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

NAIS system will hurt industry competition

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Location
northwestern South Dakota
NAIS system will hurt industry competition
Stayton Weldon, Agweek
Published: 06/01/2009


BILLINGS, Mont. — Inherent to every competitive industry is proprietary information. If one competitor gains access to the proprietary information of another, then any competitive advantage associated with that proprietary information is at best lost. At worst, the acquirer of that proprietary information could use it to eliminate competitors. Nowhere in the U.S. economy is proprietary information more important to ensuring competitiveness than in the multi-segmented live cattle industry and beef industry.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Animal Identification System, however, would grant the four largest meatpackers access to proprietary information held by the thousands of U.S. auction yards and video auctions, as well as cattle feeders. NAIS requires every cattle producer to affix a 15-digit identifier on each animal, which associates each animal to the "premises" of the farmer or rancher who raised the cattle and who sells them to feedlot owners through such markets.

NAIS will reduce, if not eliminate, competition in the U.S. cattle and beef industries by granting meatpackers access to proprietary information now held by those markets and feedlots, via the 15-digit identifier. Here's how:
There are approximately 757,000 independent beef cattle producers remaining in the U.S. who sell approximately 69 percent of their feeder cattle through auction yards and video auctions to the remaining 87,160 U.S. feedlots that, in turn, sell approximately 88 percent of their fed cattle to just four major meatpackers for slaughter. Business relationships have been built between individual cattle producers and these markets and feedlots and they all compete with other similar businesses to acquire the numbers and type of feeder cattle best suited to their respective marketing and feeding programs.

Over time, these markets and feedlots earn reputations for sourcing, marketing and feeding the specific quality and type of cattle highly coveted by the concentrated meatpackers. Thus, information about the source of the cattle acquired by said markets and feedlots is the proprietary information they use to maintain their competitive edge — and they often pay premiums to, or secure a higher price for, the cattle producers in order to acquire these cattle year after year.

To maintain competitiveness, the feedlots and markets do not disclose to meatpackers the sources of their cattle, as these sources are their proprietary information. NAIS, however, would hand this proprietary information over to meatpackers, enabling them to bypass the auction yard, video auction and feedlots by purchasing the specific quality and type of feeder cattle they want directly from the producer and then placing those cattle in their packer-owned feedlots. This would destroy the competitiveness of independent feedlots and the industry markets.

What makes this possible is the 15-digit NAIS number affixed to every head of cattle that is directly associated with the property of the producer who raised the cattle. The NAIS Business Plan clearly states that distribution records for NAIS eartags are required and also are automatically linked to the cattle owner's premises identification number. All a meatpacker would have to do is collect the NAIS numbers from cattle they slaughter that are of the quality and type they desire and contact the eartag manufacturer to determine the owner of the "premises" those cattle are linked to. Anyone who thinks the meatpackers are without the means to readily obtain this information is kidding themselves.

In further support of the accessibility of this proprietary information for purposes other than for official disease investigations, the NAIS Business Plan expressly states that these 15-digit NAIS numbers are a convenient means of verifying the origins of cattle for purposes of complying with the new country-of-origin labeling law. Such use, of course, would necessarily require access to this proprietary information upon a claim by a meatpacker or other party for non-compliance with COOL, and access to this information in such instances would be for marketing purposes, not for any disease investigation.

NAIS is but a veiled, governmental marketing program designed to economically disadvantage independent U.S. cattle producers by reducing what little competition remains in the highly concentrated and quickly shrinking U.S. cattle industry.
 
LB .I agree with this statement ;Inherent to every competitive industry is proprietary information.

If one competitor gains access to the proprietary information of another, then any competitive advantage associated with that proprietary information is at best lost.

At worst, the acquirer of that proprietary information could use it to eliminate competitors.

Nowhere in the U.S. economy is proprietary information more important to ensuring competitiveness than in the multi-segmented live cattle industry and beef industry.
 
What makes this possible is the 15-digit NAIS number affixed to every head of cattle that is directly associated with the property of the producer who raised the cattle. The NAIS Business Plan clearly states that distribution records for NAIS eartags are required and also are automatically linked to the cattle owner's premises identification number. All a meatpacker would have to do is collect the NAIS numbers from cattle they slaughter that are of the quality and type they desire and contact the eartag manufacturer to determine the owner of the "premises" those cattle are linked to. Anyone who thinks the meatpackers are without the means to readily obtain this information is kidding themselves.

