• 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 Partners with Packers

A

Anonymous

Guest
Following in their true form of flipflopping and untruths- they hide in the closet behind the name of some coalition to do the Packers bidding..... :roll: :( And then keep beating the Packer drumbeat!!! :mad:

October 19, 2007



NCBA Partners with Packers Yet Again to Oppose

Market Reforms That Would Benefit Independent Producers




Washington, D.C. – It’s déjà vu all over again. In July, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) teamed up with the multinational meatpackers in an effort to derail country-of-origin labeling (COOL), although at that time, NCBA chose not to disclose that it was a member of the Meat and Poultry Promotion Coalition (coalition), which was formed by the nation’s largest meatpackers and their trade associations to defeat producer-oriented reforms.


Just this week in a letter to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, this coalition encouraged him to withdraw his proposals for competition reform in the livestock marketplace and to drop any plans to include a Livestock Title in the 2007 Farm Bill.


“It’s no secret that NCBA has long been part of the packer lobby,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian. “But no matter how NCBA tries to spin it, this is the group that tried – for years – to repeal COOL, and also tried to prevent meaningful market reforms that not only would benefit producers, but also the rural communities in which they live.


“Now, by officially joining this meatpacker lobby and signing on to this letter, there can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that NCBA is working against the interests of independent livestock producers,” he emphasized.



Other members of the Meat and Poultry Promotion Coalition include Tyson Foods, Swift & Co., Cargill, U.S. Premium Beef, National Beef, Smithfield Foods, Hormel Foods, Hatfield Quality Meats, Christensen Farms, the American Meat Institute, the National Meat Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and the American Foods Group.



“This list should serve as a red flag warning to every cattle producer in the United States,” Thornsberry said. “The writing is on the wall. This coalition wants to vertically integrate the U.S. cattle industry, and NCBA is right in the thick of it. If U.S. cattle producers want to pass their heritage and lifestyle on to younger generations, the time to stand up and fight is now.



“It is an economic impossibility for producers who sell live cattle to have the same marketing interests as meatpackers who buy live cattle,” he explained. “These two particular entities must compete against each other to maximize their respective profits, and minimize their respective risks. This is a fundamental economic principle that cannot be ignored.”



The Livestock Title contains many provisions not yet relevant to the cattle industry by addressing many severe problems that developed because Congress allowed large meatpackers to exert undue control over the production and marketing of poultry and hogs. This control eliminated the competitive cash market for poultry and nearly eliminated the competitive cash market for hogs. As a result, the once independent poultry and hog producers are now contract growers, and only now is Congress stepping in to regulate the relationship between the contract grower and the meatpacker in an effort to fix what has become an untenable problem. The packers for these two industries possess a disparate share of market power, and the U.S. cattle industry does not want to go there.



“We don’t want our cash cattle market usurped by large meatpackers, and we don’t want to be forced to enter grower contracts, but that’s where we’re headed unless Congress does for us what it did not do for those other industries,” Thornsberry asserted. “Congress must take proactive steps to ensure U.S. cattle markets remain open and competitive, and free from meatpacker control.”


Note: To view R-CALF USA’s recent letter to U.S. Senators to request a Livestock Title in the 2007 Farm Bill, please visit the “Competition Issues” link at www.r-calfusa where the Meat and Poultry Promotion Coalition’s letter to Harkin also is available.
 

Tex

Well-known member
As we speak, Senator Saxby Chambliss is trying to undo the market reform efforts that are mentioned. Saxby comes from a poultry heavy state and has received tons of money for himself and his friends (like John Cornyn) from that industry. He is helping billionaires and their companies keep robbing from their suppliers so they can can retain control of the industry.

I want to be loud and clear here.

My personal belief is that Islamofascism doesn't hold a candle to the harm to American democracy like the homegrown fascists in our political system pose.

I sincerely believe that the Rovian strategy for keeping a "permanent" majority was to join forces with industry, even if they had to run roughshod over the existing laws and protections for the people, and use industry money to "buy" perception. To these ends, our constitution has been tossed, our regulatory agencies (who have legitimate governmental roles to perform) have been infiltrated, and so have other modes of power that rest in government.

It is surprising to me that some Democrats are taking money from the same industry people. If they follow the same path as the republicans did here recently and turn from serving America through service to our country to serving themselves, as the republicans did, we will have a heck of a fight to gain our democracy back.

We are already seeing in the courts the results of Bush, Clinton, Bush.... appointees and how these appointees lean toward re-interpreting the law in favor of the rich and powerful. We have already seen how elitist judges can turn words on end so that the words in the law actually mean nothing.

We need to have a real cleaning of our judiciary.

Of course it doesn't help that members of the judiciary committees in the Senate and the House have received a whole lot of that money I talked about or have gotten credit from their party for the donations they brought in.

