Market manipulation at the local salebarns

[HAY MAKER]

My, my, looks like someone can't think of anything he's thankful for this year, so has to spout vitriol against others to make himself feel better!!!

There are a HUGE number of reasons for fewer people choosing to stay in 'beef cattle operations'.

And this is NOT news! It has been continuing for generations...certainly since the homestead days when the guy who could not make a living on his little homestead sold out to the neighbor who understood he would have to grow to survive.

A few very quick points: we raise more pounds of beef per cow....or we are out of business;

we can (and darn well better be!) taking care of more cattle per person working the ranch;

more of our kids are getting better educations and finding more interesting jobs than doing the same old thing, even if it is now done with some new ways (by those who remain, anyway);

more women want careers not available in the rural, often remote, small communities common to 'cattle country', therefore, the 'cowboy' takes a job compatible with his sweethearts' career goals;

fewer families want the still grueling long hours required on a ranch.

This could go on far longer than time available to me right now, with company on the way for supper!

And, I'm most thankful for my faith, family willing to go the extra mile to stay in ranching, and my small, but lively area communities, Midland, Philip, and Kadoka, with great medical facilities close by, plus our reasonable proximity to Rapid City with all a good small city has to offer.

mrj

looks like you may be doing the same,and I doubt anyone here is interested in where you reside much less your dinner guests,it's a terrible thing to have folks like you call themselves ranchers,with all the reasons you have for being a town dweller you must be miserable.
you have proven to most of us here you are squarely on the side of the packing industry.
I have just one more thing to say to you and I promise never to reply to your posts again.
That one thing is....................I am damned glad you aint my neighbor.

 

[High Plains]

MRJ, it looks to me like you are calling a spade a spade and I sure know that many of the reasons that you've stated are true. I've faced some of those realities in my own little family life and they have guided me in directions that I would not have chosen if I were the only one that the decision would impact. It's not fun to talk about, but reality isn't always fun.

Hope you keep on keeping on.

 

[Beefman]

My, my, looks like someone can't think of anything he's thankful for this year, so has to spout vitriol against others to make himself feel better!!!

There are a HUGE number of reasons for fewer people choosing to stay in 'beef cattle operations'.

And this is NOT news! It has been continuing for generations...certainly since the homestead days when the guy who could not make a living on his little homestead sold out to the neighbor who understood he would have to grow to survive.

A few very quick points: we raise more pounds of beef per cow....or we are out of business;

we can (and darn well better be!) taking care of more cattle per person working the ranch;

more of our kids are getting better educations and finding more interesting jobs than doing the same old thing, even if it is now done with some new ways (by those who remain, anyway);

more women want careers not available in the rural, often remote, small communities common to 'cattle country', therefore, the 'cowboy' takes a job compatible with his sweethearts' career goals;

fewer families want the still grueling long hours required on a ranch.

This could go on far longer than time available to me right now, with company on the way for supper!

And, I'm most thankful for my faith, family willing to go the extra mile to stay in ranching, and my small, but lively area communities, Midland, Philip, and Kadoka, with great medical facilities close by, plus our reasonable proximity to Rapid City with all a good small city has to offer.

mrj

Excellent post MRJ. To piggy back on your point, survey a group of producers, regardless of their herd size, and ask who intends to expand their operation in the next few years. Most of the group will likely hold their hand up. As was pointed out at the Ft Collins USDA / GIPSA listing (statement) session, we are producing nearly double the pounds of beef per cow calf unit on an annual basis today as compared to 1980.

FYI, my bet is the neighbors around your home place and anywhere you farm or ranch would say you and your family are great to have around.

 

[HAY MAKER]

I wont direct this post to you beefman because you are an admitted packer employee,which is fine we all do what we do to get by.
But highplains is part of the problem,and its his kind that allows the ranchers to loose the fight to stay on their land and make a honest wage for a hard days work,my bet is he is some ignorant has been or wanna be that's got a town job and or his wife has a job so he can play on the computer,not a rancher in my book.
I was born ranchin,got my first set of heifers when i was 12 instead of staying in school like some of the educated folks,but like my ole daddy always told me,ever thing you need to learn is right here on the land.
never had the privelege of a town job.
So highplanes, I think you nailed it you and the lady are 2 of a kind and would be good neighbors,just not close to me.
The sad part is that there are so few of us left to fight.
good luck

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I don't know about Texas but up here it was government intervention that set rural Saskatchewan up for failure. It was a sparsely populated area with big ranches leasing grass and running cows over big areas. When it was opened up for homesteading on 1/4 sections and had to be broke up for farming. Towns were established about every 7 miles along the railroad. When the farming methods of the time proved not to work in the 30's and many left. The post war boom in grain prices helped many hang on but bigger equipment has required fewer people to farm the acres. What was once seeded with a 6 or 8 ft one way is now planted with 60 or 80 ft air seeder. What was cultivated with a 12 ft chisel plow is now sprayed with a 120 ft boom high clearance sprayer. The roads and vehicles we now drive let the farmers live in towns and drive out to farm. I have seen areas where there used to be a yard on every quarter and now you don't see a yard light for miles. How can you expect business like packers not to get bigger and consolidate when as farmers and ranchers we have altho the ranches that once ran in this country were big operations and were down sized but government policy and now altho growing are having trouble finding and affording help due to competing industry.