Could this scenario possibly have a competitive effect on the "quality" of cattle?

Think about it..... Wouldn't you want to be one of those producers that the meatpacker contacts personally and offers you more money because of the elimination of the middle men?

I can see where buyers and livestock auction barns would be hesitant to embrace NAIS, for these reasons.......But it could possibly mean more money to producers.

To the packers, it's all about knowing what you're buying.......which isn't necessarily the case now...............................
 
Mike said:
What makes this possible is the 15-digit NAIS number affixed to every head of cattle that is directly associated with the property of the producer who raised the cattle. The NAIS Business Plan clearly states that distribution records for NAIS eartags are required and also are automatically linked to the cattle owner's premises identification number. All a meatpacker would have to do is collect the NAIS numbers from cattle they slaughter that are of the quality and type they desire and contact the eartag manufacturer to determine the owner of the "premises" those cattle are linked to. Anyone who thinks the meatpackers are without the means to readily obtain this information is kidding themselves.

Could this scenario possibly have a competitive effect on the "quality" of cattle?

Think about it..... Wouldn't you want to be one of those producers that the meatpacker contacts personally and offers you more money because of the elimination of the middle men?

I can see where buyers and livestock auction barns would be hesitant to embrace NAIS, for these reasons.......But it could possibly mean more money to producers.

To the packers, it's all about knowing what you're buying.......which isn't necessarily the case now...............................

Mike, read the article on NAIS I posted from Mike C. It shows the concerns I have with NAIS.

Market information via auctions and competition in those auctions is important. We have already seen the USDA not be able to put together market information due to their incompetence and packers not being held accountable. We don't need more of that kind of stuff. The USDA has been corrupt or incompetent or both for a long time but has increased since the Sec. of Agriculture was bribed during the Clinton administration and Clinton pardoned the convicted briber-- a nephew of a former governor of Arkansas.

I am tired of hearing the "efficiency" argument as it allows for too much hanky panky by an incompetent or sold off government and politicians who can not govern properly due to the influence of money in politics.


Tex
 
Tex said:
Mike said:
What makes this possible is the 15-digit NAIS number affixed to every head of cattle that is directly associated with the property of the producer who raised the cattle. The NAIS Business Plan clearly states that distribution records for NAIS eartags are required and also are automatically linked to the cattle owner's premises identification number. All a meatpacker would have to do is collect the NAIS numbers from cattle they slaughter that are of the quality and type they desire and contact the eartag manufacturer to determine the owner of the "premises" those cattle are linked to. Anyone who thinks the meatpackers are without the means to readily obtain this information is kidding themselves.

Could this scenario possibly have a competitive effect on the "quality" of cattle?

Think about it..... Wouldn't you want to be one of those producers that the meatpacker contacts personally and offers you more money because of the elimination of the middle men?

I can see where buyers and livestock auction barns would be hesitant to embrace NAIS, for these reasons.......But it could possibly mean more money to producers.

To the packers, it's all about knowing what you're buying.......which isn't necessarily the case now...............................

Mike, read the article on NAIS I posted from Mike C. It shows the concerns I have with NAIS.

Market information via auctions and competition in those auctions is important. We have already seen the USDA not be able to put together market information due to their incompetence and packers not being held accountable. We don't need more of that kind of stuff. The USDA has been corrupt or incompetent or both for a long time but has increased since the Sec. of Agriculture was bribed during the Clinton administration and Clinton pardoned the convicted briber-- a nephew of a former governor of Arkansas.

I am tired of hearing the "efficiency" argument as it allows for too much hanky panky by an incompetent or sold off government and politicians who can not govern properly due to the influence of money in politics.


Tex

I read it. Please answer the two questions I asked above.

A Yes or No answer is fine......................
 
Mike said:
Tex said:
Mike said:
Could this scenario possibly have a competitive effect on the "quality" of cattle?

Think about it..... Wouldn't you want to be one of those producers that the meatpacker contacts personally and offers you more money because of the elimination of the middle men?

I can see where buyers and livestock auction barns would be hesitant to embrace NAIS, for these reasons.......But it could possibly mean more money to producers.

To the packers, it's all about knowing what you're buying.......which isn't necessarily the case now...............................

Mike, read the article on NAIS I posted from Mike C. It shows the concerns I have with NAIS.

