• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

MAKE SENSE ?

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
A Race To The Bottom -- by Lee Pitts
A publisher in a prominent western livestock newspaper suggests that we should not be celebrating R-CALF´s victory to keep the Canadian border closed because of the damage it will do to packers. He says we´re all in this together. In the same boat, so to speak. And when one end of the boat sinks the other will too. He says that the packers and large feeders have the same goals as ranchers, to which we say . . . horse pucky! Their goals could not be more opposite. The packers and their strategically aligned feeders want to buy your cattle as cheap as they can and you, no doubt, want to sell them as high as you can. Do those sound like common goals to you? No, this is a war and the packers were winning, cruising along in their armor plated battleships, while ranchers were paddling upstream against heavy winds in kayaks and canoes.

And then along came a mad cow and R-CALF.

The Packer´s Plan
Corporations, by nature, tend to have lots of meetings. It´s what they do best. And in those meetings they come up with five-,10- and 15-year plans and business models to find ways to reduce input costs, manage volatility, acquire greater control over the supply chain and to be more competitive than their competition. Years ago the business model in the beef business was that cow calf ranchers, stockers, feeders, packers and retailers operated independently of one another in a production system that, for the most part, produced consistent profits for the good operators. But such a system also presented problems for the packer and retailer. For one, because the parts were independent, with little communication between the segments, it also produced cattle that were not consistently good to eat. This coincided with a time in which public consumption of beef plummeted. Granted, there were other factors, significant ones like diet/health issues, but clearly ranchers were not producing a consistently good product. The beef packers looked around and saw an industry that was producing a consistent product and whose consumption was skyrocketing: the poultry industry. So, as businesses often do, they tried to incorporate the chicken model into the beef business through contract production.

Some ranchers signed on with packers in strategic alliances and most cattle publications and industry observers hailed these early ventures as the way of the future. The cattlemen´s national organization, the NCA, was infiltrated by packers and their protégés in order to push such programs. Never once did these folks stop to consider all the power they´d be handing over to the packers if all ranchers became strategically aligned. Gradually the cattle business began to go down the same path as the chicken pluckers and as a result Bill Bullard of R-CALF says here´s what happened:

According to USDA data, Bullard says the average return on investment among cow-calf producers in the U.S. was a negative $30.40 per bred cow per year for each year of the 1990s. "Your industry suffered staggering losses measured in the billions of dollars," says Bullard.

"We lost over 10 percent of the total number of beef cattle operators in the United States. We´ve lost over 108,000 producers since 1993," he said. As a result rural communities all across America have withered. The cow counties in Nebraska are among that state´s poorest, for example.

While the ranchers were facing tough times the packer was enjoying heady days. "In 1998," says Bullard, "the average retail price of beef in the United States was $2.77. In 2002, when cattlemen were getting $10 cwt. less than they did a decade before, retail prices were $3.32 a pound. The retailer certainly benefited from these very favorable economic indicators and the packer did, too. In 1992, the average packer margin was $62 a head. By 2002, that more than doubled to $142 a head."

In 1994 Bullard says the rancher received the majority of the consumer´s beef dollar: 56 cents for every buck the consumer spent on beef. But by 2000, the producer became the minority recipient. "Your share fell to 49 cents," Bullard said. "By 2002 it had fallen to 44 cents." But the packers got greedy and wanted even more so they had more meetings and decided to copy yet another business model.

Beyond Borders
The goal of this new model was to become multi-species, multinational protein providers and this they did through attrition, merger and acquisition. But still the beef part of their beef business did not fall into place like pork and poultry. The reason the chicken model did not work nearly as well in the beef business is that not enough ranchers bought the hype and signed on to become serfs on their own land. And ranchers also had something the poultry pluckers did not have: competitive bidding in the form of auction markets, video markets, country traders and retained ownership. If they were going to take complete control of the beef industry the packers knew they needed another business model. For inspiration they looked to American big businesses who were outsourcing their supply chains to the lowest bidder around the world. If ranchers in Nevada or Nebraska wouldn´t play ball maybe they would in Canada or Argentina. So the packers started looking beyond U.S. borders to other cattle-producing nations for their supply.

