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

More news from the Canadian beef industry

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Producer plants are not dead in Canada.

A proposed plant is still moving forward near High Level Alberta.

It will be a hog and cattle plant with biogas energy production.

I read the article in The Alberta Express newspaper. The web site www.albertaexpress.ca

Another paper has an article about a B.C plant that has passed their 1 year anniversary.

Blue Mountian Packers in Salmon Arm B.C. kills over 30 month cattle.

According to the president Bob Kuziw sales are finally starting to pick up.

General Manager Tom Vicars said the biggest trouble other than attracting customers, was the red tape in being HACCP certified.

Nothing was said about the big players putting the squeeze on them.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Producer plants are not dead in Canada.

A proposed plant is still moving forward near High Level Alberta.

It will be a hog and cattle plant with biogas energy production.

I read the article in The Alberta Express newspaper. The web site www.albertaexpress.ca

Another paper has an article about a B.C plant that has passed their 1 year anniversary.

Blue Mountian Packers in Salmon Arm B.C. kills over 30 month cattle.

According to the president Bob Kuziw sales are finally starting to pick up.

General Manager Tom Vicars said the biggest trouble other than attracting customers, was the red tape in being HACCP certified.

Nothing was said about the big players putting the squeeze on them.

So in your mind does that prove that they don't put the "squeeze" on them?
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
I'm glad to see start ups like this making a go of it, but 1 year isn't survival. Common business rule of thumb is the 3rd anniversary is the tell. If they can make it work that long, chances are they'll continue to make it work. Of course, this is a massive generalization, especially in a marketplace that is currently consolidating.

Rod
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Econ101 said:
Jason said:
Producer plants are not dead in Canada.

A proposed plant is still moving forward near High Level Alberta.

It will be a hog and cattle plant with biogas energy production.

I read the article in The Alberta Express newspaper. The web site www.albertaexpress.ca

Another paper has an article about a B.C plant that has passed their 1 year anniversary.

Blue Mountian Packers in Salmon Arm B.C. kills over 30 month cattle.

According to the president Bob Kuziw sales are finally starting to pick up.

General Manager Tom Vicars said the biggest trouble other than attracting customers, was the red tape in being HACCP certified.

Nothing was said about the big players putting the squeeze on them.

So in your mind does that prove that they don't put the "squeeze" on them?

Jason, is that a "no"? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Rod, year 1 is a milestone, but I will agree that after 3 years it will be nice to watch them survive. I don't know much about them, but wish them well.
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Econ101 said:
Jason said:
Producer plants are not dead in Canada.

A proposed plant is still moving forward near High Level Alberta.

It will be a hog and cattle plant with biogas energy production.

I read the article in The Alberta Express newspaper. The web site www.albertaexpress.ca

Another paper has an article about a B.C plant that has passed their 1 year anniversary.

Blue Mountian Packers in Salmon Arm B.C. kills over 30 month cattle.

According to the president Bob Kuziw sales are finally starting to pick up.

General Manager Tom Vicars said the biggest trouble other than attracting customers, was the red tape in being HACCP certified.

Nothing was said about the big players putting the squeeze on them.

So in your mind does that prove that they don't put the "squeeze" on them?

What's your point? Care to name an industry where the established players don't react to a new kid on the block? Nothing earth shattering about that.

Jason's post does a good job of providing live examples of startup entities. New entries have two choices against established players: either hit 'em where they ain't, or do what they do better.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Beefman said:
Econ101 said:
Jason said:
Producer plants are not dead in Canada.

A proposed plant is still moving forward near High Level Alberta.

It will be a hog and cattle plant with biogas energy production.

I read the article in The Alberta Express newspaper. The web site www.albertaexpress.ca

Another paper has an article about a B.C plant that has passed their 1 year anniversary.

Blue Mountian Packers in Salmon Arm B.C. kills over 30 month cattle.

According to the president Bob Kuziw sales are finally starting to pick up.

General Manager Tom Vicars said the biggest trouble other than attracting customers, was the red tape in being HACCP certified.