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed: "There are times when government intervention is needed,if you were a cattleman and or had any sense you would'nt be trying to oversimplfy the packing industry ruining ranching families."

The packing industry ruining ranching families?? How can the packers be responsible for ruining ranching familes when, according to court documents presented in "Pickett vs. ibp", the average PER HEAD profit for ibp during the period of "ALLEGED" market manipulation was $16 per head to sell everything from the tongue to the rectum and price cattle accordingly?? Keep in mind, ibp at that time was the largest most efficient packing company and the period of time in question were their most profitable years. $16 per head profit. WOW! SUCH HUGE PROFITS!!

How do you explain that Hayseed? What can you offer to counter evidence presented in Pickett vs. ibp?? Do you not believe actual financial records brought into court as evidence because it doesn't happen to fit your need for someone or something to blame???

There is one little hurdle that you have to cross in your relentless pursuit of blame and it's a cornerstone of our judicial system entitled "THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE". There is no exemption for this concept for large corporations because paker blamers like you believe they are inherently evil. In order to convict the large packers of market manipulation, price fixing, and all the other allegations against them, you have to provide the evidence to suport your position. A desire to blame will not suffice. Whether you like it or not, "the presumption of innocense" is the foundation that are laws are built on. Innocent until proven guilty not guilty by packer blamers until proven innocent. That is the foundation that I stand on despite the fact that it would be much more politically acceptable to join the ranks of those who blame large corporations for the lack of profitability on our ranches..

What evidence have you provided to support your beliefs of market manipuluation Hayseed? None! Zero! Absolutely nothing!

The jury's belief in Pickett vs. ibp that dropping the price in the cash market to reflect their purchases by other venues (forward contracts, packer owned cattle bought as feeder calves and/or yearlings) constitutes market manipulation was overturned by Judge Strom for very good reason. Judge Strom's decision was upheld by the appeals court. The appeals court's decision was upheld by the Supreme court. The evidence provided by the plaintiffs was nothing more than theories and that's all you have to stand on to support your views. If you don't believe in our judicial system, then you do not believe in much.

In addition, there have been countless investigations by GIPSA into alleged market manipulation that came up empty handed. Why is that Hayseed? You think GIPSA is bought off? That would be another example of how one conspiracy theory absent the evidence to support it leads to another conspiracy theory. You see, it doesn't matter to you and your fellow packer blamers what the facts supports, what is important to you is what you want to believe which is why R-CALF is 0 & 9 in court.

Explain this Hayseed, if there is so much money to be made in the packing industry, why was USPB's patronage dividends only $26 per head in their first years? How could that be? Listening to you and other packer blamers there is this "HUGE PACKER SPREAD" and money being made hand over fist which is why all these young ranchers are going out of business so how do you explain that??? Do you think USPB is squandering money away to hide their profits? Do you think those who manage USPB are embezzling money rather than paying their investors what they are owed? What's your conspiracy theory to support that??

Consider that USPB is made up by progressive cattlemen that have pursued higher quality cattle to increase their carcass premiums. Despite that, the AVERAGE carcass premiums were around $25 per head during their inception. How do you explain that? Do you think USPB is lying to their investors about the values of higher quality carcasses too??

If you add the patronage dividends and the carcass premiums you have a total of $51 per head for a progressive packing plant catering their higher quality carcasses to niche markets. How does that contrast with the "HUGE PACKER PROFITS" that R-CALF and company would like to believe are there to be had??

See what happens when you don't have the common sense to understand the difference between $15 per pound middle meats vs. the value of the entire animal on the hoof?

So how devoted to packer conspiracies are you Hayseed? Are you going to ignore these cold hard facts to believe what you want to believe or have you been misinformed?

Where is your proof of all this money being made by the large packers? Fact is it doesn't exist and it never did because if it did exist, those profits would be available for any investor to make themselves by investing in a packing company. Instead of facing the truth or going on a fact finding mission, you just come up with another conspiracy theory to counter what you don't want to believe.

Worse yet, you would pass legislation to break up the larger more efficient packing companies in favor of smaller less efficient packing companies that, due to their markets and their inefficiencies in slaughtering costs, would pay less for cattle because their costs were higher and their beef and beef by product markets were less. That's why I detest your beliefs Hayseed. In your ignorance, you will hurt that which you claim to want to protect. In your ignorance, you will force more young ranchers off the farms because you don't have a clue about the income and expenses of the packing and retail sectors of our indusries.

You will contradict nothing of what I have stated here with evidence to the contrary. Your evidence is someone else's opinion that shares your ignorant beliefs.

It gives me no pleasure to introduce you to your "factually void" positions but I will continue to do so for the future of this industry which you are bound and determined to destroy.

You call Faster Horses a liar when stating that there is unanswered questions. Well this post is riddled with questions Hayseed and they are not all rhetorical. Will you answer any of them truthfully or opt to make more statements like you always do? I can assure the readers that you will not answer a single question because you can't answer them. The facts do not support what you want to believe. So no Hayseed, Faster Horses did not lie about your unwillingness to answer questions.