According to Bullard, one of the packer´s strategies was be to combine the herds of the United States, Canada and Mexico into one seamless herd. "It´s a good business strategy on the packer´s part," says Bullard. Although the results would not be very good for U.S. ranchers.

To sell meat from several countries to American consumers it was vital that the consumer not be able to tell any difference in the beef produced in this country and that produced in Mexico, Uruguay, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, or any other cattle-producing country. "They want the consumer to believe that all cattle are the same," says Bullard. "It´s not in the interest of a packer to have mandatory country of origin labeling. They want consumers to be loyal to their brand regardless of where they obtained the cattle for use in that product." Country of origin labeling would jeopardize their business model and so the packers tried to kill COOL at every turn.

A packer would also not want the 792,000 beef producers left in the U.S. to have any political power to get in their way. That is why they literally took over the NCBA. What better organization would there be to do there bidding for them than one that for decades had been the one perceived by Congress to represent the cattle industry. Congress put us all in the same boat together. But the NCBA could not do the packer´s bidding if they were dependent on dues from rancher´s for their existence. So the packers and their lackeys commandeered the checkoff funds, created the NCBA and then hijacked the organization and any credibility it had in Congress.

Say what we will, you have to admire their game plan. "That´s a reasonable, justifiable, legitimate business strategy," Bullard said, at least from the packer´s viewpoint. At the same time President Bush was pushing free trade agreements and listening closely to any advice offered by the man who bought the Texas Rangers from him and contributed heavily to his campaign. It just so happens that man and his company also owned Swift of Australia. For awhile this outsourcing of beef from foreign countries was working way better than the chicken model had.

Until a Canadian mad cow reared her ugly head, that is.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
They want the consumer to believe that all cattle are the same," says Bullard. "
******ANGUS AndOr Brangus or Zuba

It´s not in the interest of a packer to have mandatory country of origin labeling. ****Not when they source cheap trim or beef

They want consumers to be loyal to their brand regardless of where they obtained the cattle for use in that product." ****** Tyson tenderizied Beef


Country of origin labeling would jeopardize their business model and so the packers tried to kill COOL at every turn. ****Until the Democrats won and the Chinese wanted to sell us their Avain FLU chicken parts !!!!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"To sell meat from several countries to American consumers it was vital that the consumer not be able to tell any difference in the beef produced in this country and that produced in Mexico, Uruguay, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, or any other cattle-producing country. "They want the consumer to believe that all cattle are the same," says Bullard. "It´s not in the interest of a packer to have mandatory country of origin labeling. They want consumers to be loyal to their brand regardless of where they obtained the cattle for use in that product." Country of origin labeling would jeopardize their business model and so the packers tried to kill COOL at every turn. "

You anti-COOL guys want to explain how this is wrong?
 

Texan

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Country of origin labeling would jeopardize their business model and so the packers tried to kill COOL at every turn. ****Until the Democrats won and the Chinese wanted to sell us their Avain FLU chicken parts !!!!!!!
Yippee! The democrats are gonna save us all! :clap: :clap: :clap: :???:

WTF does M-COOL have to do with chicken parts? Are those trusty dems that are looking out for cattlemen gonna change the law to make it include chicken?
 

Texan

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
"To sell meat from several countries to American consumers it was vital that the consumer not be able to tell any difference in the beef produced in this country and that produced in Mexico, Uruguay, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, or any other cattle-producing country. "They want the consumer to believe that all cattle are the same," says Bullard. "It´s not in the interest of a packer to have mandatory country of origin labeling. They want consumers to be loyal to their brand regardless of where they obtained the cattle for use in that product." Country of origin labeling would jeopardize their business model and so the packers tried to kill COOL at every turn. "

You anti-COOL guys want to explain how this is wrong?
I'm not anti-COOL - I'm only anti-M-COOL. I'm anti-government mandated/government managed COOL. But...I'll answer your question, anyway...