Nothing was said about the big players putting the squeeze on them.

So in your mind does that prove that they don't put the "squeeze" on them?

What's your point? Care to name an industry where the established players don't react to a new kid on the block? Nothing earth shattering about that.

Jason's post does a good job of providing live examples of startup entities. New entries have two choices against established players: either hit 'em where they ain't, or do what they do better.

Beefman, Tyson is going to be able to gain market power in beef because they have poultry operations that can subsidize their beef operations when they swing the markets as I have pointed out on this forum. You can not say that opening a beef plant only competes against other Tyson beef plants with this market structure. They are also competing against chicken plants when Tyson owns chicken plants.
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Econ101 said:
Beefman said:
Econ101 said:
So in your mind does that prove that they don't put the "squeeze" on them?

What's your point? Care to name an industry where the established players don't react to a new kid on the block? Nothing earth shattering about that.

Jason's post does a good job of providing live examples of startup entities. New entries have two choices against established players: either hit 'em where they ain't, or do what they do better.

Beefman, Tyson is going to be able to gain market power in beef because they have poultry operations that can subsidize their beef operations when they swing the markets as I have pointed out on this forum. You can not say that opening a beef plant only competes against other Tyson beef plants with this market structure. They are also competing against chicken plants when Tyson owns chicken plants.

Diversity adds to the strength of any port folio. But the key statement in your response is "they swing the markets"...... All those consumers that pushed their shopping carts up and down the aisle of the local grocery store this past weekend........do you think they care that Tyson has both beef / pork facilities? Let's see.....hundreds of millions of buying consumers vs Tyson.......who influences the protein market? Tyson and everyone else serves and answers to the protein market.

Outside of the brand loyality factor, consumers don't care that Tyson has both beef/poultry facilities. Like it or not, if Tyson provides value at a fair price, they get the biz. If they don't, we both know there's lots of competitors that will.

Again, the people Jason lists will be successful if they can outperform Tyson, or hit 'em where they ain't. It's been proven before.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Beefman said:
Econ101 said:
Beefman said:
What's your point? Care to name an industry where the established players don't react to a new kid on the block? Nothing earth shattering about that.

Jason's post does a good job of providing live examples of startup entities. New entries have two choices against established players: either hit 'em where they ain't, or do what they do better.

Beefman, Tyson is going to be able to gain market power in beef because they have poultry operations that can subsidize their beef operations when they swing the markets as I have pointed out on this forum. You can not say that opening a beef plant only competes against other Tyson beef plants with this market structure. They are also competing against chicken plants when Tyson owns chicken plants.

Diversity adds to the strength of any port folio. But the key statement in your response is "they swing the markets"...... All those consumers that pushed their shopping carts up and down the aisle of the local grocery store this past weekend........do you think they care that Tyson has both beef / pork facilities? Let's see.....hundreds of millions of buying consumers vs Tyson.......who influences the protein market? Tyson and everyone else serves and answers to the protein market.

Outside of the brand loyality factor, consumers don't care that Tyson has both beef/poultry facilities. Like it or not, if Tyson provides value at a fair price, they get the biz. If they don't, we both know there's lots of competitors that will.

Again, the people Jason lists will be successful if they can outperform Tyson, or hit 'em where they ain't. It's been proven before.

Beefman, when there is a bit of oversupply in the cattle market, the beef markets can be artificially lowered more than the normal supply/demand equilibrium via the Pickett mechanism with marketing agreements.

This will have the effect of swinging the beef markets and in the subsequent time period allow Tyson to profit off of its poultry industries.

This will put individual packing plants that producers put together at a disadvantage economically.

Substitutes (like chicken) should not have this effect, economically speaking. You may excuse it if you want, but it is another market power play. These packers don't care whether they make their money off of chicken or beef, or international markets. They are in business to make money. If it takes not making as much money in the beef to make a lot more in poultry which they own also, they will swing the beef markets. That comes at the expense of producers.

The poultry industry is already tied up by integrators and it is only a matter of time when that will happen in the beef industry.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
This last post again proves Conman is a complete fraud.

