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

National Beef

Help Support Ranchers.net:

GLA

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Stratford, Texas
Agman and Brad S,

In reading your recent posts about packer profits, I got the impression that USPB and/or National was in trouble. I know the structure of USPB has changed and they are virtually just another packer. Is that the reason for the turmoil or is it their leadership?

I know packers have been in the red for some time, but I just read a quarterly report where Tyson's profits were down to $76 million on sales in the $6 billion area.

And if profits are not there, then why is Smithfiled going to make an announcement sometime in June, as to the location of their new proposed packing plant? This plant will be located in the Panhandle of Texas where we have over 700,000 head of packing plant under capacity(numbers direct from a TCFA producer meeting). TCFA is on record in support of the need for another packing plant in our area. The only problem, there are only a very few communities who can meet, all the needs a major packing plant will need for its operation.

It was also said that the longer we keep the border closed, the more time it gives Canada to become self-sufficient with their packing plant industry. If they get kill capacity up to around 95,000 head per week, then they won't need to ship a single head down to the U.S. They will then become the largerst competitor to the U.S. in packing plant capacity with the ability to ship grain fed beef to the rest of the world. In a short time, we have become a second class supplier of fed beef....now just who is to blame for that???

GLA
 

GLA

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Stratford, Texas
Forgot one thing. This last year we imported around 1.1 billion pounds of boxed boneless beef from Canada. This next year we expect that figure to jump to 1.5 billion pounds. That number is larger than imports of both Canada and Mexico beef imported prior to the border closure! Just repeating what was heard at the TCFA producer meeting.

GLA
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
Agman said its just the packer's turn in the barrel, poetic enough? in 03 USPB paid nearly $100 per share that started out at $55 purchase price.

I hadn't heard about the [email protected]#$ing unionizing activity that MRJ mentioned, but that concerns me. Those unions think you can ride a horse out, never water it, and simply get on a nrw one when the old one lays down. Fortunately their timing is bad with National and the profit cycle.

I have no clue about Smithfield. I think they have a different opinion than me about how long the water will flow from Amarillo to Garden. I'm not worried about our packers being unable to buy cattle - those guys are good and the Mexicans are so damn tough. Let everybody build plants and we'll see who can bid up and buy cattle.



Allen, you still sitting on milo and does anyone put up high moisture ensiled corn in your area? If you have dry milo and someone is putting up high moisture corn that is on the wet side (like the early loads) milo will mix and ensile and have very good feed numbers. a yard that you feed at, they about have to accomodate you as far as fair allows - which is all you could ask for.
 

GLA

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Stratford, Texas
Brad,

Yes we still have the milo and the hog farms are the only ones who want it.........tooooo much cheap corn.

GLA
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,248
Reaction score
23
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
Tam wrote a darned good "guest opinion" concerning "R-CALF's fear mongering" in the April 30, 2005 issue of the Tri-State Livestock News.

Here is one quote from her article:

"After R-CALF supported Creekstone's bid for 100% testing for the Japenese market, the current President of Montana Cattlemen's Association, Dennis McDonald, was quoted in a North Dakota paper as saying this about BSE, "If there is a positive case again in the U.S., we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older than 20 months." Dennis McDonald is one of R-CALF's founding members and their current Trade Committee Chairman. Despite the scientific evidence proving that SRM reomoval is the single most important action to be taken to protect public health, R-CALF is telling U.S. producers that in the event of another case of BSE in the U.S., they will have to give up cull cattle sales. These sales have an estimated value of 30% of U.S. producer's annual income."

So, Kevin_Wills, what do you think of your beloved R-CALF after hearing that slant on the situation? And also you, my good friend and trusted banker, Sandhusker, do you want me and others of your clientele sacrificing the value of our cull cattle for some whim and fancy of R-CALF policy?
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
Mr Wills, so with the border closed we'vw had some very high beef prices, (no doubt they'd have been pretty damn good even with the border open).
In the short term the Canadian cattle that weren't shipped here boxed and couldn't fit the under developed Canadian processing plants have gone unharvested. Do you think these cattle will continue to go unharvested or will Canadians expand processing capacity to harvest these "extra" cattle? Ofcourse Canada will expand processing and harvest these cattle - its already under way. So what then, that beef can enter the US or displace US beef sales abroad. The Canadian beef ISN'T going away.