Sandhusker said:
You anti-COOL guys want to explain how this is wrong?
I don't see anything wrong with it, Sandhusker.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Texan said:
Sandhusker said:
"To sell meat from several countries to American consumers it was vital that the consumer not be able to tell any difference in the beef produced in this country and that produced in Mexico, Uruguay, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, or any other cattle-producing country. "They want the consumer to believe that all cattle are the same," says Bullard. "It´s not in the interest of a packer to have mandatory country of origin labeling. They want consumers to be loyal to their brand regardless of where they obtained the cattle for use in that product." Country of origin labeling would jeopardize their business model and so the packers tried to kill COOL at every turn. "

You anti-COOL guys want to explain how this is wrong?
I'm not anti-COOL - I'm only anti-M-COOL. I'm anti-government mandated/government managed COOL. But...I'll answer your question, anyway...

Sandhusker said:
You anti-COOL guys want to explain how this is wrong?
I don't see anything wrong with it, Sandhusker.

We've already got voluntary COOL, and the big packers aren't volunteering.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
So why don't you get 'er done Sadhusker?

Take the bull by the horns.
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19716

Why keep complaining and waiting for the gov't and Canadians to do everything for you?

Who is stopping you from labeling your beef as product of the USA?

But..but....we want it done by deeeeeeeeeeefault! :cry2:

Exactly what am I waiting for Canadians to do? :shock:

I guess we are already doing it aren't we?

IDing our product so you don't have to ID your own. You should be thanking Canadian producers for taking the initiative and going OUTSIDE gov't and developing a National ID system and database.

You can put a man on the moon but I guess that was 40 years ago. My how things have gotten difficult since then huh Sadhusker?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
So why don't you get 'er done Sadhusker?

Take the bull by the horns.
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19716

Why keep complaining and waiting for the gov't and Canadians to do everything for you?

Who is stopping you from labeling your beef as product of the USA?

But..but....we want it done by deeeeeeeeeeefault! :cry2:

Exactly what am I waiting for Canadians to do? :shock:

I guess we are already doing it aren't we?

IDing our product so you don't have to ID your own. You should be thanking Canadian producers for taking the initiative and going OUTSIDE gov't and developing a National ID system and database.

You can put a man on the moon but I guess that was 40 years ago. My how things have gotten difficult since then huh Sadhusker?

You telling me that the US doesn't have the capabilities to identify your cattle/beef when they cross our borders now?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Texan said:
Sandhusker said:
"To sell meat from several countries to American consumers it was vital that the consumer not be able to tell any difference in the beef produced in this country and that produced in Mexico, Uruguay, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, or any other cattle-producing country. "They want the consumer to believe that all cattle are the same," says Bullard. "It´s not in the interest of a packer to have mandatory country of origin labeling. They want consumers to be loyal to their brand regardless of where they obtained the cattle for use in that product." Country of origin labeling would jeopardize their business model and so the packers tried to kill COOL at every turn. "

You anti-COOL guys want to explain how this is wrong?
I'm not anti-COOL - I'm only anti-M-COOL. I'm anti-government mandated/government managed COOL. But...I'll answer your question, anyway...

Sandhusker said:
You anti-COOL guys want to explain how this is wrong?
I don't see anything wrong with it, Sandhusker.

We've already got voluntary COOL, and the big packers aren't volunteering.

Sandhusker,can you type this again r e a l s l o w,so some of these pro packer folks will under stand..........M COOL is law get used to it,packers left the cattle man no choice but to have it mandated.
good luck
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Exactly what am I waiting for Canadians to do? :shock:

I guess we are already doing it aren't we?

IDing our product so you don't have to ID your own. You should be thanking Canadian producers for taking the initiative and going OUTSIDE gov't and developing a National ID system and database.