~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

I don't know about Texas but up here it was government intervention that set rural Saskatchewan up for failure. It was a sparsely populated area with big ranches leasing grass and running cows over big areas. When it was opened up for homesteading on 1/4 sections and had to be broke up for farming. Towns were established about every 7 miles along the railroad. When the farming methods of the time proved not to work in the 30's and many left. The post war boom in grain prices helped many hang on but bigger equipment has required fewer people to farm the acres. What was once seeded with a 6 or 8 ft one way is now planted with 60 or 80 ft air seeder. What was cultivated with a 12 ft chisel plow is now sprayed with a 120 ft boom high clearance sprayer. The roads and vehicles we now drive let the farmers live in towns and drive out to farm. I have seen areas where there used to be a yard on every quarter and now you don't see a yard light for miles. How can you expect business like packers not to get bigger and consolidate when as farmers and ranchers we have altho the ranches that once ran in this country were big operations and were down sized but government policy and now altho growing are having trouble finding and affording help due to competing industry.

What's it gonna take for you to realize packers are not your friend ?
They are a necessary evil,with captive supply they can pay you anything they want and there aint a damned thing you can do about it.
good luck

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I don't know about Texas but up here it was government intervention that set rural Saskatchewan up for failure. It was a sparsely populated area with big ranches leasing grass and running cows over big areas. When it was opened up for homesteading on 1/4 sections and had to be broke up for farming. Towns were established about every 7 miles along the railroad. When the farming methods of the time proved not to work in the 30's and many left. The post war boom in grain prices helped many hang on but bigger equipment has required fewer people to farm the acres. What was once seeded with a 6 or 8 ft one way is now planted with 60 or 80 ft air seeder. What was cultivated with a 12 ft chisel plow is now sprayed with a 120 ft boom high clearance sprayer. The roads and vehicles we now drive let the farmers live in towns and drive out to farm. I have seen areas where there used to be a yard on every quarter and now you don't see a yard light for miles. How can you expect business like packers not to get bigger and consolidate when as farmers and ranchers we have altho the ranches that once ran in this country were big operations and were down sized but government policy and now altho growing are having trouble finding and affording help due to competing industry.

What's it gonna take for you to realize packers are not your friend ?
They are a necessary evil,with captive supply they can pay you anything they want and there aint a damned thing you can do about it.
good luck

I know where there is a moth balled plant you could come up here and buy. You and you alone Haymaker could be the monopoly buster. Give me your check book and I would you chief procurement officer(Cattle Buyer) We would only buy cattle from producers that don't forward contract or use the futures or any form of price insurance.

What da say. Is it a go?

 

[HAY MAKER]

Hayseed: "There are times when government intervention is needed,if you were a cattleman and or had any sense you wouldn't be trying to oversimplify the packing industry ruining ranching families."

The packing industry ruining ranching families?? How can the packers be responsible for ruining ranching families when, according to court documents presented in "Pickett vs. ibp", the average PER HEAD profit for ibp during the period of "ALLEGED" market manipulation was $16 per head to sell everything from the tongue to the rectum and price cattle accordingly?? Keep in mind, ibp at that time was the largest most efficient packing company and the period of time in question were their most profitable years. $16 per head profit. WOW! SUCH HUGE PROFITS!!

How do you explain that Hayseed? What can you offer to counter evidence presented in Pickett vs. ibp?? Do you not believe actual financial records brought into court as evidence because it doesn't happen to fit your need for someone or something to blame???

There is one little hurdle that you have to cross in your relentless pursuit of blame and it's a cornerstone of our judicial system entitled "THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE". There is no exemption for this concept for large corporations because parker blamers like you believe they are inherently evil. In order to convict the large packers of market manipulation, price fixing, and all the other allegations against them, you have to provide the evidence to support your position. A desire to blame will not suffice. Whether you like it or not, "the presumption of innocence" is the foundation that are laws are built on. Innocent until proven guilty not guilty by packer blamers until proven innocent. That is the foundation that I stand on despite the fact that it would be much more politically acceptable to join the ranks of those who blame large corporations for the lack of profitability on our ranches..

What evidence have you provided to support your beliefs of market manipulation Hayseed? None! Zero! Absolutely nothing!

The jury's belief in Pickett vs. ibp that dropping the price in the cash market to reflect their purchases by other venues (forward contracts, packer owned cattle bought as feeder calves and/or yearlings) constitutes market manipulation was overturned by Judge Strom for very good reason. Judge Strom's decision was upheld by the appeals court. The appeals court's decision was upheld by the Supreme court. The evidence provided by the plaintiffs was nothing more than theories and that's all you have to stand on to support your views. If you don't believe in our judicial system, then you do not believe in much.

In addition, there have been countless investigations by GIPSA into alleged market manipulation that came up empty handed. Why is that Hayseed? You think GIPSA is bought off? That would be another example of how one conspiracy theory absent the evidence to support it leads to another conspiracy theory. You see, it doesn't matter to you and your fellow packer blamers what the facts supports, what is important to you is what you want to believe which is why R-CALF is 0 & 9 in court.

Explain this Hayseed, if there is so much money to be made in the packing industry, why was USPs patronage dividends only $26 per head in their first years? How could that be? Listening to you and other packer blamers there is this "HUGE PACKER SPREAD" and money being made hand over fist which is why all these young ranchers are going out of business so how do you explain that??? Do you think USPB is squandering money away to hide their profits? Do you think those who manage USPB are embezzling money rather than paying their investors what they are owed? What's your conspiracy theory to support that??