Here's the deal, eithr you believe in market determination of economies or government determination of economies. Let mw assure you the market is much much more responsive to apropriate stimulus. The market will, if left to succeed, find the most effecient market path, and this efficiency enhancement enriches us all.


I don't know why we never discuss this issue, but what is the right, decent, honorable response to Canadian beef?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Soapweed, "So, Kevin_Wills, what do you think of your beloved R-CALF after hearing that slant on the situation? And also you, my good friend and trusted banker, Sandhusker, do you want me and others of your clientele sacrificing the value of our cull cattle for some whim and fancy of R-CALF policy?"

My good friend and valued customer, Soapweed,
I'd like to know what McDonald said before and after making that comment. I'd lay a good nickel that the opposition has left quite a bit out in the name of creating an inflamitory statement. Anyhow, I'll address it as if that is his complete statement.

You know my stance on testing - if in doubt, test and know for sure. I'm not afraid of testing at all. Knowledge is power. If we did have a case of indiginous BSE, I would be in favor of testing anything in question from the viewpoint of a both a rancher's banker and a beef consumer - and that would certainly include cull cows. I don't think a $20 test will be much of a sacrifice on culls. Sure, $20 is $20, especially if you are selling 100 or so, but I don't see how anybody can expect that we not have to jump thru a hoop or two if we did find BSE.

I'm sure McDonald is aware that with a test at our disposal, the cull markets have a degree of protection. Who could know of a test and yet talk about not selling older animals at all? Doesn't make sense - that's why I might consider the source before I get too excited about his comments. It would be like someone telling me that you were getting into the registered Hereford business. I'd raise my eyebrows and ask a follow-up question or two.

Soap, if we do have a case of BSE here, I think it will be the consumers forcing a plan of action much more than R-CALF. It won't matter what R-CALF, NCBA, or anybody else thinks - the consumers will likely demand tested beef or an assurance of some kind. Then again, maybe the good ol USDA will them they are stupid and that they'll take it the way they get it like they did with Japan. :wink:

To summarize my ramblings - If we do have BSE here, the test should be the economical way to protect our older cow markets. It should fit the bill very well for the inevitable "extra" we would logically have to afford our customers. That and I don't think McDonald meant that we shouldn't sell older animals at all.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Kevin_Wills said:
So if fed cattle prices would remain steady (And I highly doubt it) if the border were open, It's still in our best interest to keep a closed border (just enforcing the rules that the USDA has had in place for years) and maintain our high cull prices. Have you all lost your minds when you think that cull dollars do not have a huge impact on ranch cash flows??? Especially YOU Soapweed selling 50 cutter bulls every year.

Do you have a clue what domestic cow slaughter is versus two or three years ago? The rise in U.S. cull cow prices is cyclical and is much more the result of the decline in domestic cow slaughter as opposed to the fictitious belief that current prices are the direct result of the Canadian boarder closure.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
GLA said:
Agman and Brad S,

In reading your recent posts about packer profits, I got the impression that USPB and/or National was in trouble. I know the structure of USPB has changed and they are virtually just another packer. Is that the reason for the turmoil or is it their leadership?

I know packers have been in the red for some time, but I just read a quarterly report where Tyson's profits were down to $76 million on sales in the $6 billion area.

And if profits are not there, then why is Smithfiled going to make an announcement sometime in June, as to the location of their new proposed packing plant?

