Let's stir it up some...

[Texan]

Bull Session sure has been slow for a few days. Maybe it's time to stir it up some.... :lol:


This quote from Cowpuncher on another thread probably echoes the thoughts of a lot of us:

I still do not know whose side the UDSA and their followers are on. Don't think it is the cow/calf producer.

Although unfortunate for those of us in the cattle business, nowhere in the USDA's mission statement does it mention promoting profitability, or even longevity, of domestic cattle producers:



USDA Mission Statement

"We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management."



Even USDA's own "Strategic Plan Framework" only briefly alludes to producer's goals with a mention of "expanding markets for agricultural products" and "further developing alternative markets for agricultural products":



Strategic Plan Framework

"USDA has created a strategic plan to implement its vision. The framework of this plan depends on these key activities: expanding markets for agricultural products and support international economic development, further developing alternative markets for agricultural products and activities, providing financing needed to help expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities and infrastructure in rural America, enhancing food safety by taking steps to reduce the prevalence of foodborne hazards from farm to table, improving nutrition and health by providing food assistance and nutrition education and promotion, and managing and protecting America's public and private lands working cooperatively with other levels of government and the private sector."



Granted, USDA is failing pretty dismally at some of their own goals. But in my opinion, it's time for us as producers to face the facts - USDA, along with all of government, is much more vested in a cheap food policy than in profitability for producers. Some people allege that it all comes down to who provides the most payoffs, contributions, or whatever you wish to call it. And that is certainly true to some extent. But Washington politicians have a vested interest in making the masses happy - not in making producers happy.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that this country's burgeoning population is going to displace a lot of us. Either displace us, or make us conform to a changing business environment. All of us realize that, even if only subconsciously. We see it in an ever-increasing number of people that trespass on our property for their own pleasure, such as hunting or fishing. We see it in the property values that are skyrocketing and making it almost impossible for young people to get started in agriculture. We see it all around us - no telling what it will look like 20 years from now.

That same growing population means a voting bloc that is much more attractive to politicians than we are. That population relies on the government to do more and more for them. They don't just WANT cheap food - they EXPECT it. And I think you can bet your ash that Washington will keep on trying to provide it for them - no matter where it has to come from. Whether we like it or not, it's a global economy.

I just don't see how some cattlemen can be so naive as to think that we can just keep on doing business as usual, just because that's what we want to do. Or just because ranchers and farmers always get sympathetic marks in polls of politicians and/or consumers. Sure, we can keep on doing what we want to do, but we have no guarantee that we can be profitable doing it.

I think it's time to face the facts that most politicians, and maybe even most consumers, will throw us to the dogs if we stand in the way of a cheap food policy. Yes, it's true that there are niche markets for some producers close to population centers to fill a demand for locally-produced beef. That's great, and I fully support guys like RobertMac and Ben and others who are trying to grow that market. And guys like Kaiser who are trying to do it on a larger scale. But that won't work for many of us.

There's no way that a guy in Nebraska with 600 calves or a feeder in the Texas panhandle that feeds 40,000 head can get that turned into beef and into the homes and restaurants in New York City or Los Angeles without a profitable packing and distribution system. We can cuss Tyson and Swift all we want to, but they provide a service that we would just have to reproduce if we got rid of them. It seems to me that basically 'reinventing the wheel' just because we don't like some of the current players is a mistake that we will pay for with a crippling lack of efficiency. Producers ALWAYS get the trickle down impact of any such 'payments.'

The 'flat-earth' mentality of resistance to any change that many of us have just won't work in an ever-changing world. You can call it 'chickenization' if you want to, but the cattle business will one day go the way of the pork and poultry industries. We might not like it - we WON'T like it - but that's evolution in the real world of business.

The fact is, our corporate partners in the beef industry demand an efficient system with more predictability on the supply side and less variability on the quality side. It's only to be expected that they would try to influence those things - because those things influence their own profitability.