Consider that USPB is made up by progressive cattlemen that have pursued higher quality cattle to increase their carcass premiums. Despite that, the AVERAGE carcass premiums were around $25 per head during their inception. How do you explain that? Do you think USPB is lying to their investors about the values of higher quality carcasses too??

If you add the patronage dividends and the carcass premiums you have a total of $51 per head for a progressive packing plant catering their higher quality carcasses to niche markets. How does that contrast with the "HUGE PACKER PROFITS" that R-CALF and company would like to believe are there to be had??

See what happens when you don't have the common sense to understand the difference between $15 per pound middle meats vs. the value of the entire animal on the hoof?

So how devoted to packer conspiracies are you Hayseed? Are you going to ignore these cold hard facts to believe what you want to believe or have you been misinformed?

Where is your proof of all this money being made by the large packers? Fact is it doesn't exist and it never did because if it did exist, those profits would be available for any investor to make themselves by investing in a packing company. Instead of facing the truth or going on a fact finding mission, you just come up with another conspiracy theory to counter what you don't want to believe.

Worse yet, you would pass legislation to break up the larger more efficient packing companies in favor of smaller less efficient packing companies that, due to their markets and their inefficiencies in slaughtering costs, would pay less for cattle because their costs were higher and their beef and beef by product markets were less. That's why I detest your beliefs Hayseed. In your ignorance, you will hurt that which you claim to want to protect. In your ignorance, you will force more young ranchers off the farms because you don't have a clue about the income and expenses of the packing and retail sectors of our industries.

You will contradict nothing of what I have stated here with evidence to the contrary. Your evidence is someone else's opinion that shares your ignorant beliefs.

It gives me no pleasure to introduce you to your "factually void" positions but I will continue to do so for the future of this industry which you are bound and determined to destroy.

You call Faster Horses a liar when stating that there is unanswered questions. Well this post is riddled with questions Hayseed and they are not all rhetorical. Will you answer any of them truthfully or opt to make more statements like you always do? I can assure the readers that you will not answer a single question because you can't answer them. The facts do not support what you want to believe. So no Hayseed, Faster Horses did not lie about your unwillingness to answer questions.


~SH~

We can argue the Pickett vs ibp till the cows come home,and the answer to the outcome is very simply answered ..........they bought the damn sleaze bag that called himself judge.
Now that you got your brilliant question answered ,let me ask you one what did the jurors decide ?
any sob that would condone the blatant disregard of the United States judicial system aint worth the title rancher.
If the lying ibp accountants were able to $16 profit all I can say is,that's about all they are worth.
I am glad to see you back here with all your packer logic,keep that keyboard hot maybe this time we can get you to donate to R Calf again.
sh,logic and I love this one ........"..less packers means more money to the cattleman"
everyone one of your so called "questions" are something someone like fasterhorses would bite on,dont expect ranchers to believe your BS your questions are as you stated someone else's opinions.
You still haven't asked a question,that has not been answered on this board many times by many people.Your lying smoke screens and people like you have broke some good ranching families.
There have been folks come on this board that know you personally and stated you are a parasite...........now the question become "why"? money? I have never needed money so bad that i would be apart of a rancher losing his land,you promote it daily.
One question you asked just got answered again they bought the judge in the Pickett case,and tossed the jurors decision aside like it meant nothing

 

[High Plains]

I wont direct this post to you beefman because you are an admitted packer employee,which is fine we all do what we do to get by.
But highplains is part of the problem,and its his kind that allows the ranchers to loose the fight to stay on their land and make a honest wage for a hard days work,my bet is he is some ignorant has been or wanna be that's got a town job and or his wife has a job so he can play on the computer,not a rancher in my book.
I was born ranchin,got my first set of heifers when i was 12 instead of staying in school like some of the educated folks,but like my ole daddy always told me,ever thing you need to learn is right here on the land.
never had the privelege of a town job.
So highplanes, I think you nailed it you and the lady are 2 of a kind and would be good neighbors,just not close to me.
The sad part is that there are so few of us left to fight.
good luck

Wow Haymaker! You truly are an angry man. Your personal attacks are the mark of a man that's grasping at straws. I hope that you can find some peace. Good day, sir.

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed: "....maybe you and your compadre sh can explain why so many ranchers are going under,good families torn off their land after decades of hard work so some damned multinational fat cat can live like a king".

Let's see if you fare any better with this debate. The question is why are so many ranchers going under and good families being torn off the land.

I'll answer that question Hayseed, but first let me ask this question, if there is no profit on the land, then why are land values increasing?

Ouch, I really pulled out the big guns there didn't I??

Never mind, I don't really expect you to answer that rhetorical question honestly but it's a fact just the same.

Back to ranch profitability Hayseed. Here is a list of facts to suggest why some ranches are more profitable than others.

1. Not everyone has the same quality of livestock.

2. Not everyone has the same marketing skills.

3. Harlan Hughes data for the ND ranches he worked with showed a difference of around $250 per head between high cost and low cost producers. Contrast that with a $16 per head profit for ibp.

