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

Mistakes made in my book

Red Robin

Well-known member
GREENFIELD, Mo. -- Rumors are raising a real stink. Word of a hog producing company from North Carolina eyeing hundreds, maybe thousands, of acres north of Lockwood got around fast and the Dade County Commission took pre-emptive action this month. However, a new county regulation that might stymie the company also impacts other businesses in the county.

Brian Patton's 300-cow dairy farm is one of many cattle operations in Dade County. He worries that a new ordinance that county commissioners passed to try to keep out a large corporate hog farm could hurt people like him, too.

“They don't understand the sights, sounds, and smells of America making food,” said Patton, who called the ordinance "a knee-jerk reaction to something that might happen."

Patton has a waste management system in place, and his existing dairy does not come in conflict with the new ordinance but he worries, if his children would want to expand the operation, it could cause problems.

“I want to keep things viable for them in the future,” he said.

Rumors have been circulating the past couple months that Smithfield Farms of North Carolina is trying to acquire 10,000 to 20,000 acres of land north of Lockwood for a corporate hog farm. Many Dade County residents want to keep it out, so commissioners quickly passed an ordinance.

“It looked like we were trying to push something over on the rest of the county but that wasn't our intent,” said Presiding County Commissioner Carl Beerly.

The new county health ordinance puts limits on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) like Patton's farm. It requires strict handling of animal waste, and establishes setbacks of one-fourth mile to one mile for different sized operations from other CAFOs and from homes.

"I've never felt better about doing anything before in my whole life," said Beerly. "With these [CAFO] farms, everything leaves, nothing stays in the county. They have their own feed farms and all the property values go down for the surrounding houses."

Beerly said he hopes the ordinance discourages large animal farms from moving into the county. If they do come, he said, at least there will be regulations for them to follow.

One concern that Dade County residents have about a large hog operation coming to the area is how the animal waste would affect their water supply, including the water at Stockton Lake.

“We're worried about the water pollution and runoff, and the smell, naturally,” said Beerly.

Patton believes the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' regulations are strict enough to keep a healthy environment. He believes health ordinances should protect public health, not regulate farming.

“The word CAFO -- you might as well have said Satan just entered the county and bought property, because they don't really understand what's happening already, what's already in place,” said Patton, whose farm is a Class 4 CAFO.

Residents are also concerned about a drop in property value around such a large hog operation.

Because county commissioners wanted to move so quickly, they didn't have time to draft their own ordinance but adopted one already being used in Linn County, although Beerly says it can be amended. Beerly said Linn County’s model ordinance was chosen because it already withstood court challenges.
----

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
------------------------------------------------------------
I heard that the local news media showed sows wallowing in mud when they were airing news programs about this deal. Southwest Missouri lost a bunch of jobs and certainly some money spent back into the economy because of their decision. These rual areas gripe that the kids move off to get jobs , yet when given the choice of new industry, they block them. In the end, smithfield could move just over the line in Ks. and Aplus's kids will eventually have the jobs. I know of another little town in south missouri where they oppose a sonic because the coffee shop couldn't stand the pressure. :lol:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
THIS STILL holds true in every economy everywhere on this globe.
This part carries the truth.

One Missouri study found that a $5 million investment in a large-scale hog farm would generate 40-50 new jobs but would displace about three times that number of independent hog farmers. (5)

A 1993 study in Minnesota found that small livestock farmers (those with annual gross sales of less than $400,000) spent about 79 percent of their purchases within 20 miles of the farm. Large livestock farmers spent only 47.5 percent. (6) A study by Virginia Tech compared the benefits that accrue to a community when 5,000 hogs are produced by family farms to those gained when a 5,000-hog vertically integrated corporation sets up shop. It found that independent farmers produced 10 percent more permanent jobs and generated 20 percent more local retail spending and 37 percent higher local per capita income. (7) The Center for Rural Affairs found that in the two North Carolina counties with almost 50 percent of the state’s hogs, the number of farm jobs fell by over a third, population stagnated and sales and property taxes fell behind the state’s own growth rates. (8)

Yet for purposes of public policy, an even wider lens is needed: one that takes into account the intimate connection between the structure of the agricultural economy and the structure and quality of community life. Walter Goldschmidt did pioneering work in this area 50 years ago as a researcher for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, when he examined two farm communities in California’s San Joaquin Valley. (9) The communities were chosen for their remarkable similarity: each had the same volume of crop production, comparable soil quality and similar climate. Both communities were equidistant from major urban areas and were similarly served by highways and rail lines. They differed in only one major respect: the Dinuba economy was based on many small family farms. The town of Arvin depended on a few large-scale agribusiness farming operations.