Market information via auctions and competition in those auctions is important. We have already seen the USDA not be able to put together market information due to their incompetence and packers not being held accountable. We don't need more of that kind of stuff. The USDA has been corrupt or incompetent or both for a long time but has increased since the Sec. of Agriculture was bribed during the Clinton administration and Clinton pardoned the convicted briber-- a nephew of a former governor of Arkansas.

I am tired of hearing the "efficiency" argument as it allows for too much hanky panky by an incompetent or sold off government and politicians who can not govern properly due to the influence of money in politics.


Tex

I read it. Please answer the two questions I asked above.

A Yes or No answer is fine......................

Mike:Could this scenario possibly have a competitive effect on the "quality" of cattle?

It already has and it was negative because the USDA flubbed up on thee market information which cost a lot of producers money. The litigants won the case, only to be thrown out by corporatist judges who let the packers, who knew the information by the USDA was incorrect, gain benefits from it without compensation for those who were damaged. The Packers and Stockyards Act was passed to stop this kind of unjust compensation.

In what way were you talking about competitive effect on "quality"? Market reporting rules would allow everyone to know how much is being paid for their cattle so they don't get short changed. Packers can still buy with private treaty but they must disclose the terms and offer the same "deal" to everyone else to be in compliance of the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Mike: Think about it..... Wouldn't you want to be one of those producers that the meatpacker contacts personally and offers you more money because of the elimination of the middle men?

This happens and is legal now. Some people like to sell by private treaty and some people like to sell by taking to the auction. What does this have to do with NAIS? Are you saying it might make it easier for packer buyers to find suppliers? They can do that now and some do.

Maybe I am just missing what you are getting at, Mike.

Tex
 
Mike said:
What makes this possible is the 15-digit NAIS number affixed to every head of cattle that is directly associated with the property of the producer who raised the cattle. The NAIS Business Plan clearly states that distribution records for NAIS eartags are required and also are automatically linked to the cattle owner's premises identification number. All a meatpacker would have to do is collect the NAIS numbers from cattle they slaughter that are of the quality and type they desire and contact the eartag manufacturer to determine the owner of the "premises" those cattle are linked to. Anyone who thinks the meatpackers are without the means to readily obtain this information is kidding themselves.

Could this scenario possibly have a competitive effect on the "quality" of cattle?

Think about it..... Wouldn't you want to be one of those producers that the meatpacker contacts personally and offers you more money because of the elimination of the middle men?

I can see where buyers and livestock auction barns would be hesitant to embrace NAIS, for these reasons.......But it could possibly mean more money to producers.

To the packers, it's all about knowing what you're buying.......which isn't necessarily the case now...............................

I don't think the packers are all that concerned about what they're buying or they wouldn't be trying to open up free trade with every cattle producing country in the world.
 
Sandhusker said:
Mike said:
What makes this possible is the 15-digit NAIS number affixed to every head of cattle that is directly associated with the property of the producer who raised the cattle. The NAIS Business Plan clearly states that distribution records for NAIS eartags are required and also are automatically linked to the cattle owner's premises identification number. All a meatpacker would have to do is collect the NAIS numbers from cattle they slaughter that are of the quality and type they desire and contact the eartag manufacturer to determine the owner of the "premises" those cattle are linked to. Anyone who thinks the meatpackers are without the means to readily obtain this information is kidding themselves.

Could this scenario possibly have a competitive effect on the "quality" of cattle?

Think about it..... Wouldn't you want to be one of those producers that the meatpacker contacts personally and offers you more money because of the elimination of the middle men?

I can see where buyers and livestock auction barns would be hesitant to embrace NAIS, for these reasons.......But it could possibly mean more money to producers.

To the packers, it's all about knowing what you're buying.......which isn't necessarily the case now...............................

I don't think the packers are all that concerned about what they're buying or they wouldn't be trying to open up free trade with every cattle producing country in the world.

I don't understand your statement at all. How could anyone not care about what they are buying?
 
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
Mike said:
Could this scenario possibly have a competitive effect on the "quality" of cattle?

Think about it..... Wouldn't you want to be one of those producers that the meatpacker contacts personally and offers you more money because of the elimination of the middle men?

I can see where buyers and livestock auction barns would be hesitant to embrace NAIS, for these reasons.......But it could possibly mean more money to producers.