4. Not everyone has the same interest rates on their loans.

5. Not everyone has the same expenses and debt owed against their ranches.

6. Not everyone has the same feed costs.

7. Not everyone has the same death losses in their livestock.

8. Not everyone has the same amount of annual rainfall.

9. Not everyone has the same level of land productivity.

10. Not every ranch has the same machinery expenses.

11. Not every ranch has the same investments in livestock handling facilities.

12. Not every ranch has the same weather patterns that lead to blizzards, hailstorms, and other financial disasters that affect agriculture.

13. Not every ranch has the same level of diversification into different ways of generating income off the same ranch. Many ranches have other income than just the income provided by their livestock or crop operations. Example would be commercial hunting or guest ranches. Other examples would be coal, methane, and oil development.

A rancher once told me the best cross he ever worked with was herefords and oilwells.

14. Some ranches are being sold to developers which is taking that land out of agricultural production.

15. Some ranches that are profitable do not have family members who are interested in ranching and farming leaving them no choice but to sell out.

16. Not every ranch has outside income helping to carry the financial burden.

17. Not every ranch or farm is supporting the same number of family members.

18. Not everyone has the same level of insurance to protect from financial disasters.

19. Many times sales are forced by differences in values between family members expressed during the untimely passing of an owner.

20. Not every family has the same level of non ag related expenses such as recreational activities, college expenses for children, vacations, or donations to churches and charities. All expenses can contribute to overall ranch profit or losses if there is not other income supporting these non ag related expenses.

That's 20 points off the top of my head to reflect difference in profit or loss from one ranch to the next that can constitute reasons for some ranches and farmers selling out.

Would you like to counter any of these points to suggest that they would not affect the differences in profitability from one ranch to the next?

How do you explain the fact that while some ranches are selling out, there is others that are expanding?

Hayseed: "When the rancher loses small town America loses,our way of life is gone forever, so post the question,oughta be easy really all you packer lovers college educated and intelligence against one uneducated hick."

You don't have a corner on the market of how painful it is to see the face of rural America changing and watch these historic ranches and farms fall by the wayside. The difference between you and I is in the understanding of what is contributing to these changes.


~SH~

 

[Beefman]

I wont direct this post to you beefman because you are an admitted packer employee,which is fine we all do what we do to get by.
But highplains is part of the problem,and its his kind that allows the ranchers to loose the fight to stay on their land and make a honest wage for a hard days work,my bet is he is some ignorant has been or wanna be that's got a town job and or his wife has a job so he can play on the computer,not a rancher in my book.
I was born ranchin,got my first set of heifers when i was 12 instead of staying in school like some of the educated folks,but like my ole daddy always told me,ever thing you need to learn is right here on the land.
never had the privelege of a town job.
So highplanes, I think you nailed it you and the lady are 2 of a kind and would be good neighbors,just not close to me.
The sad part is that there are so few of us left to fight.
good luck

Good luck back at you. Hope you get healed up......some rain.......or whatever else might be ailing you.

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed: "sh accuses everyone of being a hipocrite when he is the hipocrite,he donates money to R calf one day and cusses em the next,now that has got to be a hypocrite."

Hayseed, you really need to start telling the truth. Statements like this that are not true are only going to make you look bad, not me.

I haven't donated a dime to R-CALF since I stopped donating to them many years ago. The reason I quit donating to them is because the results of my reasearch showed me that they were not being truthful. Their 0 & 9 record in court proves the same.

If R-CALF has won a court case, please list it for me Hayseed.


~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

Sh lets show the folks how smart you are today,faster horses here is a chance for you to chime in and prove your intelligence also.
I know you are reading if nothing else you can act as a cheer leader for ole sh.
A Texas uneducated hick has a question for a self proclaimed very brilliant packer boy,that always uses the pickett vs ibp case to BS the fasterhorses of the world.
sh since you are undoubtedly an expert on the pickett trial,and have stated many times it was a waste of cattlemen money on legal fees,tell me what were the legal fees ?
You haven't a clue about the fee and or the case,anyone with any real knowledge of the trial walked away sadden that day because they got a real lesson in that ole theory "The USA has the best legal system you can buy"
Now quit bringing up the pickett case and making stupid remarks about cattlemen losing money on attorney fees,that is unless you can prove to the folks here you do know ?
good luck

 

[HAY MAKER]

Hayseed: "sh accuses everyone of being a hipocrite when he is the hipocrite,he donates money to R calf one day and cusses em the next,now that has got to be a hypocrite."

Hayseed, you really need to start telling the truth. Statements like this that are not true are only going to make you look bad, not me.

I haven't donated a dime to R-CALF since I stopped donating to them many years ago. The reason I quit donating to them is because the results of my reasearch showed me that they were not being truthful. Their 0 & 9 record in court proves the same.

If R-CALF has won a court case, please list it for me Hayseed.


~SH~

Damn how time flys,I could have swore you donated a $100 to R calf recently,when you had Sandhusker mail it for you ?
sorry guess I was mistaken ?
By the way is that brother in law of yours still driving around with that big ole R Calf sticker on his pickup ?
good luck

 

[Clarencen]

I believe the purpose of this board it to let everyone tell his side of the story. the first thing we need to solve a problem is to know where everyone stands, and to be willing to look at both sides.

