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

NCBA= larger meatpackers

A

Anonymous

Guest
Even the media can see thru NCBA's charade: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which represents many of the larger meatpackers, says changing the way the cattle business operates is a challenge to the free market…



Family ranchers fighting meatpacking industry, which is dominating beef production



The Star - Malaysia

August 26, 2007



MOVILLE, Iowa (AP) - Eric Nelson, a fourth-generation rancher and farmer who operates a feedlot, is not looking for more government cash. He just wants a little help from the Senate when it debates a farm bill this fall.



Nelson and many other family ranchers in the Midwest and West are hoping Congress can help them fight the gradual consolidation of the meat industry, which they say is hurting their business. A handful of large meatpacking companies slaughtered 80 percent of steers and heifers in 2005, up 30 percent from 20 years ago.



"We just want a level playing field, an environment in which we can be profitable,'' Nelson said. "Give us true competition and we'll take care of ourselves.''



Ranchers with smaller operations have long sought changes in the law that would help stem competition from the larger companies. With new political dynamics in Congress, they could happen this year.



The changes are bound to face strong opposition from some cattle groups. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which represents many of the larger meatpackers, says changing the way the cattle business operates is a challenge to the free market.



"We have no doubt we will have to continue to explain why a cattleman should continue to be able to sell cattle to whoever he wants,'' said Jay Truitt, a lobbyist for NCBA.



Many of the ranchers advocating change would like to ban meatpackers from owning or contracting for cattle more than a week or two before slaughter. That way, the large companies could not have control over the cattle for a long period of time and would be forced to pay current market prices for meat.



Supporters of the reform say meatpackers can manipulate the prices they pay for cattle with "captive supplies,'' or stock they own or control through contracts and marketing agreements. They argue that such control lets meatpackers time their purchases, allowing them to save money but also depress prices.



Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi is expected to offer an amendment on the Senate floor that would require packers to have a fixed base price in their contracts and to put contracts up for bid in the open market.



Enzi maintains this would prevent the large meatpacking companies from manipulating the base price after the point of sale. Some cattle ranchers say those advocating the changes are not working in the modern era.



Cevin Jones, a feedlot operator in Eden, Idaho, says changing the rules would, for him, be equivalent to "stepping back in time 50 years.'' He does much of his business with Tyson Foods Inc., one of the biggest packer operations, and he says limiting the period in which he could sell to the company would dramatically hinder his business.



Jones negotiates with the packer companies periodically, selling cattle when they need it and when he wants to unload it. Sometimes these deals are made more than a couple of weeks out.



"When you take options away from me, that limits my ability to be profitable,'' Jones said.



The House passed its version of the farm bill in July, but that legislation didn't include any major livestock reforms. Those will be left up to the Senate, which is expected to take up the bill this fall.



The Senate passed a ban on packer ownership of cattle as part of debate on the 2002 farm bill, but the provision was dropped in negotiations with the House.



This time, many House Republicans who opposed the ban have left Congress. The Democratic chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, has said he is sympathetic to both sides of the issue.



The Democratic chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, has supported a ban on packer ownership. - AP



biz.thestar.com.my
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"We have no doubt we will have to continue to explain why a cattleman should continue to be able to sell cattle to whoever he wants,'' said Jay Truitt, a lobbyist for NCBA. "

Does he really not get it or is he intentionally being dense?
 

Jason

Well-known member
From those 2 posts OT and SandH are ok with gov't control of the cattle industry.

we will have to continue to explain why a cattleman should continue to be able to sell cattle to whoever he wants

Take away the freedom of who can own cattle and you take away the industry.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Jason said:
From those 2 posts OT and SandH are ok with gov't control of the cattle industry.

we will have to continue to explain why a cattleman should continue to be able to sell cattle to whoever he wants

Take away the freedom of who can own cattle and you take away the industry.

Jason, over the years we've had some differences, but on this post, I couldn't agree with you more.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jason said:
From those 2 posts OT and SandH are ok with gov't control of the cattle industry.

we will have to continue to explain why a cattleman should continue to be able to sell cattle to whoever he wants

Take away the freedom of who can own cattle and you take away the industry.

I could care less about them passing new laws on ownership--IF they would only enforce the ones on the books.....

Reason I liked that article was it shows that even the media folks can see that NCBA represents the Large Packers..... :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Jason said:
From those 2 posts OT and SandH are ok with gov't control of the cattle industry.

we will have to continue to explain why a cattleman should continue to be able to sell cattle to whoever he wants

Take away the freedom of who can own cattle and you take away the industry.

Where the heck does that come from? Who can't own cattle?
 

mrj

Well-known member
What a deceptive shyster you are, OT!

Obviously, someone told the author that lie, who, BTW, must be VERY shy, as he/she was not named in the Star story.

You can tell that lie as many times as you have breath to do so.........and it will never be factual. 27,000 NCBA members, some 90% of whom are cattle producers, stockers, or feeders are simply not going to let ANYONE tell them what to do. You obviously don't know much about cowboys and cowboy attitude!!!!

It may be wise to remember that people who claim to have been 'insiders' at NCBA and left that organization and who have turned against their fellow cattlemen who still are, or have since become NCBA members......just may do the same thing sometime in the future to whichever organization they currently promote......if they don't get their way on an issue......or don't get appointed or elected to their pet position!

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
What a deceptive shyster you are, OT!

NCBA must think the same-- or they're really tough up for members-- because they just wasted an envelope and stamp sending me a membership application :shock: :shock: :shock: Best chuckle me and Grandma had tonite....

So do you think I'm shyster and deceptive enough to be in the NCBA- eh their Maxine... :???:

Nah I'll pass, since I still oppose passing off foreign beef to US consumers as US by FRAUD and DECEPTION-- and I don't think I'd enoying rubbing elbows with the Tyson boys during cocktail hour.... :wink: :lol: :p :p
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
27,000 NCBA members, some 90% of whom are cattle producers, stockers, or feeders are simply not going to let ANYONE tell them what to do. You obviously don't know much about cowboys and cowboy attitude!!!!

If 90% of the 27,000 NCBA members have that fearless "cowboy attitude", why are you the only one here to defend NCBA???????? :shock: :eek: :???:
(I do respect you for being the only one):wink:

OT, just send them a check...and all will be forgiven!!! :wink: :lol: :lol:

While we are on NCBA...I'm looking at a/another chart showing beef as a percent of total protein consumption. In the 70s, we were around 50%...today we are below 30%! :cry: :oops: NCBA and CBB have been effective?????? :???: :? :mad:

Who has benefited in this period??? That's right, the same large, multi-national packers NCBA believes is the salvation of USA beef producers!!!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
RM, I'd be interested in seeing that chart. Is it available on internet, and more importantly, does it have other information about other competing proteins?

I believe the NCBA staff has more important things to do. LIkely most ranchers do to. I happen to have a miserably bad back due to old injuries and heredity, so when I am not up to doing more physical jobs, I can sit in front of this screen and try to correct the worst of the misinformation.

A fairly good guess, too, would be that the majority of NCBA members have better things to do than listen to (read) some of the drivel posted here. I do know quite a few who spend much of their computer time learning things to improve their business.

OT, maybe the membership committee thinks a former judge would like to be better informed and get first hand information so he could comment from a position of knowing whereof he speaks.

Guess I should tell them it's a waste of time in your case, as you obviously prefer spreading rumor and innuendo to reporting fact.

Case in point: your continuing claim that NCBA supports fraud and deception......fraud and deception is your game because you seem to want consumers to believe the false premise that labeling imported beef is a safety measure and that US beef is all safer than any imported beef.

mrj
 
Top