Sometimes I feel like we need Jesus to come in and sweep out the money lenders in the temple. These people are shameless.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
OT, you shouldn't fall for this crap. When this assclown sez "its no secret" that's code for "I'm asking you to swallow an unprovable pile of shoe dressing." The NCBA is not part of the packer lobby, period. I've long held the NCA may do well to only allow cattle producers to join (like cattle fax), but Thornsberry is simply flogging a conspiracy of contempt with disdain for the truth.


Consider this:


“This list should serve as a red flag warning to every cattle producer in the United States,” Thornsberry said. “The writing is on the wall. This coalition wants to vertically integrate the U.S. cattle industry, and NCBA is right in the thick of it. If U.S. cattle producers want to pass their heritage and lifestyle on to younger generations, the time to stand up and fight is now."

It takes $4k (minimum capitol outlay to produce a 600# calf, another 10% increase in capitol will provide the necessary factors to feed, finnish and process that calf. vertical integration can be the means to pass on the ranch, not the impediment.



“It is an economic impossibility for producers who sell live cattle to have the same marketing interests as meatpackers who buy live cattle,” he explained. “These two particular entities must compete against each other to maximize their respective profits, and minimize their respective risks. This is a fundamental economic principle that cannot be ignored.”

In the very narrow picture, feeders and processors are in competition. Cooperation has the potential to pay both players more money than the pennies they can fight eachother out of. I have proessed my own beef in my own packer space, and the friction eliminated is substancial.



"The Livestock Title contains many provisions not yet relevant to the cattle industry by addressing many severe problems that developed because Congress allowed large meatpackers to exert undue control over the production and marketing of poultry and hogs. This control eliminated the competitive cash market for poultry and nearly eliminated the competitive cash market for hogs. As a result, the once independent poultry and hog producers are now contract growers, and only now is Congress stepping in to regulate the relationship between the contract grower and the meatpacker in an effort to fix what has become an untenable problem. The packers for these two industries possess a disparate share of market power, and the U.S. cattle industry does not want to go there."

Assume packer space costs $150 for a steer, $30 for a hog, and $3 for a chicken - these numbers are close enough for sound analysis. So if Tyson wants to breed/raise/feed the chicken, another $5 per chicken will build the plant, $50 will build the facilities to deliver the fat hog, and $4300 will procure the failities to deliver the fed steer. Tyson is afraid of us integrating into the processing industry. Tyson isn't interested in raising cows.


“We don’t want our cash cattle market usurped by large meatpackers, and we don’t want to be forced to enter grower contracts, but that’s where we’re headed unless Congress does for us what it did not do for those other industries,” Thornsberry asserted. “Congress must take proactive steps to ensure U.S. cattle markets remain open and competitive, and free from meatpacker control.”

I used to want ibp split up like Standard Oil - When Standard oil was split up, the sum of the parts became more valuable. But now I realize that if producers can buy packing space for less than a 5% increase in capitol outlay, we don't need a government intrusion into the markets. This is an empty sack.


I am ambivalent to producers falling for the dogma of RCALF - most producers won't drink the coolaid. I'm just surprised RCALF an suck in a tough old crumudgeon like OT. Go ahead and call me a packer dupe, but be advised I'm likely the only guy you know of that thumped 2 ibp buyers at the same time. All is not Holy in the cattle industry, but packers trouble me much less than the political factors that inflate cow costs beyond $2000. Did I mention I've been holding my breath for Dollar corretion for about a decade?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Don't worry Brad-- I 've seen NCBA in action long enough to know that their main concerns are not for whats best for the cow/calf man...Even former NCBA leaders have admitted that to me....

And this hiding behind a false name lobbying group is about as sneaky as the crew now in D.C....I have trouble trusting folks that have to operate in the shadows.....

And I know vertical integration can happen as locally I'm seeing what used to be 20-30 family ranches- all running between 150-1000 head a piece that are now under corporate ownership in one managed 10,000-15,000 head operation...It can and is happening...

And as one of the owner/managers said the other day-- he's scared to death of this Packer ownership bill going thru-- as it will put them out of business...
But as many of the locals say-- if that happened then there may again be an opportunity for some of the young folk to stay in ranching/agriculture without being a monthly salaried cow hand....Vertical Integration/Corporate Ownership is much like Walmart-- it hurts the community much more than its worth....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
NCBA has a regular place at the packer table. Max isn't trying to spread any ideas of his, he's just vocalizing what many others know. NCBA is not on our side, Brad. Not even close.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
NCBA has a regular place at the packer table. Max isn't trying to spread any ideas of his, he's just vocalizing what many others know. NCBA is not on our side, Brad. Not even close.