Goldschmidt discovered that Dinuba’s family farm economy provided its residents with a substantially higher median income and standard of living. Moreover, the citizens of Dinuba, to a far greater extent than their counterparts in Arvin, were involved in building a strong community.

For example, the quality and quantity of projects that benefited the entire community, like paved streets and sidewalks and garbage and sewage disposal, were far superior in Dinuba. Arvin had no high school and only one elementary school; Dinuba provided its citizens with four elementary schools and a high school. Dinuba had three public parks; the agribusiness town had a single playground, lent by a corporation.

Along with expanding their community’s physical infrastructure, Dinuba’s residents built up its civic infrastructure. Dinuba had more than twice the number of civic associations as Arvin. In Dinuba, various governmental bodies existed that enabled residents to make decisions about the public welfare through direct popular vote. No such bodies existed in Arvin.

Goldschmidt’s findings have been supported by more recent studies. Sociologist Linda Lobao summed up their findings, “an agricultural structure that was increasingly corporate and non family owned tended to lead to population decline, lower incomes, fewer community services, less participation in democratic processes, less retail trade environmental pollution, more unemployment and an emerging rigid class structure.” (10)

University of Missouri agricultural economist John Ikerd summarizes the empirical findings regarding hog farms, “There is clear evidence that independently-owned, modest-sized, family-operated hog farms can be commercially competitive with current contract production units. There is also clear evidence that successful, modest sized family operated hog farms contribute more to the economic and social well-being of rural communities than do their corporate counterparts.” (11)
 

Tex

Well-known member
One of the best things that could happen to the corporate hog farmers in the Carolinas was a limit on new farms because of the waste disposal systems (there was environmental damage after hurricane and floods). The state would not allow new ones to be built.

The reason it was good was that if one of these farmers were to go under, that amount of production would not be replaced because it could not by another factory farm. The packers had to be good to their farmers or they lost supply.

The game packers play with their supply is to make the purchase of the farmers product good enough for farmers to make investments (mostly single use buildings and equipment) and then put the screws to them in subsequent years by requiring continual upgrades the farmers must make on his dime with no compensation or not be able to use the farm investments at all--the packer will cut them off. What continual upgrades do not take out of the farmer's profit, inflation will.

Then packers offer a better deal to new farmers to induce them into the business. They pay more or advantage the new farmers through the things in they control in their contract.

One of the main goals is to have farmers owing debt. When you owe debt, as Dave Ramsey says, you are a slave. The debt does not allow farmers to get out of the business without suffering great financial loss--often their land and homes. Since the contracts are not paid based on just on the product that is produced, but also the facilities are used, the packers have automatically discounted the value of their farms. The packers in this way control their supply going into their plants with no effect if one farmer decides to get out of the ponzi scheme. Another way they control the supply for a particular plant is through the velocity or the rapidity that there is a turn around, if there is one farm that goes under.

They thus are able to keep their farmers

They have built a supply system that is the cheapest -- but off the backs of the farmers- because they pay their existing farmers their variable costs, which does not include profit. The new farmers who are induced into the system are have to be shown to paid a profit, or they would not invest in the operation in the first place. That is the reason they pay them more for the same product utilizing a variety of tricks or unfair advantages, which of course, is outlawed under the Packers and Stockyards Act:



(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or

(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; or

(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or

(d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or

(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)

Of course this this the law the packers tried to get rid of legislatively but were not able to.

The Pickett case decision allowed them to do this.


This is why the new farm bill has much of title 10, to correct these problems the courts have not.

Find title 10 by going to agriculture.senate.gov and then go to Section by sections, and look up title 10.

Here is the amendment that will change the liberal court's decision:


Harkin-Enzi No Competitive Injury Amendment #3667 - (Clarification that the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) Protects Individual Farmers from Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice) –VOTE IN SUPPORT OF HARKIN ENZI AMENDMENT

For 85 years that Packers and Stockyards Act has protected individual farmers from unfair and deceptive trade practices. However, some judges have recently required producers to also show not only individual harm, but also "competitive harm" to the entire industry. The "competitive harm" language is not in the Act. This amendment will return PSA interpretation to its original intent, and is supported by the USDA. (See fact sheet at http://tinyurl.com/2qtejb ).