To the packers, it's all about knowing what you're buying.......which isn't necessarily the case now...............................




I don't think the packers are all that concerned about what they're buying or they wouldn't be trying to open up free trade with every cattle producing country in the world.

I don't understand your statement at all. How could anyone not care about what they are buying?

Mike, most of the people around here take their cattle to auction because they believe they can get the best price there. There are people around who will buy your cattle private treaty but most people want more than one person to bid on their cattle so they get the best price. Getting a private treaty sale does not mean you necessarily get to not pay a "middleman", but instead get talked to by just one middleman that does not have any competition around to ensure you are getting the highest price.

That might be a good sales pitch or buying pitch that you are getting rid of the middleman, but it doesn't mean you will be getting the highest price for your cattle. The best way to get the best price for good quality cattle is to feed them out and take your profits on how they actually produce quality meat. The problem is that packers have been caught manipulating the markets and so you may not get the market price, but instead a manipulated price. That was the biggest gripe with your friend, Pickett and one of the reasons the Pickett case messed up "quality" cattle markets and the price signals that are supposed to be associated with them.



Tex
 
Basically all an auction does is provide a facility to display you cattle to willing buyers and provide a mechanism to determine what those buyers are willing to pay.
Are people not proud of their cattle that they don't want the feeders and packers to know who raised them?
 
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
Mike said:
Could this scenario possibly have a competitive effect on the "quality" of cattle?

Think about it..... Wouldn't you want to be one of those producers that the meatpacker contacts personally and offers you more money because of the elimination of the middle men?

I can see where buyers and livestock auction barns would be hesitant to embrace NAIS, for these reasons.......But it could possibly mean more money to producers.

To the packers, it's all about knowing what you're buying.......which isn't necessarily the case now...............................

I don't think the packers are all that concerned about what they're buying or they wouldn't be trying to open up free trade with every cattle producing country in the world.

I don't understand your statement at all. How could anyone not care about what they are buying?

I think it's pretty clear that price carries much more weight than quality with the packers. Take a look at their procurement strategy now and in the future. They're looking to create a system where they can buy the cheapest cattle on the planet. I don't see them making any effort to create a system where they can buy the best cattle.
 
Sandhusker said:
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
I don't think the packers are all that concerned about what they're buying or they wouldn't be trying to open up free trade with every cattle producing country in the world.

I don't understand your statement at all. How could anyone not care about what they are buying?

I think it's pretty clear that price carries much more weight than quality with the packers. Take a look at their procurement strategy now and in the future. They're looking to create a system where they can buy the cheapest cattle on the planet. I don't see them making any effort to create a system where they can buy the best cattle.

They already pay more for more quality. It's called selling on the "Grid".

Not that it's an exhorbitant difference, but cattlemen can receive more money for higher quality.

I wish I could sell all "Prime" YG 1's.......................
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
Basically all an auction does is provide a facility to display you cattle to willing buyers and provide a mechanism to determine what those buyers are willing to pay.
Are people not proud of their cattle that they don't want the feeders and packers to know who raised them?

I don't think that is the case, BMR. The problems are in the article I posted from Mike Callicrate.
 
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
Mike said:
I don't understand your statement at all. How could anyone not care about what they are buying?

I think it's pretty clear that price carries much more weight than quality with the packers. Take a look at their procurement strategy now and in the future. They're looking to create a system where they can buy the cheapest cattle on the planet. I don't see them making any effort to create a system where they can buy the best cattle.

They already pay more for more quality. It's called selling on the "Grid".

Not that it's an exhorbitant difference, but cattlemen can receive more money for higher quality.

I wish I could sell all "Prime" YG 1's.......................

Selling on the "Grid" is one thing but having the "Grid" price based on the things they had it based on in the Pickett case, a thin market that was manipulated and discriminated against, is another. It is about like buying cattle with private treaty and basing it on auction prices where no one shows up to the auction to buy so the auction prices were really low. Hey, that is exactly what happened to the people like Pickett, isn't it?

Tex
 
Mike, "They already pay more for more quality. It's called selling on the "Grid".

Not that it's an exhorbitant difference, but cattlemen can receive more money for higher quality.

I wish I could sell all "Prime" YG 1's.......................

Actually, the average price of cattle sold on the grid is lower than cattle not sold on the grid. Our "friends of industry" more than make up for any premiums with discounts.
 