You can put a man on the moon but I guess that was 40 years ago. My how things have gotten difficult since then huh Sadhusker?

You telling me that the US doesn't have the capabilities to identify your cattle/beef when they cross our borders now?

:lol: :lol: To quote your buddy Econ:
I think they could get a little closer to the truth if they used the Canadian ID system to find out more of the first part of the story--where the cattle came from and how they got across the border and not put in a designated feedlot.

I think Swift feels that kind of information is best left unknown as do others who are not helping with that part of the investigation.

What good is an ID system for Canada's customers if it stops at the border?

You haven't forgotten about the big fuss you and the R-Klanners made about the VanDykes. You guys went on and on for months about that!!!

It's all in the archives Sadhusker.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
What good is an ID system for Canada's customers if it stops at the border?


You haven't forgotten about the big fuss you and the R-Klanners made about the VanDykes. You guys went on and on for months about that!!!

Problem ,No Search engine on the Canadian Cattle Database. *****If someone exports to another country, that import country and or the owner of that product should have Mandatory SEARCH For a madrid of reasons.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
PORKER said:
What good is an ID system for Canada's customers if it stops at the border?


Porker, CCIA is the data base for the RFID tags in Canada. Until that RFID tag number is retired, you can get all of the information from CCIA on the animal that that tag number was issued to, even after it has been exported.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Source Premises (This is an optional requirement)
Destination Account (This is an optional requirement)
Destination Premises (This is an optional requirement)
Sex (This is an optional requirement)
Species (This is an optional requirement)
Breed (This is an optional requirement)
Colour (This is an optional requirement)


These Data fields Ben,as you can see are all optional when a search is done on a Canadian animal.A RFID number and date is all I get so if it's tied to a box of Canadian Beef ,I can't get anything . Nothing .
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Source Premises (This is an optional requirement)
Destination Account (This is an optional requirement)
Destination Premises (This is an optional requirement)
Sex (This is an optional requirement)
Species (This is an optional requirement)
Breed (This is an optional requirement)
Colour (This is an optional requirement)


These Data fields Ben,as you can see are all optional when a search is done on a Canadian animal.A RFID number and date is all I get so if it's tied to a box of Canadian Beef ,I can't get anything . Nothing .

I had no problems tracking the RFID tags that were in Van Dykes cattle.
Unlike some that post here, I prefer the private sector maintaining this information, instead of a company having that information FOR SALE, you don't know who wants to buy this information, or what they intend to use it for.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Ben, honestly ,what data was there ? This seems to be the hang up on a percentage of of the food chain suppliers. What are they hiding if they can't tell you it was a mixed breed,male,steer that they sold was better eating. I'am sure some of your customers know and have seen your cattle before they were turned into beef that they took home and raved about.
 

Bill

Well-known member
PORKER said:
What good is an ID system for Canada's customers if it stops at the border?


You haven't forgotten about the big fuss you and the R-Klanners made about the VanDykes. You guys went on and on for months about that!!!

Problem ,No Search engine on the Canadian Cattle Database. *****If someone exports to another country, that import country and or the owner of that product should have Mandatory SEARCH For a madrid of reasons.

That's the reason CCIA program has worked to the extent it has. Unlike the system you sell it is a private entity that is not for profit so doesn't sell its info to just anyone who takes a whim to do some snooping.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
do some snooping. What kind of database is THAT I thought the Great Canadian Cattle database would let you only look at one animal.
 

Bill

Well-known member
PORKER said:
do some snooping. What kind of database is THAT I thought the Great Canadian Cattle database would let you only look at one animal.

You are trying to tell us that Americans are all open to sharing information with just anyone??????????

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's a classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read all of the posts of paranoia re: rights, freedoms, privacy etc. on this site from your fellow Americans and you should be able to figure it out! :roll:

I along with many would far sooner provide information to an entity such as CCIA that isn't out to make a buck providing that information to any Tom, Dick and Porker unlike the company you work for.
 
Top