Tester-Harkin Grassley No Legitimate Business Justification Amendment #3666- VOTE IN SUPPORT OF TESTER HARKIN GRASSLEY AMENDMENT

Price manipulation is wrong, and prohibited by the Packers & Stockyards Act (PSA). Some judges have recently ruled that price manipulation is excused if the packer had a legitimate business justification, such as buying sufficient livestock, though this language is not in the PSA. Packers can buy livestock without manipulating prices. This amendment will return PSA interpretation to its original intent. (See fact sheet at http://tinyurl.com/335qr5 ).
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
I disagree with you fellas. I'd love to see a 10,000-20,000 acre hog and cattle operation in my county. We don't have any hog farmers to displace (neither does dade county to my knowledge) so it'd be a positive to us.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
What about,Engaging in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
I disagree with you fellas. I'd love to see a 10,000-20,000 acre hog and cattle operation in my county. We don't have any hog farmers to displace (neither does dade county to my knowledge) so it'd be a positive to us.

The pig producers did get in bed with Tyson and got burned by Tyson. They prevailed in their lengthy lawsuit against Tyson.

I guess you would like to see that happen all over again, huh, rr-- as long as it is not you.

If Oklahoma and Arkansas think they have pollution problems now, let them get one of these farms.

I hope they move in right next to you.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Tex said:
Red Robin said:
I disagree with you fellas. I'd love to see a 10,000-20,000 acre hog and cattle operation in my county. We don't have any hog farmers to displace (neither does dade county to my knowledge) so it'd be a positive to us.

The pig producers did get in bed with Tyson and got burned by Tyson. They prevailed in their lengthy lawsuit against Tyson.

I guess you would like to see that happen all over again, huh, rr-- as long as it is not you.

If Oklahoma and Arkansas think they have pollution problems now, let them get one of these farms.

I hope they move in right next to you.
You know tex you keep saying all these tyson growers have gone broke, I just don't see that here. I know a young girl that bought 4 or 6 houses (can't remember) with her parents help. She's lived in a rent house and done a lot of the work herself and I talked to her mother a few weeks back who told me she almost has the houses paid off . How else could a early 30's young lady have accumulated so much equity? I wonder if the cases of people going broke that you know so much about have anything to do with mismanaging either their houses or their money? Here , every tyson grower that I personally know of are doing fine. They are not as good as they were before the increase cost of energy but they're all still profitable. On the water issue, I couldn't tell you about Oklahoma or farther north west in Arkansas but here you can drink out of any spring around. Water is very good. Cold, clear and clean. What polution I would imagine is there is probably in crooked creek which borders town and housing developments for a large portion if it's way through the county. If I was thirsty I wouldn't care to drink from it either. I have a lot of times. I border crooked creek for a ways and other than the hot dry summer months when it almost goes dry, it's clear and clean ,at least on my upper end.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Tex said:
Red Robin said:
I disagree with you fellas. I'd love to see a 10,000-20,000 acre hog and cattle operation in my county. We don't have any hog farmers to displace (neither does dade county to my knowledge) so it'd be a positive to us.

The pig producers did get in bed with Tyson and got burned by Tyson. They prevailed in their lengthy lawsuit against Tyson.

I guess you would like to see that happen all over again, huh, rr-- as long as it is not you.

If Oklahoma and Arkansas think they have pollution problems now, let them get one of these farms.

I hope they move in right next to you.
You know tex you keep saying all these tyson growers have gone broke, I just don't see that here. I know a young girl that bought 4 or 6 houses (can't remember) with her parents help. She's lived in a rent house and done a lot of the work herself and I talked to her mother a few weeks back who told me she almost has the houses paid off . How else could a early 30's young lady have accumulated so much equity? I wonder if the cases of people going broke that you know so much about have anything to do with mismanaging either their houses or their money? Here , every tyson grower that I personally know of are doing fine. They are not as good as they were before the increase cost of energy but they're all still profitable. On the water issue, I couldn't tell you about Oklahoma or farther north west in Arkansas but here you can drink out of any spring around. Water is very good. Cold, clear and clean. What polution I would imagine is there is probably in crooked creek which borders town and housing developments for a large portion if it's way through the county. If I was thirsty I wouldn't care to drink from it either. I have a lot of times. I border crooked creek for a ways and other than the hot dry summer months when it almost goes dry, it's clear and clean ,at least on my upper end.

