes, tracibility is everything in these situations. Once the independent packers are bought out, or put out of business, there will be few market options for the small producer. Small and medium producers need to network to give a consistant product, and to give strenghth in the market place, keeping smaller packers open, and even possibly owning shares as a co-operative, in the packer, and selling a branded, quality product that will stand up to to competition from the multinationals. Something to consider about Brazilian beef, while cheap, it has a reputation internationally for poor quality.

Thanks Andybob. At least it's an idea. Any of your other fellas got a plan other than the kill the tyson one you put forth here? Sandhusker? Mike? Oldtimer?

We put bank robbers in jail, as we do someone who embezzles money. Why hold Tyson to a different standard?

It isn't just about Tyson, it is about anyone who engages in the white collar crime that is being committed.

If you get tired of hearing about how bad Tyson is, support putting them in jail and being held accountable, not roaming the halls of Washington D.C. and hiring the AMI, the Chicken Council and Loeb to buy politicians.

I am sure a lot of people would be glad to stop talking about Tyson, but as long as they are on the lose and on the hunt for new victims, you will hear complaints.