It was also said that the longer we keep the border closed, the more time it gives Canada to become self-sufficient with their packing plant industry. If they get kill capacity up to around 95,000 head per week, then they won't need to ship a single head down to the U.S. They will then become the largerst competitor to the U.S. in packing plant capacity with the ability to ship grain fed beef to the rest of the world. In a short time, we have become a second class supplier of fed beef....now just who is to blame for that???

GLA

National is a well managed company experiencing the same cyclical pressures at this point in the cattle cycle as other packers. They are not in trouble. The decline in domestic slaughter, on of the largest on record, is the primary cause of the current squeeze as opposed the the lack of Canadian imports. Additionally, domestic beef demand has been on the decline since the second quarter of 2004.

When quoting profits you must isolate beef margins and profits/losses from pork Adan chicken profits at Tyson. The same holds true for Smithfield. While Tyson as a company was profitable, the beef division lost 19 million during the last quarter.

Smithfield has no plans to announce a new plant in June that I am aware of. They have indicated they are assessing various locations, including the Panhandle of Texas, for a possible new plant. I believe this rhetoric is to put more pressure on Swift which has lost 64 million in the past two quarters. Finally, Smithfield is a long term palyer in teh market. They know as you do that profits are cyclical. It is their time tint eh barrel. Next will be the cattle feeder followed by the cow-calf producer and the cycle goes on. What are you doing to prepare yourself for the time when your sector will be in the barrel?

The problem with allowing the boarder to remain closed is that plant expansion in Canada will allow them to capture the added value from processing a raw material, cattle, into a finished product. Only a true fool or blind follower of R- calf would fail to realize this.

Thanks for the questions; have a great day.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Agman, "The problem with allowing the boarder to remain closed is that plant expansion in Canada will allow them to capture the added value from processing a raw material, cattle, into a finished product. Only a true fool or blind follower of R- calf would fail to realize this."

So I guess the better alternative is to close our eyes and let the USDA sell out a health policy that had been working as intended for the economic gain of a few? That seems very foolish to me.

What is also foolish is to ignore that the Canadian "them" in your post, for the most part, is not "them" as in Canadians, but "them" as in the same US multi-national packers who capture the added value down here.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
Agman, "The problem with allowing the boarder to remain closed is that plant expansion in Canada will allow them to capture the added value from processing a raw material, cattle, into a finished product. Only a true fool or blind follower of R- calf would fail to realize this."

So I guess the better alternative is to close our eyes and let the USDA sell out a health policy that had been working as intended for the economic gain of a few? That seems very foolish to me.

What is also foolish is to ignore that the Canadian "them" in your post, for the most part, is not "them" as in Canadians, but "them" as in the same US multi-national packers who capture the added value down here.

Selling out our health policy is parroting R-Calf's claims. You have become so biased and blinded by their BS you are beginning to make as little sense as they do. If you only knew one-half as much as you claim to know about packers and their operations you would be considered at least half-intelligent per that subject. Turning a raw product into added value product and its inherent benefits to ALL who comprise the beef industry is easy except for the most blind followers of R-Calf to see and understand.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Kevin_Wills said:
Is this man head of the USDA??????? Does he make policy to set the age limit on slaughter cattle??? ABSOLUTLEY NOT! Has R-Calf ever inforced any policy changes in the USDA? NO. CHECKS AND BALANCES, my friend, R-Calf keeps the USDA honest, it may not be what the Canuckleheads and the Packers want but they are for the independent US cattlemen. A guy like you is very compasionate to the "NA beef industry", you want high calf prices and your NCBA loving soul wants Canucks to get high prices too. We'll buddy you can crap in one hand and want in the other, SEE WHAT FILLS UP QUICKER! You didn't put the Canuckleheads in this situation and you can't get them out of it.


Is this man head of the USDA??????? Does he make policy to set the age limit on slaughter cattle??? ABSOLUTLEY NOT!

Thank God no he's not but it is bad enough that he is the trade chairman of R-CALF and has alot to do with the policies that your beloved R-CALF will be fighting for.
Has R-Calf ever inforced any policy changes in the USDA? NO.
The USDA is trying to set policy but who took them to court to stop them it was R-CALF wasn't it. Will the court of law that R-CALF brought into the issue maybe be inforcing any policy changes and if R-CALF looses will they allow the judge to set policy or will they appeal to a higher court and then what?