I really can't help your myopic vision, rr. You just don't know what is going on and all you can say is "My neighbors are doing fine".

Arkansas Supreme Court Upholds Lower Court Ruling, Hog Farmer Case To Go Before Jury
Tyson Foods Fails to Honor the Term of the Contract for Certain Growers
Other News and Resources
Jury Awards $1.3 Billion to Cattlemen in Pickett v. Tyson
Remembering the Life of Betsy Lydon
Country Music Television premieres Farm Aid: The Fight Goes On March 5 at 10pm
RAFI-USA Fundraiser at Weaver Street Market's Panzanella on March 24

************************************************

Arkansas Supreme Court Upholds Lower Court Ruling, Hog Farmer Case To Go Before Jury

The Arkansas Supreme Court ensured that former Tyson finished hog and feeder pig farmers from Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma will have the opportunity to have their case against Tyson heard by a judge and a jury. The Court issued the ruling February 19th denying Tyson's appeal of their motion to compel arbitration, upholding Pope County Circuit Judge Ken Coker's February 21, 2003, decision.

The decision is good news to the hundred plus hog farmers working to hold Tyson accountable for the tremendous damages the farmers sustained as a result of Tyson's broken commitments and sets a positive precedent for all Arkansas farmers signing production and marketing contracts. It also highlights the need for timely federal action to provide consistent and unquestionable protection of farmers' constitutional right to a fair trail.

"We are elated with the Court's decision, and we look forward to bringing this case before a jury of Arkansas citizens, Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, L.L.P. (Hare Wynn) attorney Clark Mason of Little Rock said. "Thankfully, we can continue to move forward and the farmers will have the fair trial they deserve."

The Court's ruling comes a year and a half after the August 18, 2002 telephone calls that Tyson Foods Inc. made to the hog farmers, informing them of Tyson's intention to terminate their working relationship. Hare Wynn filed a lawsuit on behalf of more than 80 farmers in the Pope County Circuit Court on September 12, 2002, citing Tyson's disregard for their corporate responsibility in the abandonment of its farmers, and the financial devastation the profit- driven decision has and will cause. Since that time, the number of farmers represented by Hare Wynn has grown to more than 100, as additional farmers have joined the suit.

"This case has certainly illustrated how long and tedious the legal process can be," Mason said. "A lot of patience has been required on the part of these tireless farmers, but the waiting is well worth it now that justice has been served and Tyson has been unsuccessful in their attempt to avoid facing a jury."

The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling that the arbitration clause within the Tyson hog contracts was unenforceable because it fails to meet the contract standards established by Arkansas courts. Specifically, it fails to meet the test of "mutual obligation." In one section of the Tyson hog contract it requires any dispute which arises between the parties to be submitted to arbitration. In another section it states that if Tyson decides the producer has failed to honor the producer obligations, Tyson has the right to take over the producer's swine facilities and "may also pursue any other remedies at law or equity."

In delivering the Opinion, Arkansas Supreme Court Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin said: "This court has recognized that mutuality of contract means that an obligation must rest on each party to do or permit to be done something in consideration of the act or promise of the other; thus, neither party is bound unless both are bound. ... t is clear from our cases discussing mutuality that one party cannot limit another party to the exclusive remedy of arbitration, while retaining the ability to pursue other judicial remedies for themselves. We have repeatedly stated that there is no mutuality where one party uses an arbitration agreement to shield itself from litigation, while at the same time reserving its own ability to pursue relief through the court system."


While the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the growers' right to a fair trial, it referenced established Arkansas contract construction standards that included mutual obligation.

Not every state has the same standards. A number of courts have found that this lack of mutuality is not enough to make an arbitration clause unenforceable. In states such as Oklahoma and Alabama, contract farmers could be forced to waive their judicial rights while the company retains full access to our American judicial system.

Congress has recognized the potential for mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration clauses to be abused by the more powerful party in a contract with regard to other sectors of our economy. In 2002, legislation was enacted with broad bipartisan support that prohibits the use of pre-dispute, mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts between car dealers and car manufacturers and distributors. Likewise, the US Senate passed a similar amendment to the Senate Farm Bill that concerned livestock and poultry contracts. (The amendment was dropped in conference.)