Sandhusker said:
Mike, "They already pay more for more quality. It's called selling on the "Grid".

Not that it's an exhorbitant difference, but cattlemen can receive more money for higher quality.

I wish I could sell all "Prime" YG 1's.......................

Actually, the average price of cattle sold on the grid is lower than cattle not sold on the grid. Our "friends of industry" more than make up for any premiums with discounts.

Are you saying that the cutting out the middleman argument is just another sales pitch to get cheaper cattle with private treaty?

Now, Sandhusker, packers wouldn't try to get the lowest price possible with lies, would they? They wouldn't be able to show themselves at church or at home with a decent family if that was the case. That just can not be true!!!!

Tex
 
Actually, the average price of cattle sold on the grid is lower than cattle not sold on the grid. Our "friends of industry" more than make up for any premiums with discounts.

I can very well see how this can be. Most people have a higher regard for the beef quality of their cattle than they actually are. They sell them on the grid and are surprised.........Which is how the grid system can help the cattleman in the long & short run. Feeders learn a lot from the grid also.

But there is no doubt that higher grading cattle will bring more $ than lower grading.

Like I said, I wish I could sell all "Prime" YG-1's with a 1000 lb. carcass.

But if you are selling lower quality calves, you are getting less because they are worth less.

Also as I said before, if a packer has a means to identify the calves that came from a good grading group of cows and/or bulls last year, he cuts some risk, maybe some middlemen, and WILL pay more. I see'd it done. :wink:

"Board" sales, or truckloads of calves have become the norm down here in the past 10 or so years. The packers have some producers picked out that have a good track record for quality, health, and feed efficiency that are getting the premiums for their calves in these sales.

"Put-together" loads aren't faring so well nowdays.
 
Mike said:
Actually, the average price of cattle sold on the grid is lower than cattle not sold on the grid. Our "friends of industry" more than make up for any premiums with discounts.

I can very well see how this can be. Most people have a higher regard for the beef quality of their cattle than they actually are. They sell them on the grid and are surprised.........Which is how the grid system can help the cattleman in the long & short run. Feeders learn a lot from the grid also.

But there is no doubt that higher grading cattle will bring more $ than lower grading.

Like I said, I wish I could sell all "Prime" YG-1's with a 1000 lb. carcass.

But if you are selling lower quality calves, you are getting less because they are worth less.

Also as I said before, if a packer has a means to identify the calves that came from a good grading group of cows and/or bulls last year, he cuts some risk, maybe some middlemen, and WILL pay more. I see'd it done. :wink:

"Board" sales, or truckloads of calves have become the norm down here in the past 10 or so years. The packers have some producers picked out that have a good track record for quality, health, and feed efficiency that are getting the premiums for their calves in these sales.

"Put-together" loads aren't faring so well nowdays.

I am all for producers selling to the highest bidder no matter what method they decide to sell by. The packers are the ones who are limited by the Packers and Stockyards Act, not producers. Producers make the best decisions for themselves when they have enough facts and "facts" that are accurate. The court has already excused inaccurate facts by packers even though it broke the Packers and Stockyards Act and harmed producers.

Our problem is more with corporatist apologist judges than the facts.

Tex
 
Mike said:
Actually, the average price of cattle sold on the grid is lower than cattle not sold on the grid. Our "friends of industry" more than make up for any premiums with discounts.

I can very well see how this can be. Most people have a higher regard for the beef quality of their cattle than they actually are. They sell them on the grid and are surprised.........Which is how the grid system can help the cattleman in the long & short run. Feeders learn a lot from the grid also.

But there is no doubt that higher grading cattle will bring more $ than lower grading.

Like I said, I wish I could sell all "Prime" YG-1's with a 1000 lb. carcass.

But if you are selling lower quality calves, you are getting less because they are worth less.

Also as I said before, if a packer has a means to identify the calves that came from a good grading group of cows and/or bulls last year, he cuts some risk, maybe some middlemen, and WILL pay more. I see'd it done. :wink:

"Board" sales, or truckloads of calves have become the norm down here in the past 10 or so years. The packers have some producers picked out that have a good track record for quality, health, and feed efficiency that are getting the premiums for their calves in these sales.

"Put-together" loads aren't faring so well nowdays.

I know several guys that have sold on the grid and gotten a premium. Obviously the packers know who they are, but they haven't gotten a call from them yet. I don't see how NAIS would change that.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top