R-Calf keeps the USDA honest
Who keeps R-CALF honest it sure isn't their leadership as they are the ones being dishonest with the US consumers and the courts. It sure isn't the membership keeping them honest as all you bunch of head bobber do is agree with every word that comes out of your leaderships mouths. And if someone does quote them all you can say is well it was taken out of context or I won't believe it until I see the quote from a reliable source. I guess that is why Sandhusker didn't believe some of the quotes as the source was from the R-CALF website. I would like to know if Sandhusker and the rest of you ever question what comes out of Leo and Bill like you question what they are quoted to have said.

You didn't put the Canuckleheads in this situation and you can't get them out of it.

First it is C-A-N-A-D-I-A-N-S and no one said the US did get us into this situation but it was one hundred years of freely trading cattle and feed that go you into your situation and blaming Canadians for something that has happen isn't going to get you out of the situation you are in either. Face the fact that the US is minimal risk just like Canada and start treating us like you think you can force Japan and other to treat you. Do as the OIE recommended and lead by example and stop blaming other for your problems.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Kevin_Wills said:
Tam said:
Kevin_Wills said:
Is this man head of the USDA??????? Does he make policy to set the age limit on slaughter cattle??? ABSOLUTLEY NOT! Has R-Calf ever inforced any policy changes in the USDA? NO. CHECKS AND BALANCES, my friend, R-Calf keeps the USDA honest, it may not be what the Canuckleheads and the Packers want but they are for the independent US cattlemen. A guy like you is very compasionate to the "NA beef industry", you want high calf prices and your NCBA loving soul wants Canucks to get high prices too. We'll buddy you can crap in one hand and want in the other, SEE WHAT FILLS UP QUICKER! You didn't put the Canuckleheads in this situation and you can't get them out of it.


Is this man head of the USDA??????? Does he make policy to set the age limit on slaughter cattle??? ABSOLUTLEY NOT!

Thank God no he's not but it is bad enough that he is the trade chairman of R-CALF and has alot to do with the policies that your beloved R-CALF will be fighting for.
Has R-Calf ever inforced any policy changes in the USDA? NO.
The USDA is trying to set policy but who took them to court to stop them it was R-CALF wasn't it. Will the court of law that R-CALF brought into the issue maybe be inforcing any policy changes and if R-CALF looses will they allow the judge to set policy or will they appeal to a higher court and then what?

R-Calf keeps the USDA honest
Who keeps R-CALF honest it sure isn't their leadership as they are the ones being dishonest with the US consumers and the courts. It sure isn't the membership keeping them honest as all you bunch of head bobber do is agree with every word that comes out of your leaderships mouths. And if someone does quote them all you can say is well it was taken out of context or I won't believe it until I see the quote from a reliable source. I guess that is why Sandhusker didn't believe some of the quotes as the source was from the R-CALF website. I would like to know if Sandhusker and the rest of you ever question what comes out of Leo and Bill like you question what they are quoted to have said.

You didn't put the Canuckleheads in this situation and you can't get them out of it.

First it is C-A-N-A-D-I-A-N-S and no one said the US did get us into this situation but it was one hundred years of freely trading cattle and feed that go you into your situation and blaming Canadians for something that has happen isn't going to get you out of the situation you are in either. Face the fact that the US is minimal risk just like Canada and start treating us like you think you can force Japan and other to treat you. Do as the OIE recommended and lead by example and stop blaming other for your problems.

Why don't you get a life Canucklehead.

Way to bring something to the debate Kev. :roll: :lol: :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
cowsense said:
Hey guys Nebrusker must have more lives than a cat cause he's back :twisted:

Want to bet he isn't here any longer than he was under all the other names?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Agman, "The problem with allowing the boarder to remain closed is that plant expansion in Canada will allow them to capture the added value from processing a raw material, cattle, into a finished product. Only a true fool or blind follower of R- calf would fail to realize this."