In 2003, Senators Grassley (R- IA) and Feingold (D- WI) introduced the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2003 (S. 91), which would simply give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with livestock and poultry contracts.

This legislation would not prohibit arbitration. Instead, it would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. As with the car dealer arbitration provision enacted in 2002, the bill would require both parties to agree voluntarily to arbitration after a dispute arises. The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If the Fair Contracts for Growers Act had been enacted, these Arkansas hog farmers, who lost almost everything when their contracts were abruptly ended, would not have had to invest the time, money and resources of the last year and a half just to win the right have their complaint heard.
For a copy of the Arkansas Supreme Court decision: http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2004a/20040219/03-649.htmlhttp://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2004a/20040219/03-649.html

For more information on the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2003 (S. 91) visit the RAFI-USA Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform web page on the RAFI-USA web site.

*************************************************************

Tyson Foods Fails to Honor the Term of the Contract for Certain Growers

In Florida, Tyson has taken the position that it can cease bringing chicks to a farm even if there are months or years left on the contract and does not have to pay the grower for the remainder of the contract. This could undermine the security of any long term Tyson contract, whether in the poultry, beef or pork industry.

Two former poultry growers from the Jacksonville, Florida area are currently suing Tyson for damages the growers claim they suffered when Tyson closed its Jacksonville operation in December 2002. The growers allege numerous acts of wrongdoing that Tyson has denied. Tyson does not deny the growers' contracts have not expired and that Tyson is not compensating these growers for the lost income.

One of the two former growers signed a year long contract, the other signed a three year long contract; both contracts were due to expire on March 1, 2003, approximately 85 days after the plant closure was announced. Tyson notified all growers in writing that even if they refused to sign a settlement with Tyson, the company would honor the contract and pay them a calculated daily rate through the end of the contract even though the grower would not have any more flocks. Tyson calculated how much each grower had received in gross flock income on a daily basis. Growers who signed the settlement and release received payment based on the per diem rate for the number of days left on each grower's contract.

However, Tyson refused to pay the calculated daily rate to the two growers who would not sign the settlement and release even though the company admits that the contracts did not expire until March 1, 2003, that it did not cancel the contracts before March 1, 2003, and that it did not accelerate the term ending date of March 1, 2003.

Though Tyson did pay Jacksonville growers for the remainder of their contracts if they signed a release, the clear implication is that Tyson has determined that it has no legal obligation to pay growers through the expiration date of contracts if it chooses to quit placing birds with a grower.

For more information contact: Clay Fulcher, attorney at 479-636-7899 or Laura Klauke, RAFI-USA at 919-542-1396.]


By the way, the pig farmers settled out of court with the terms sealed by Tyson lawyers.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
How do you know more about my neighbors than I do Tex? What does tyson's pig deal have to do with smithfield's deal in Missouri? Stay on topic and quit going on your mindless rants.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
How do you know more about my neighbors than I do Tex? What does tyson's pig deal have to do with smithfield's deal in Missouri? Stay on topic and quit going on your mindless rants.

I don't know about your neighbors, and everything you say may be true about them. You can not, however, deny what is happening across the country just because of your neighbor's situation.

If Tyson, Smithfield or others don't have to even honor their own contracts, you bet, it has everything to do with their expansion elsewhere.

Admit it, rr, you just don't know what is happening and don't want to. I brought up facts, and you brought up your neighbors. You don't know what is happening.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Tex said:
Red Robin said:
How do you know more about my neighbors than I do Tex? What does tyson's pig deal have to do with smithfield's deal in Missouri? Stay on topic and quit going on your mindless rants.

I don't know about your neighbors, and everything you say may be true about them. You can not, however, deny what is happening across the country just because of your neighbor's situation.

If Tyson, Smithfield or others don't have to even honor their own contracts, you bet, it has everything to do with their expansion elsewhere.

Admit it, rr, you just don't know what is happening and don't want to. I brought up facts, and you brought up your neighbors. You don't know what is happening.
I am talking first hand to my neighbors. You're just grabbing junk off of a website...and you say I don't know what's going on. :???:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Tex said:
Red Robin said:
How do you know more about my neighbors than I do Tex? What does tyson's pig deal have to do with smithfield's deal in Missouri? Stay on topic and quit going on your mindless rants.

I don't know about your neighbors, and everything you say may be true about them. You can not, however, deny what is happening across the country just because of your neighbor's situation.