SH, Haymaker, MRJ and Big Muddy all do make some good points. First we have to remember, there will always be change. We are a capitalistic society, money is most always in charge. I wouldn't have it any other way as this provide an incentive. Still our country has always looked out to help the underdog. We have always tried to help find opportunities for him and lever the playing field. This requires some give and take.

Some of you have mentioned the homestead days, I know some feel the homes stead program as a failure. I don't, it gave the little fellow who was standing at the end of the road with no place to go, an opportunity to either fail or to succeed. They say it is better to try and fail then to not try and succeed.

My grand parents, and great grand parents were homsteaders. Looking at it from todays standpoint they may not have been successful. They did jot really stay on their homestead long. My Grandfathers were not old enough to file on a homestead when they came to Nebraska, they had to wait a few years. The grandfather on my Dads side was said to have had only the fourteen dollars he needed to file in his pocket. You can not always put much stock in some of the stories you are told, but it was said a snow storm came up and he had to stay in town. He did not have the twenty five cents to spend the night in the livery barn, but was told to write his name on the barn door along with the rest.

 

[HAY MAKER]

I wont direct this post to you beefman because you are an admitted packer employee,which is fine we all do what we do to get by.
But highplains is part of the problem,and its his kind that allows the ranchers to loose the fight to stay on their land and make a honest wage for a hard days work,my bet is he is some ignorant has been or wanna be that's got a town job and or his wife has a job so he can play on the computer,not a rancher in my book.
I was born ranchin,got my first set of heifers when i was 12 instead of staying in school like some of the educated folks,but like my ole daddy always told me,ever thing you need to learn is right here on the land.
never had the privelege of a town job.
So highplanes, I think you nailed it you and the lady are 2 of a kind and would be good neighbors,just not close to me.
The sad part is that there are so few of us left to fight.
good luck

Wow Haymaker! You truly are an angry man. Your personal attacks are the mark of a man that's grasping at straws. I hope that you can find some peace. Good day, sir.

Im not angry,disgusted would be a better definition,with people like you and the mrj's of the world.
good luck

 

[HAY MAKER]

Hayseed: "....maybe you and your compadre sh can explain why so many ranchers are going under,good families torn off their land after decades of hard work so some damned multinational fat cat can live like a king".

Let's see if you fare any better with this debate. The question is why are so many ranchers going under and good families being torn off the land.

I'll answer that question Hayseed, but first let me ask this question, if there is no profit on the land, then why are land values increasing?

Ouch, I really pulled out the big guns there didn't I??

Never mind, I don't really expect you to answer that rhetorical question honestly but it's a fact just the same.

Back to ranch profitability Hayseed. Here is a list of facts to suggest why some ranches are more profitable than others.

1. Not everyone has the same quality of livestock.

2. Not everyone has the same marketing skills.

3. Harlan Hughes data for the ND ranches he worked with showed a difference of around $250 per head between high cost and low cost producers. Contrast that with a $16 per head profit for ibp.

4. Not everyone has the same interest rates on their loans.

5. Not everyone has the same expenses and debt owed against their ranches.

6. Not everyone has the same feed costs.

7. Not everyone has the same death losses in their livestock.

8. Not everyone has the same amount of annual rainfall.

9. Not everyone has the same level of land productivity.

10. Not every ranch has the same machinery expenses.

11. Not every ranch has the same investments in livestock handling facilities.

12. Not every ranch has the same weather patterns that lead to blizzards, hailstorms, and other financial disasters that affect agriculture.

13. Not every ranch has the same level of diversification into different ways of generating income off the same ranch. Many ranches have other income than just the income provided by their livestock or crop operations. Example would be commercial hunting or guest ranches. Other examples would be coal, methane, and oil development.

A rancher once told me the best cross he ever worked with was herefords and oil wells.

14. Some ranches are being sold to developers which is taking that land out of agricultural production.

15. Some ranches that are profitable do not have family members who are interested in ranching and farming leaving them no choice but to sell out.

16. Not every ranch has outside income helping to carry the financial burden.

17. Not every ranch or farm is supporting the same number of family members.

18. Not everyone has the same level of insurance to protect from financial disasters.

19. Many times sales are forced by differences in values between family members expressed during the untimely passing of an owner.

20. Not every family has the same level of non Ag related expenses such as recreational activities, college expenses for children, vacations, or donations to churches and charities. All expenses can contribute to overall ranch profit or losses if there is not other income supporting these non Ag related expenses.

That's 20 points off the top of my head to reflect difference in profit or loss from one ranch to the next that can constitute reasons for some ranches and farmers selling out.

Would you like to counter any of these points to suggest that they would not affect the differences in profitability from one ranch to the next?

How do you explain the fact that while some ranches are selling out, there is others that are expanding?

Hayseed: "When the rancher loses small town America loses,our way of life is gone forever, so post the question,oughta be easy really all you packer lovers college educated and intelligence against one uneducated hick."

You don't have a corner on the market of how painful it is to see the face of rural America changing and watch these historic ranches and farms fall by the wayside. The difference between you and I is in the understanding of what is contributing to these changes.