So I guess the better alternative is to close our eyes and let the USDA sell out a health policy that had been working as intended for the economic gain of a few? That seems very foolish to me.

What is also foolish is to ignore that the Canadian "them" in your post, for the most part, is not "them" as in Canadians, but "them" as in the same US multi-national packers who capture the added value down here.

Selling out our health policy is parroting R-Calf's claims. You have become so biased and blinded by their BS you are beginning to make as little sense as they do. If you only knew one-half as much as you claim to know about packers and their operations you would be considered at least half-intelligent per that subject. Turning a raw product into added value product and its inherent benefits to ALL who comprise the beef industry is easy except for the most blind followers of R-Calf to see and understand.

Don' be giving me any guff about "parroting R-CALF's claims", even though their claim is right. I've been crabbing about the sell-out for many moons.

We all know adding value to raw product makes money. I haven't disputed that, so your strawman tactic falls down. I simply pointed out that it's the same folks adding the value on either side of the border. You want to tell me that is not the case?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Agman, "The problem with allowing the boarder to remain closed is that plant expansion in Canada will allow them to capture the added value from processing a raw material, cattle, into a finished product. Only a true fool or blind follower of R- calf would fail to realize this."

So I guess the better alternative is to close our eyes and let the USDA sell out a health policy that had been working as intended for the economic gain of a few? That seems very foolish to me.

What is also foolish is to ignore that the Canadian "them" in your post, for the most part, is not "them" as in Canadians, but "them" as in the same US multi-national packers who capture the added value down here.

Selling out our health policy is parroting R-Calf's claims. You have become so biased and blinded by their BS you are beginning to make as little sense as they do. If you only knew one-half as much as you claim to know about packers and their operations you would be considered at least half-intelligent per that subject. Turning a raw product into added value product and its inherent benefits to ALL who comprise the beef industry is easy except for the most blind followers of R-Calf to see and understand.

Don' be giving me any guff about "parroting R-CALF's claims", even though their claim is right. I've been crabbing about the sell-out for many moons.

We all know adding value to raw product makes money. I haven't disputed that, so your strawman tactic falls down. I simply pointed out that it's the same folks adding the value on either side of the border. You want to tell me that is not the case?

Sandhusker can you tell me whos work force is adding that value and whos country will be beneifiting from the economic spin offs from that added value work force.?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kevin,

Why didn't you address Brad's post?

Answer the question.

Did you really think Canadian beef would dry up and go away Kevin?

Canada will either expand their slaughter capacity to match their production and ship the beef to the U.S. or they will ship it to our export markets.

So if Canada absorbs that same portion of our export market, WHAT HAS R-CULT GAINED????

Not a damn thing other than some ignorant R-CALFers believing they actually accomplished something positive.

When you are being led by someone who says we would be in a very favorable position without any trade, no wonder you can't see the bigger trade picture.


Sandhusker,

Do you support importing cattle from Canada OVER 30 MONTHS OF AGE if they are BSE tested?

Yes or no?



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, "Sandhusker can you tell me whos work force is adding that value and whos country will be beneifiting from the economic spin offs from that added value work force.?"

In the US's case, not as much as would be in Canada. A huge amount of the paychecks get sent to Mexico. I think we've been thru that before.

You know, first we are told that we shouldn't worry about Canadian cattle as they are only a fraction of the US kill, and then we are warned about the dire economic consequences of Canada killing their own? I don't understand (actually, I do) :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Sandhusker, Do you support importing cattle from Canada OVER 30 MONTHS OF AGE if they are BSE tested? Yes or no? "

I've answered this question before. :roll: My idea of trade is exchanging something you have enough of for something you need. I don't see where we need Canadian beef. However, if they were tested, I would not argue against them coming down for health reasons.
 

Latest posts

Top