And it's also unfortunate for us that packers and retailers are interested in a cheap food policy just like the politicians are. Because that's what most consumers are interested in. Cheap. They don't care where it comes from, just so it's cheap.

In spite of what they might say in polls, I think consumers are willing to let many producers slowly disappear because they just don't need us. They don't need us as long as they can still get what they want at the grocery store from some other origin. Maybe the melamine/pet food scare will delay it, but I bet that it won't stop it. Just as many people have forgotten about 9/11, they will also forget about melamine in time and go right back to their 'normal' behavior of wanting the cheapest they can get.

The cheap food policy is here to stay. Government and USDA isn't on our side all of the time. Or even most of the time. They are much more concerned with what consumers think than what ranchers think. Hell, they're even more concerned with what Jesse Jackson thinks than what ranchers think.

It's all about power. Power derived from votes. We don't have to like it, but we're certainly going to have to adjust to it. Or else...

 

[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.

 

[Sandhusker]

"The 'flat-earth' mentality of resistance to any change that many of us have just won't work in an ever-changing world. You can call it 'chickenization' if you want to, but the cattle business will one day go the way of the pork and poultry industries. We might not like it - we WON'T like it - but that's evolution in the real world of business."

I disagree very much. True, the world is ever changing, but change is not always good. If it is good, we need to embrace it, if it is bad, we need to do all in our power to reject and reverse it. The "chickenization " of our industry is one thing that I think we need to fight to the death. If you want to be somebody's hired man, sell your place and do it now. I'm not going to lay down and allow wealth producing assets to be transfered via the back door to soulless profit centers. That will hurt my community, my county, my state - ME.

Red Robin, " 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."

We can produce quality now via independent producers. Producers have always responded to what "they are wanting now", they just need the incentive of a little jingle. If packers say, "this is what we want and we'll give you a bonus for it", they'll get it.

I think we are losing safety by giving more control to the packers. Jeeze, Robin, look at how they manage ecoli and other pathogens now!

Repeatability, isn't that what pork and chicken have now - it all tastes the same - bland? I think you're missing one huge point, Robin. I think you desire uniformity in beef thinking that will increase demand - demand increases profits. It may, but if you're just working for Tyson like the chicken growers do, you're not going to get any of those profits! So, really, what's in it for you?

 

[Econ101]

I applaud your ability to see the problem. It is getting more and more easy to see every day. It is the first step to changing the outcome.

I think the beef industry lost big ground when the abuses in the poultry industry were not seen and addressed. How do you think Tyson got into the beef industry? There are a few who have seen how wise it is to insure justice for others. They know that one day it will be their turn.

Texan, don't give up the ship until you have put up a super real good fight.

I think since you have recognized the problem, it is time to work on solutions. There are way more votes by producers than packers, they are just not recognized.

There is some movement on these issues on the national legislative scene, but the packer money still has a chance to make more of a difference than the larger number of producer votes because the producer votes are not organized. As soon as politicians realize that the can gain more votes through corrective action than through the money they get from the packers, things will change. That is why it is imperative that producers recognize the problem, organize, and let the candidates know how to get their votes----through voting on things that support producers.

There is hope in this regard, if you look around. I just watched a show the other night on how immigrants in the tomato picking industry reversed the labor abuses that supply chain suppression brings by organizing, marching, and gathering the support of college students. They marched against Taco Bell who was buying tomatoes from the cheapest source, forcing competition to court labor abuses.

Guess what?

The immigrants won.

If they can do it, the meat industry can do it.

All it takes is for people to wake up and demand it.

What would happen if a producer group got together and went out to the speaking engagements of our present candidates passing around a paper on the topic and possibly asking a question regarding the issues?

What would happen if rcalf and the other groups analyzed the candidates and gave them a score on the issues with the reasons why? How about individual candidates? Then pass that around to their challengers for the seat. Too much of elections are a result of a popularity contest not based on the issues. Candidates have become adept at avoiding the issues. This might hold them more accountable.