~SH~

BS........I could quote a thousand valid reasons for ranch sales,what's the point ?
We are talking about the packing industry and the loss of land because of captive supplies and all the other scams the Ami institutes .
Packers are a necessary evil to kept on a short rope,there ain't a damn one of them worth minimum wage including tyson himself,why should the sorry sobs make the majority of money on fat cattle,sit on their ass all day talking on the phone while they steal labor from illegals on the kill floor.
While the rancher is up at dawn doing all the things that ranching requires to get by,and we do it till dark most days.and pray for rain at night,all so the tysons of the world can drive cattle prices down with their captive supplies to buy another yacht.
And dont make the stupid remark "gee haymaker if there is so much money is meat cutting why dont you open a packing house" tired of hearin that crap.
I would'nt own a packing house if you gave it to me,my love for the land and clean air water fresh soil........no you are the type that would be a good packer,the smell and you would mix right nicely.
good luck

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed to mrj: "you have proven to most of us here you are squarely on the side of the packing industry."

No, MRJ has proven to those who can actually reason that she is firmly on the side of truth and facts as opposed to baseless conspiracy theories driven by a need to blame. She understands the importance of promoting beef and the beef industry rather than supporting baseless lawsuits against other segments of the industry that only serve to make lawyers rich.

MRJ, like myself, is not afraid to take a stand for what she believes is best for the future of this industry.

Hayseed to MRJ: "I am damned glad you aint my neighbor."

That's too bad you feel that way Hayseed because I am damn glad she is my neighbor because it's nice to know there is others in this industry that form their views from factual information rather than a need to blame.

Hayseed: "We can argue the Pickett vs ibp till the cows come home,and the answer to the outcome is very simply answered ..........they bought the damn sleaze bag that called himself judge."

Just as I said. Since you don't have the facts to prove that Judge Strom got it wrong (in your opinion), you have to drum up some baseless conspiracy to justify his decision. According to you, he was bought off. Imagine that? Then the appeals court must have been bought off too since they supported his decision. The Supreme court must have also been bought off since they supported the appeals court's decision. Yup, it must be one big happy conspiracy. What an imagination you have.

Hayseed: "Now that you got your brilliant question answered ,let me ask you one what did the jurors decide ?"

The jurors decided that when ibp dropped their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases by other venues FROM WILLING SELLERS, that this constituted market manipulation.

Did the jury get it right, or did they get it wrong?

That question can be answered by whether or not you believe a feeder buying feeder calves in the same manner constitutes market manipulation. Of course you want different standards for the packing industry but unfortunately for you, the means of procuring cattle has to be consistent throughout the industry. That is why the decision was overturned and upheld by higher courts.

Hayseed: "any sob that would condone the blatant disregard of the United States judicial system aint worth the title rancher."

I agree! The entire judicial system which includes the judges decision, the appeals court's decision, and the supreme courts decision.

Hayseed: "I am glad to see you back here with all your packer logic,keep that keyboard hot maybe this time we can get you to donate to R Calf again."

Why thank you for such a heartfelt welcome. I appreciate that but don't hold your breathe on the R-CALF donations.

Hayseed: "sh,logic and I love this one ........"..less packers means more money to the cattleman""

Actually, the logic is this, large efficient packers who can reduce their per head processing costs beyond the costs of smaller less efficient packing plants and large efficient packing plants that increase the value of the beef and beef by products they produce can and will pay more for cattle than the less efficient packing plants they replaced.

The obvious is that if this wasn't true, smaller packers would not have been replaced by larger packers. This is common business.

Here's conflicting R-CALF type arguments:

1. There is no competition in the packing industry.

2. Smaller packing companies cannot compete with the larger packers.


Those two arguments I have heard come from the same mouths are in direct conflict with eachother. If there was no competition in the packing industry, smaller packers could obviously compete. "Well, ah, gee, ah...by golly, I never thought of it like that".

Hayseed: "....dont expect ranchers to believe your BS your questions are as you stated someone else's opinions."

My questions are someone else's opinions? What? You are not making sense again.

Hayseed: "You still haven't asked a question,that has not been answered on this board many times by many people."

Ahh....ok! Let's try this one.

If a small packer has higher processing costs than a larger packer and if they receive less money for their beef and beef by products than a larger packer, how can they pay more money for cattle?

Try that simple question Hayseed. Just one simple question. Dazzle us with your knowledge of the packing industry.

Hayseed: "Your lying smoke screens and people like you have broke some good ranching families."

Oh, I see, now I am to blame for ranching families going out of the business.

Hayseed, all you have is discrediting antics. You haven't presented a single valid argument to support what you want to believe.

Hayseed: "There have been folks come on this board that know you personally and stated you are a parasite...........now the question become "why"? money?"

Wow, now you have really reached a low point. Hmmm??? How do I address that. Ok, first let's assume it's actually true. Why would someone consider me a "parasite". Well, I suppose someone would consider me a "parasite" if every day they are inundated on their local radio station and through R-CALF propoganda that lower cattle prices are due to market manipulation by the large corporate packers and my research has led me to different conclusions. So I presented my views and the reasons for my views on this site to hundreds of readers. Rather than prove me wrong with opposing facts to the contrary or presenting facts to support their popular anti packer views, they found it easier to just discredit me by calling me a parasite.