Yep-- and many knew that NCBA was in with the Packers in their little Menage' a Rot called the Meat and Poultry Promotion Coalition-- altho apparently not all NCBA members did .... :???:

I remember putting a post on here about how nice it was that the NCBA was finally being quiet about M-COOL-- and within an hour I received a phone call explaining that I was wrong-- that they were pouring more money than ever into the Packer coffers to fight COOL- just doing it under the covers because they had too big a split in their organization (most local NCBA folk support M-COOL and always have) ... I jumped a couple of them about why NCBA was still fighting M-COOL- and belonging to this Packer group-- and they had no idea that NCBA had gone behind their backs-- apparently not informing the membership of the move.... :(
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Where would M COOL be without R Calf,if they do nothing else,ever,they will be known as the cattlemans group that made sure the cattleman got M Cool enacted
It is my opinion M Cool is the first positive step to create some fairness in the market place,running a close second will be the Beef Checkoff,and the Captive supply reform act....................good luck
 

Tex

Well-known member
Brad S said:
OT, you shouldn't fall for this crap. When this assclown sez "its no secret" that's code for "I'm asking you to swallow an unprovable pile of shoe dressing." The NCBA is not part of the packer lobby, period. I've long held the NCA may do well to only allow cattle producers to join (like cattle fax), but Thornsberry is simply flogging a conspiracy of contempt with disdain for the truth.


Brad: Consider this:


“This list should serve as a red flag warning to every cattle producer in the United States,” Thornsberry said. “The writing is on the wall. This coalition wants to vertically integrate the U.S. cattle industry, and NCBA is right in the thick of it. If U.S. cattle producers want to pass their heritage and lifestyle on to younger generations, the time to stand up and fight is now."

It takes $4k (minimum capitol outlay to produce a 600# calf, another 10% increase in capitol will provide the necessary factors to feed, finnish and process that calf. vertical integration can be the means to pass on the ranch, not the impediment.

Tex:

*
* GA Dept. of Agriculture Video

* Email the Webmaster

Home
Poultry Market News - Daily Report - Monday - 10/15/07

The Georgia f.o.b. dock quoted price on broilers and fryers for this week's trading is 80.00¢ based on full truck load lots of ice pack USDA grade "A" sized 2½ to 3 pound birds. 97% (representing 1,114 loads) of the loads offered have been confirmed within a range of 60.00¢ to 81.25¢ with a final weighted average of 78.36¢ f.o.b. dock or equivalent. The market is weak to steady and the live supply is adequate for a normal to light, mostly normal demand. Average weights are ranging desirable to heavier than desired in a few instances. Estimated slaughter today is 5,103,400 head. This compares with 5,122,200 head last Monday.


Brad, it takes a lot more capital to build industrial poultry barns. With that, contracts have reduced the average price a farmer gets for raising the animals to 4.5 cents per lb. out of a wholesale price of 80 cents. Many times the variance in pay based on the production contracts mean farmers get much less than the 4.5 cents per lb. Often this doesn't even pay for the variable costs they incur like propane, water, and electricity and give them no return on investment or labor. If you think the disconnect between what the farmer receives and what the market on the other end of the processor is, then keep arguing for these "contracts".

Processors offer short term contracts to tie up supplies for themselves. Virtually no poultry is sold by farmers to the "open market" that you see in the GA doc prices. If you want to end up in the same boat, maybe you should buy a poultry farm. By the way, most of these poultry farmers are also cattle producers. How would you like to earn such a low percentage of the wholesale market for your labor and assets? The gap between the two has only been widening, not lessening. You might get what looks like a good contract, but the value of tying up those supplies can often mean big gains to processors and losses to the open market for beef (take the one week difference in cattle prices in the Pickett case and add up these differences for the producers---it was 1.48 billion dollars). Poultry integration is waayyy beyond that step. The steps don't keep going in your favor.





“It is an economic impossibility for producers who sell live cattle to have the same marketing interests as meatpackers who buy live cattle,” he explained. “These two particular entities must compete against each other to maximize their respective profits, and minimize their respective risks. This is a fundamental economic principle that cannot be ignored.”

Brad: In the very narrow picture, feeders and processors are in competition. Cooperation has the potential to pay both players more money than the pennies they can fight eachother out of. I have proessed my own beef in my own packer space, and the friction eliminated is substancial.

Tex: Feeders are not in competition with packers (except producers like Ben and Robert Mac). Feeders are on one side of a transaction and packers are on another. Keeping that transaction transparent, open, and competitive is what will keep feeder profits. It will also limit excess packer profits. I think the poultry industry will show the elimination of these elements gives the processors the majority of economic gains and the majority of the profits while leaving the producers holding the bag.

Brad, you can always hedge your cattle and eliminate the "friction" you talk about--as long as the basis is constant and you know what you are doing. Holding cattle for a market is a little risky. Holding them for a packer without a price is just plain dumb.