If Tyson, Smithfield or others don't have to even honor their own contracts, you bet, it has everything to do with their expansion elsewhere.

Admit it, rr, you just don't know what is happening and don't want to. I brought up facts, and you brought up your neighbors. You don't know what is happening.
I am talking first hand to my neighbors. You're just grabbing junk off of a website...and you say I don't know what's going on. :???:

Junk off the web?

I have talked to the litigants in the cases above. There are many.

Stop lusting after your neighbor's success and get back to what is really happening in the industry.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Tex said:
Stop lusting after your neighbor's success and get back to what is really happening in the industry.
You really can't have a decent day unless you draw someone into a fight huh econ. I have no envy or lust for anyone in the chicken business. I've had some great opportunities over the years to get in that business and with the cost of commercial fertilizer going ever upward it appears I am a fool for not doing it. It's a great business to add to any cow operation. You're a blamer econ. Everything is the governments fault, the big evil corporations fault, someone elses fault. I don't see things that way. I am what I am because I choose to be, good or bad. Just like you choose to be what you are.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Tex said:
Stop lusting after your neighbor's success and get back to what is really happening in the industry.
You really can't have a decent day unless you draw someone into a fight huh econ. I have no envy or lust for anyone in the chicken business. I've had some great opportunities over the years to get in that business and with the cost of commercial fertilizer going ever upward it appears I am a fool for not doing it. It's a great business to add to any cow operation. You're a blamer econ. Everything is the governments fault, the big evil corporations fault, someone elses fault. I don't see things that way. I am what I am because I choose to be, good or bad. Just like you choose to be what you are.

Ignore the facts, rr, if you want to. You will have no one to blame but yourself.

Drew Edmonson, I believe, still has an outstanding lawsuit against Tyson et al for the pollution problems that are real hin his state's watershed.

Ignore everything but what you and your neighbor discuss and ignore what is really happening. Call those who disagree with you blamers if you want. It is your right to be ignorant of the facts, even when presented to you.

"stupid is as stupid does"
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Tex said:
Red Robin said:
Tex said:
Stop lusting after your neighbor's success and get back to what is really happening in the industry.
You really can't have a decent day unless you draw someone into a fight huh econ. I have no envy or lust for anyone in the chicken business. I've had some great opportunities over the years to get in that business and with the cost of commercial fertilizer going ever upward it appears I am a fool for not doing it. It's a great business to add to any cow operation. You're a blamer econ. Everything is the governments fault, the big evil corporations fault, someone elses fault. I don't see things that way. I am what I am because I choose to be, good or bad. Just like you choose to be what you are.

Ignore the facts, rr, if you want to. You will have no one to blame but yourself.

Drew Edmonson, I believe, still has an outstanding lawsuit against Tyson et al for the pollution problems that are real hin his state's watershed.

Ignore everything but what you and your neighbor discuss and ignore what is really happening. Call those who disagree with you blamers if you want. It is your right to be ignorant of the facts, even when presented to you.

"stupid is as stupid does"
You just don't get it do you econ. I don't want anyone to blame.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Tex said:
Red Robin said:
You really can't have a decent day unless you draw someone into a fight huh econ. I have no envy or lust for anyone in the chicken business. I've had some great opportunities over the years to get in that business and with the cost of commercial fertilizer going ever upward it appears I am a fool for not doing it. It's a great business to add to any cow operation. You're a blamer econ. Everything is the governments fault, the big evil corporations fault, someone elses fault. I don't see things that way. I am what I am because I choose to be, good or bad. Just like you choose to be what you are.

Ignore the facts, rr, if you want to. You will have no one to blame but yourself.

Drew Edmonson, I believe, still has an outstanding lawsuit against Tyson et al for the pollution problems that are real hin his state's watershed.

Ignore everything but what you and your neighbor discuss and ignore what is really happening. Call those who disagree with you blamers if you want. It is your right to be ignorant of the facts, even when presented to you.

"stupid is as stupid does"
You just don't get it do you econ. I don't want anyone to blame.

It isn't about blaming, rr, it is about the truth. You keep extolling the virtues of working with these packers and you don't even do it-- you have your neighbor. You don't know what is happening in the industry at all. Then you say you don't like people who blame others.

Is every time you go to court to have the law enforced a "blaming"?