Anyone who would resort to discrediting me though name calling rather than a debate of the facts probably would consider me a parasite.

Doesn't phase me. I'll stand on the facts.

Hayseed: "I have never needed money so bad that i would be apart of a rancher losing his land,you promote it daily."

No, I promote the undisputed truth about packer profits in contrast to what guys like you want to believe. I promoted the truth about Country of Origin labeling which came to fruition in the "CAN-MEX-USA labels that resulted. I promoted the truth about market manipulation supported by the verdict in Pickett vs. IBP. I promote feeders having the right to determine how they will market their fat cattle rather than market manipulation conspiracy theorists begging for government intervention. I support the promotion of beef and beef by products knowing that the value of beef and beef by products affects live cattle prices.

Hayseed: "One question you asked just got answered again they bought the judge in the Pickett case,and tossed the jurors decision aside like it meant nothin"

So you believe they bought off Judge Strom, they bought off the appeals court, and they bought off the supreme court. Glad we got that straight.

Anything else?

Try to have a better day Hayseed. There's lots to be thankful for.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed: "sh since you are undoubtedly an expert on the pickett trial,and have stated many times it was a waste of cattlemen money on legal fees,tell me what were the legal fees ?"

Don't know what the legal fees were. Only know they were a waste of valuable resources in light of the outcome and only served to make lawyers rich.

Hayseed: "Damn how time flys,I could have swore you donated a $100 to R calf recently,when you had Sandhusker mail it for you ?"

No, I was not the one who donated $100 to R-CALF. Sandhusker sent that donation and credited to me. Big difference but you would like to believe I donated to R-CALF because like so many other R-CALFers, what you want to believe is more important than what facts will support.

Hayseed: "By the way is that brother in law of yours still driving around with that big ole R Calf sticker on his pickup ?"

Yup, there's lots of folks with R-CALF stickers on their vehicles. Doesn't mean that I should follow the crowd. My decisions are based on what facts will support, not what others believe. R-CALF is 0 & 9 in court. That's what I believe.

Hayseed: "BS........I could quote a thousand valid reasons for ranch sales,what's the point ?"

The point is real simple. You believe many ranchers are going out of the business because of the large packers and I'm telling you there is hundreds of reasons for ranchers going out of the business that have nothing to do with the packing industry.

Hayseed: "We are talking about the packing industry and the loss of land because of captive supplies and all the other scams the Ami institutes."

Exactly! So if there is other reasons for ranchers selling their land, how can you credit it to captive supplies and other scams that you believe in?

If you were to think it through, the only way you could credit a single factor for being responsible for someone's land sale is if you sorted out all the other factors that contribute to land sales.

Hayseed: "Packers are a necessary evil to kept on a short rope,there ain't a damn one of them worth minimum wage including tyson himself,why should the sorry sobs make the majority of money on fat cattle,sit on their ass all day talking on the phone while they steal labor from illegals on the kill floor."

Stealing labor from illegals on the kill floor? You mean the packing plant laborers are there against their will? You mean they should be paid a higher wage? Hmmm?? Perhaps they should be paid a higher wage but guess what Hayseed, higher wages means higher expenses. Higher expenses means less money to pay for cattle. You ask any processing plant around whether or not they can pay more or less for cattle if they raise their expenses. Ask them Hayseed. Go to your local locker plant and ask them and let us know what the answer is.

Hayseed: "While the rancher is up at dawn doing all the things that ranching requires to get by,and we do it till dark most days.and pray for rain at night,all so the tysons of the world can drive cattle prices down with their captive supplies to buy another yacht."

Hayseed, anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the cattle market knows that the markets move up and down. Anyone that has sold fat cattle in the last year knows that fat cattle prices were as much as $1.00 per head. Ok, so based on that knowledge, what happened to captive supplies and packer concentration to allow markets to go higher??? Hmmm??? Are packer less concentrated? Did the number of captive supplies go down? Are packers feeling guilty and decided to give feeders more money? How do you argue the simple fact that markets move up and down in light of your theories on market manipulation and captive supplies?

If you can't deny the obvious, then why would packers allow prices to go higher? Hmmmm???

Care to try your hand at that one?

Hayseed: "And dont make the stupid remark "gee haymaker if there is so much money is meat cutting why dont you open a packing house" tired of hearin that crap."

Why are you tired of hearing it? Cuts too close to the truth? You think the packers should pay you what you think is a fair price no matter what their income and expenses are? Gee, wouldn't that be nice.

Hayseed: "I would'nt own a packing house if you gave it to me,my love for the land and clean air water fresh soil........no you are the type that would be a good packer,the smell and you would mix right nicely."

As a matter of fact, I did invest in a packing company once, Northern Plains Premium Beef. It never made it off the ground. Future Beef lasted a year then it folded. I guess we both should have followed the lead of USPB and invested in an existing plant instead of the cost of concrete and mortar. USPB has worked out but not to the profit level you believe is there.

The obvious question that should be on the mind of anyone who can think rationally would be this, why did these companies fail if there is as much money to be made in the packing industry as packer blamers like you would like others to believe? Hmmmm??

Are you ready to enter a civil debate or would you like to continue with the personal attacks. Doesn't matter to me either way.


~SH~