All around, people are lamenting the great loss we are witnessing in our country. That loss is the rule of law. It is being replaced by the rule of corporations/ power. It was what happened in the 11th circuit to the cattlemen. It is a universal problem that transcends the populace and industries, and the politics of war.

Politicians have to just find out that they can't get away with going with the big money and leaving the voters behind. Carl Rove got a taste of that the last election. All it takes is a little effort. If immigrants can do it, why not producers?

 

[Texan]

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 feel the same way about cheap junk, RR. But I'm afraid that most of us as producers make a big mistake when we tell ourselves that we're typical consumers. I hear that from a lot of people - even people here on Ranchers - that claim to be a typical consumer, but that never set foot in a Wal-Mart. I don't believe that makes them a typical consumer.

The success of Wal-Mart and all of the various 'dollar' stores, coupled with our trade deficit with China, tells me that the typical consumer cares more about price than quality. I don't agree with that line of thought, but then I don't consider myself a typical consumer. Although, I do consider myself more typical than many of you because I actually go into Wal-Mart and look around and even shop some. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of us here don't even know a typical consumer...

 

[Texan]

I disagree very much. True, the world is ever changing, but change is not always good. If it is good, we need to embrace it, if it is bad, we need to do all in our power to reject and reverse it. The "chickenization " of our industry is one thing that I think we need to fight to the death. If you want to be somebody's hired man, sell your place and do it now. I'm not going to lay down and allow wealth producing assets to be transfered via the back door to soulless profit centers. That will hurt my community, my county, my state - ME.

You can "fight to the death" if you want to, Sandhusker. But in the end, you'll be dead and change will take place, anyway. It happens in every industry - the big get bigger, efficiency leads to streamlining, the less efficient disappear. You don't have to like it, but it's part of life. Even banks do it, Sandhusker. :wink:

 

[Texan]

There are way more votes by producers than packers, they are just not recognized.

There are way more votes by consumers than producers. Any politician can see that the cheap food policy promulgated by large retailers benefits those voting consumers. Those large retailers will work together with packers to provide cheap food - I think that's a given.

 

[RobertMac]

Cheap food takes on a different meaning when people(voters) start getting sick or dieing!

What are the growing segments of the food industry? Organics...and they aren't cheap foods. Food is a little different from buying dry goods. I think more and more people are looking for value, not just a cheap price. But there will always be the consumers that look at price only.

As far as doing something to make changes, you could contact Nolan Ryan's Tender Aged Beef and sell your calves through them. Support an independent!

 

[Sandhusker]

I disagree very much. True, the world is ever changing, but change is not always good. If it is good, we need to embrace it, if it is bad, we need to do all in our power to reject and reverse it. The "chickenization " of our industry is one thing that I think we need to fight to the death. If you want to be somebody's hired man, sell your place and do it now. I'm not going to lay down and allow wealth producing assets to be transfered via the back door to soulless profit centers. That will hurt my community, my county, my state - ME.

You can "fight to the death" if you want to, Sandhusker. But in the end, you'll be dead and change will take place, anyway. It happens in every industry - the big get bigger, efficiency leads to streamlining, the less efficient disappear. You don't have to like it, but it's part of life. Even banks do it, Sandhusker. :wink:

"Big" and "Efficient" are not synonyms. I'm not rolling over.

 

[Econ101]

There are way more votes by producers than packers, they are just not recognized.

There are way more votes by consumers than producers. Any politician can see that the cheap food policy promulgated by large retailers benefits those voting consumers. Those large retailers will work together with packers to provide cheap food - I think that's a given.

In the tomato case, the immigrants won, regardless of the obstacles.

If you want to keep the defeatist attitude that the packers push down on you, you have already conceded defeat. Yes, it is easier to do this, but for everything good you must fight.

The profitability for domestic producers much of the time has little to do with the price at the grocery store. In the poultry industry, for instance, the price difference is about a penny a lb.