He charges that an artificially lowered beef price will mean higher profits in CHICKEN.

Read it for yourselves

conman said:
when there is a bit of oversupply in the cattle market, the beef markets can be artificially lowered more than the normal supply/demand equilibrium via the Pickett mechanism with marketing agreements.

This will have the effect of swinging the beef markets and in the subsequent time period allow Tyson to profit off of its poultry industries

Beef and chicken doesn't just disappear conman. It all sells, the question is at what price.

With record beef prices Tyson is struggling with low margins in beef, but guess what chicken isn't stellar either. So now what are they making money from?

Some companies have beef interests without chicken, and some have chicken without beef. Tyson cannot push them past the normal cycles of either industry, they have nothing to gain if the competing meat advances.

Blue Mountian is a cattle only facility, they are still in business after 1 year, good for them. The sky is falling chicken syndrome isn't stopping them from living in the real world.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
This last post again proves Conman is a complete fraud.

He charges that an artificially lowered beef price will mean higher profits in CHICKEN.

Read it for yourselves

conman said:
when there is a bit of oversupply in the cattle market, the beef markets can be artificially lowered more than the normal supply/demand equilibrium via the Pickett mechanism with marketing agreements.

This will have the effect of swinging the beef markets and in the subsequent time period allow Tyson to profit off of its poultry industries

Beef and chicken doesn't just disappear conman. It all sells, the question is at what price.

With record beef prices Tyson is struggling with low margins in beef, but guess what chicken isn't stellar either. So now what are they making money from?

Some companies have beef interests without chicken, and some have chicken without beef. Tyson cannot push them past the normal cycles of either industry, they have nothing to gain if the competing meat advances.

Blue Mountian is a cattle only facility, they are still in business after 1 year, good for them. The sky is falling chicken syndrome isn't stopping them from living in the real world.

Jason:"He charges that an artificially lowered beef price will mean higher profits in CHICKEN."

Not always, Jason, but it sure did this last go round. Did you miss the posts where I showed this with earnings reports along with the reasons why?

Micro and Macro are two different things. Micro may have to do with circumstances in an individual firm while macro has to do with the industry as a whole (they can mean other things also but micro means little and macro big). Things can happen in an individual firm that may seem counterintuitive to what is going on in the macro level. Individual successes/failures are just that. If there are many individual successes/failures, they can lead to more broad generalizations and be spoken of on a macro level.

Are these distinctions something that you have an abilitiy to grasp? Do you need another example?
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
You have never posted any proof some would be nice for a change.

You still can't deny that competing firms in chicken will stabilize that market and competing firms in beef will stabilize that market.

IF all companies that have different structure from Tyson were to be bought out or sold off, then and only then would market swings even be possible dictated by Tyson.

A company with 26% of the market is really going to be able to buy the other 74% without competition. If you believe that I have a bridge you might like to buy. :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
You have never posted any proof some would be nice for a change.

You still can't deny that competing firms in chicken will stabilize that market and competing firms in beef will stabilize that market.

IF all companies that have different structure from Tyson were to be bought out or sold off, then and only then would market swings even be possible dictated by Tyson.

A company with 26% of the market is really going to be able to buy the other 74% without competition. If you believe that I have a bridge you might like to buy. :roll:

The proof has already been posted, you just don't want to accept it.

I stated on this forum that the profitability Tyson in the beef business after their market moves was not going to be in beef, it was going to be in chicken. After my posts, the numbers from the chicken side of the business came in and I posted Tyson numbers that substantiated what I was saying. Go read the old posts. If you need extra tutoring go pay for it yourself. I can't educate foreigners who don't want to learn anything anyway. You might get more out of your education if you paid for it instead of getting it free, Jason.

The phenomena we see in the beef business is being played out in other industries. The steel industry is going through a similar industry concentration and consolidation. Our governments are not paying attention because they are too interested in getting paid off--through campaign contributions, or "cush" jobs through revolving door politics.

Our food supply is too important for this to happen to and it should concern everyone.
 

Latest posts

Top