Would you rather we all carry guns and get our own justice?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Tex said:
You keep extolling the virtues of working with these packers and you don't even do it-- you have your neighbor. You don't know what is happening in the industry at all. Then you say you don't like people who blame others.

Is every time you go to court to have the law enforced a "blaming"?

Would you rather we all carry guns and get our own justice?
Texecon is there something you can add to the topic of the thread? Do you think a county commissioner is doing his job when he thawarts the efforts of progress to his community? If they are wanting to pave your road, will you set your fence back or are you one of the neighbors that love the road but are unwilling to give anything for it? You enjoy the taxes that Smithfield pays into your government and the taxes the employees pay into your government but you don't like Smithfield. Seems illogical. What's with the gun reference? I dont' get it. I'm certainly not gunning for Smithfield.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Tex said:
You keep extolling the virtues of working with these packers and you don't even do it-- you have your neighbor. You don't know what is happening in the industry at all. Then you say you don't like people who blame others.

Is every time you go to court to have the law enforced a "blaming"?

Would you rather we all carry guns and get our own justice?
Texecon is there something you can add to the topic of the thread? Do you think a county commissioner is doing his job when he thawarts the efforts of progress to his community? If they are wanting to pave your road, will you set your fence back or are you one of the neighbors that love the road but are unwilling to give anything for it? You enjoy the taxes that Smithfield pays into your government and the taxes the employees pay into your government but you don't like Smithfield. Seems illogical. What's with the gun reference? I dont' get it. I'm certainly not gunning for Smithfield.

Let me back up and refer to what I posted. I posted examples where packers, and in this case it was not Smithfield, but Tyson, did not honor its contracts. I also posted information where the packers are able to pay more to get someone to put up a huge investment and then lower what they pay after that investment is made and sunk. I also pointed out where what they were doing was illegal under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Then you dismissed my arguments calling me a "blamer".

My question to you was, are farmers supposed to settle their differences in court (then you call them blamers) or are they supposed to get their own justice, if you don't think they should ask for the laws of the land to be enforced?

I really don't care where Smithfield puts up a new plant. If they are paying farmers more in one region than another or advantaging certain farmers (new ones) in order to induce them to invest in a ponzi type scheme and not paying the same compensation to existing farmers, I have a problem with that.

You brought out the "blamer" name when you ran out of arguments. My question to you was do you expect them to use their own means of getting justice instead of being a "blamer" as you put it?

What you call progress may not be what everyone calls progress. I hope Smithfield puts in an operation right next to your home. You might just understand some of the issues then. You will have another neighbor to ask.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Tex said:
Let me back up and refer to what I posted. I posted examples where packers, and in this case it was not Smithfield, but Tyson, did not honor its contracts.
Exactly Tyson , not Smithfield. I can show you were walmart has done some dirty things. Should I then not shop at kmart??? :???:
I also posted information where the packers are able to pay more to get someone to put up a huge investment and then lower what they pay after that investment is made and sunk.
You're off topic again. Smithfield wasn't looking for growers, they were investing their own money.
I also pointed out where what they were doing was illegal under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Then you dismissed my arguments calling me a "blamer
". Again this has no bearing .

My question to you was, are farmers supposed to settle their differences in court (then you call them blamers) or are they supposed to get their own justice, if you don't think they should ask for the laws of the land to be enforced?
What farmers? Smithfield isn't looking for growers???? :???: Are you paying attention Econ?

I really don't care where Smithfield puts up a new plant.
If you were the man with the 15,000 acres of land for sale, you would.
If they are paying farmers more in one region than another or advantaging certain farmers (new ones) in order to induce them to invest in a ponzi type scheme and not paying the same compensation to existing farmers, I have a problem with that.
You have some personal grudge that's skewing your outlook. This sentence again has no bearing on the topic of the thread.
You brought out the "blamer" name when you ran out of arguments. My question to you was do you expect them to use their own means of getting justice instead of being a "blamer" as you put it?
You blame the evil politicians (Bush) for half of the worlds problems and Tyson for the other half. There's more life than blaming someone.
What you call progress may not be what everyone calls progress.
Here you go redifining terms again...
I hope Smithfield puts in an operation right next to your home.
At least we agree on something. If they have a 15,000 acres farm, maybe they'll sell me some hog litter cheap and I can grow more grass.
You might just understand some of the issues then.
Your issues were never part of this thread.
 
Top