Without the economic protections that are embodied in the PSA, all producers will be pushed down with prices that are not profitable. In the long run, the consumers do not benefit from this policy. It may seem a good argument in the short run, but when competition is pushed out by those who have market power, they always increase the price spread between the producers and the retail. The consumers then lose. That is why they play the competition game. Many consumers understand this and are willing to pay a little more to get a safe and honorable food supply. Consumers assume that producers are being treated fairly. With the knowledge that they are not, they will turn and be on your side, just as the immigrants found out in the tomato fields.

Americans by and large are a just people. They are just being lied to. It is the same case with cheap oil. You pay for it one way or another. It is too bad that we have to pay for cheap oil with taxpayer money and the lives of our soldiers. The real cost is hidden. Wal mart, the packers, and other business models that suppress producers will end up chasing those industries over seas as has been the case. How does it benefit consumers for their food supplies to come from these cheaper sources?

Ask any pet owner if they would not pay a penny more per lb. to get a safe food supply for their pets.

If their pets, why not their children?

 

[Red Robin]

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 feel the same way about cheap junk, RR. But I'm afraid that most of us as producers make a big mistake when we tell ourselves that we're typical consumers. I hear that from a lot of people - even people here on Ranchers - that claim to be a typical consumer, but that never set foot in a Wal-Mart. I don't believe that makes them a typical consumer.

The success of Wal-Mart and all of the various 'dollar' stores, coupled with our trade deficit with China, tells me that the typical consumer cares more about price than quality. I don't agree with that line of thought, but then I don't consider myself a typical consumer. Although, I do consider myself more typical than many of you because I actually go into Wal-Mart and look around and even shop some. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of us here don't even know a typical consumer...

Texan , we used to be big wal-mart supporters. Our town has the second oldest store in the nation. Sam Walton had a little store in town and was in it a lot. I don't shop at wal-mart but I think I'm just ahead of the curve. You could be right though. We , as a nation have a exploding welfare class and they love walmart. Walmart actually caters to them I think. So what's your answer? We can't compete on a world scale if the lowest priced producer wins. Your real estate is too high, your taxes are too high, the price of your hired labor is too high, your regulations are too tight, etc. Should we just lock the gate?

 

[Red Robin]

I disagree very much. True, the world is ever changing, but change is not always good. If it is good, we need to embrace it, if it is bad, we need to do all in our power to reject and reverse it. The "chickenization " of our industry is one thing that I think we need to fight to the death. If you want to be somebody's hired man, sell your place and do it now. I'm not going to lay down and allow wealth producing assets to be transfered via the back door to soulless profit centers. That will hurt my community, my county, my state - ME.

You can "fight to the death" if you want to, Sandhusker. But in the end, you'll be dead and change will take place, anyway. It happens in every industry - the big get bigger, efficiency leads to streamlining, the less efficient disappear. You don't have to like it, but it's part of life. Even banks do it, Sandhusker. :wink:

"Big" and "Efficient" are not synonyms. I'm not rolling over.

I bet it is closer to a true statement than "Little and Efficient are synonyms."

 

[Mike]

You can "fight to the death" if you want to, Sandhusker. But in the end, you'll be dead and change will take place, anyway. It happens in every industry - the big get bigger, efficiency leads to streamlining, the less efficient disappear. You don't have to like it, but it's part of life. Even banks do it, Sandhusker. :wink:

"Big" and "Efficient" are not synonyms. I'm not rolling over.

I bet it is closer to a true statement than "Little and Efficient are synonyms."

Federal Trade Commossion
Size vs. Efficiency

Abstract
"The relation between productivity, efficiency and size of a technical organization as affected by internally generated and circulated paperwork is analyzed. It is shown that there exists an upper bound to total productive output which is independent of the number of employees; and that as the organization size is increased the efficiency generally first rises and then falls off inversely proportionally to the number of employees."

I am not convinced that size equals efficiency either.