"The Livestock Title contains many provisions not yet relevant to the cattle industry by addressing many severe problems that developed because Congress allowed large meatpackers to exert undue control over the production and marketing of poultry and hogs. This control eliminated the competitive cash market for poultry and nearly eliminated the competitive cash market for hogs. As a result, the once independent poultry and hog producers are now contract growers, and only now is Congress stepping in to regulate the relationship between the contract grower and the meatpacker in an effort to fix what has become an untenable problem. The packers for these two industries possess a disparate share of market power, and the U.S. cattle industry does not want to go there."

Assume packer space costs $150 for a steer, $30 for a hog, and $3 for a chicken - these numbers are close enough for sound analysis. So if Tyson wants to breed/raise/feed the chicken, another $5 per chicken will build the plant, $50 will build the facilities to deliver the fat hog, and $4300 will procure the failities to deliver the fed steer. Tyson is afraid of us integrating into the processing industry. Tyson isn't interested in raising cows.

Tex: They aren't interested in raising chickens either. They contract that out to the farmer.



“We don’t want our cash cattle market usurped by large meatpackers, and we don’t want to be forced to enter grower contracts, but that’s where we’re headed unless Congress does for us what it did not do for those other industries,” Thornsberry asserted. “Congress must take proactive steps to ensure U.S. cattle markets remain open and competitive, and free from meatpacker control.”

I used to want ibp split up like Standard Oil - When Standard oil was split up, the sum of the parts became more valuable. But now I realize that if producers can buy packing space for less than a 5% increase in capitol outlay, we don't need a government intrusion into the markets. This is an empty sack.

Tex: Poultry producers can buy NO packing space. Neither can hog producers. When the packer says you are out, then you are out. There is no one who will give you packing space. Your buildings, infrastructure, and ability to make money in the business is gone. This argument is ridiculous.


I am ambivalent to producers falling for the dogma of RCALF - most producers won't drink the coolaid. I'm just surprised RCALF an suck in a tough old crumudgeon like OT. Go ahead and call me a packer dupe, but be advised I'm likely the only guy you know of that thumped 2 ibp buyers at the same time. All is not Holy in the cattle industry, but packers trouble me much less than the political factors that inflate cow costs beyond $2000. Did I mention I've been holding my breath for Dollar corretion for about a decade?

Tex: Dollar correction--Me too. It seems that the cheap interest rates have also caused a housing bubble. This has been a ride where the cost of the ticket is now due.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Tex said:
They aren't interested in raising chickens either. They contract that out to the farmer.

I might add that the packers don't own the land, buildings, or equipment to raise poultry...they don't have to...THEY OWN THE MARKET!!!!

They won't need to own the cows, land, or equipment either if they eliminate the open market for cattle. The only way producers can stay free and independent is to have direct access to the consumer. Every effort to limit that access should be fought by ALL PRODUCERS...poultry, pork, and cattle!!! Unfortunately, by the time most producers realize they have a problem, it will be too late!
 

Brad S

Well-known member
I knew Jan Lyons for 20 years before she was NCBA president. As I think about NCBA leadership, I've known 20% over the last 3 decades. Jan Lyons cares about the beef industry as muh as anyone I've ever known. Certainly the beef industry includes processors. I was highly critical of the NCA for not petitioning the USDA/Congress for loan guarantees for Beef America. NCA likes some packers but not others? I don't have any polly anna attitude about packers, but the USPB blueprint indicates packers can be controlled by producers.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Brad S said:
I knew Jan Lyons for 20 years before she was NCBA president. As I think about NCBA leadership, I've known 20% over the last 3 decades. Jan Lyons cares about the beef industry as muh as anyone I've ever known. Certainly the beef industry includes processors. I was highly critical of the NCA for not petitioning the USDA/Congress for loan guarantees for Beef America. NCA likes some packers but not others? I don't have any polly anna attitude about packers, but the USPB blueprint indicates packers can be controlled by producers.

Then why do they take the positions that they do? There's so many issues that are producer against packer, and they're always on the other side. A guy can put money on it anymore.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Brad S said:
I knew Jan Lyons for 20 years before she was NCBA president. As I think about NCBA leadership, I've known 20% over the last 3 decades. Jan Lyons cares about the beef industry as muh as anyone I've ever known. Certainly the beef industry includes processors. I was highly critical of the NCA for not petitioning the USDA/Congress for loan guarantees for Beef America. NCA likes some packers but not others? I don't have any polly anna attitude about packers, but the USPB blueprint indicates packers can be controlled by producers.


Brad, what does your attraction/admiration/infatuation to Jan Lyons have to do with the discussion?

Are you drinking tonight or am I just missing something?
 
Top