 

[Econ101]

I think a lot of people get market power confused with efficiency. Lowest price is not always most efficient. Sometimes it has to do with market power abuses.

 

[Sandhusker]

Isn't the Federal Government the largest employer in this country? They must be really efficient. :lol:

"Big" also causes problems. An example is the spinach fiasco. If you have a few big outfits instead of many smaller ones, when the big boys have a problem, everybody has a problem.

 

[Texan]

We , as a nation have a exploding welfare class and they love walmart. Walmart actually caters to them I think. So what's your answer? We can't compete on a world scale if the lowest priced producer wins. Your real estate is too high, your taxes are too high, the price of your hired labor is too high, your regulations are too tight, etc. Should we just lock the gate?

I'm not sure what the answer is, Red Robin. Probably a lot of different answers depending on individual situations. It's for sure that bitching about 'big, greedy, evil' packers to the same people day after day after day isn't answering anything.

I don't guess there's anything we can do about the real estate prices you mention. That should be a wakeup call to us that we don't have room for all of the people here and room for business as usual, both. It looks to me like at some point we are going to have to depend on foreign production to feed some of these people.

As for the high taxes, price of labor, and regulations you mention...

I guess a lot of the same people that bench about packers all of the time must want higher taxes, higher labor and even more regulations. They talk like they're glad the democrats are in power to 'save us all' and everybody knows that dems in power is a recipe for higher taxes.

Those same bitchers think that the beef industry should spend even more money for labor to get rid of illegals. Spend more, like we can pass all of those costs on - as if the consumer's pocket is a freakin' bottomless pit. As if those costs won't trickle back down to producers in the form of lower prices.

Those very same bitchers spend day after day wanting more regulations on part of our industry - as if there weren't enough already. They act as if the government is supposed to take care of everything for everybody - much like the Jesse Jackson mentality. As if we could actually afford a food supply that was 100% safe and perfect. Put more regulations on part of our industry - as if those costs won't trickle back down to producers in the form of lower prices.

And you left out the litigious nature of many of those same bitchers within our industry. They want to sue everybody over everything. As if those costs won't trickle back down to producers in the form of lower prices.

"Should we just lock the gate" you ask? I'm not gonna lock mine, but if I was a corporation, I'd damn sure think twice about doing business here.

I think the answer is for each of us to find the niche that works best for us. If a guy wants to do like RobertMac, great! If somebody else wants to sign a deal with Johnny Tyson to sell him cattle and mow his yard for life, that's his business and not mine. And then some people's niche is just to bench....

 

[Texan]

Isn't the Federal Government the largest employer in this country? They must be really efficient. :lol:

That's pretty funny, Sandhusker. Everybody knows how federal employees are - they don't get much done to collect their checks. Although...coming from somebody that spends as much employer time as you do playing keyboard cowboy, I don't think you've got a lot of room to talk. :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

Isn't the Federal Government the largest employer in this country? They must be really efficient. :lol:

That's pretty funny, Sandhusker. Everybody knows how federal employees are - they don't get much done to collect their checks. Although...coming from somebody that spends as much employer time as you do playing keyboard cowboy, I don't think you've got a lot of room to talk. :lol:

I work on a computer most of the day. Exactly how long do you think it takes to click over?

 

[fedup2]

Kinda funny Texan. Your whole post is calling others bitchers & yet you do nothing but bench in your post! There is a name for people like you too!
:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Texan, "Those same bitchers think that the beef industry should spend even more money for labor to get rid of illegals. Spend more, like we can pass all of those costs on - as if the consumer's pocket is a freakin' bottomless pit. As if those costs won't trickle back down to producers in the form of lower prices."

We have all sorts of taxpayer money handed over to companies to get them to locate so that the payroll of those companies will bounce around and boost the economy. Then we allow the packers to hire illegals - who promply send most of that payroll completely out of the country while they drain taxpayer dollars via social services. How stupid is that? Is the taxpayer's pocket a freakin' bottomless pit?