North American Beef Producer Group

[rkaiser]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could form a Beef producer group working for Cattlemen and women across North America after this BSE Bull Sheet Economics issue gets settled.

Take out the protectionist attitudes and find ways for Grassroots producers to stem the tide of equity loss and start putting some of our well earned money in our own pockets.

If we did ever get to a point where profits were reality, we could hire somebody with a wealth of knowledge and large ego to defend us against the packers if some of them said they were going broke because of us.

The packers have two major gorups, and probably more. Thay also find a way to sit on the board of all of our Canadian producer groups, funded by cattlemen through a checkoff. Is that the way with America as well? Of course Rcalf has no packers sitting on their board, and if they could eliminate the radical protectionist from their midst, they might be the start of something that is for the cattleman. CCA, ABP, CBEF etc. etc, have a major packer agenda, and have lost a lot of credibility from the grassroots sector. I'm not saying that is the packers FAULT, just a simple and true statement. Canada really has no Packer group, so maybe they feel left out, and need a place to call home. Their packers belong to the AMI and NMA.

If this post reaks of packer hatered to some of you, that is simply your perspective. I would like to point out the need for producers to have as much say in the industry as packers. The need for producers to be respected for what they do. Most ranchers do not have the time of day to sit here and learn from agman. They are busy trying to keep the wolf from the door. Maybe a strong producer group could teach them the ropes from the slaughterhouse forward, and maybe even help producers to take part in the profits, OR losses that come from beef production.

Can you tell it's raining like hell up here by Calgary. I haven't spent this much time playing on ranchers for a long time. Hope all you ranchers, and packers are having a vovatoius day!

 

[don]

i've always thought it was not in cattlemen's best interests to have other industry players attempting to join producer assoc.'s and making them into beef groups. there certainly is a place and a need for umbrella groups but there is also a need and a place for primary producer only groups. everytime a new assoc. is formed the packers, auctions, feeders want in in the 'best interests of the whole industry'. the oil and gas industry here in canada the producing companies have their own group separate from the pipeline and refining interests. i can't see why we have to cozy up to someone who is on the other side of the table in a price discovery mechanism. the weakness i see with r-calf's approach is that it is attacking other producers and has been ineffectual in reclaiming the cattle industry from the beef interests.

 

[mrj]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could form a Beef producer group working for Cattlemen and women across North America after this BSE Bull Sheet Economics issue gets settled.

Take out the protectionist attitudes and find ways for Grassroots producers to stem the tide of equity loss and start putting some of our well earned money in our own pockets.

If we did ever get to a point where profits were reality, we could hire somebody with a wealth of knowledge and large ego to defend us against the packers if some of them said they were going broke because of us.

The packers have two major gorups, and probably more. Thay also find a way to sit on the board of all of our Canadian producer groups, funded by cattlemen through a checkoff. Is that the way with America as well? Of course Rcalf has no packers sitting on their board, and if they could eliminate the radical protectionist from their midst, they might be the start of something that is for the cattleman. CCA, ABP, CBEF etc. etc, have a major packer agenda, and have lost a lot of credibility from the grassroots sector. I'm not saying that is the packers FAULT, just a simple and true statement. Canada really has no Packer group, so maybe they feel left out, and need a place to call home. Their packers belong to the AMI and NMA.

If this post reaks of packer hatered to some of you, that is simply your perspective. I would like to point out the need for producers to have as much say in the industry as packers. The need for producers to be respected for what they do. Most ranchers do not have the time of day to sit here and learn from agman. They are busy trying to keep the wolf from the door. Maybe a strong producer group could teach them the ropes from the slaughterhouse forward, and maybe even help producers to take part in the profits, OR losses that come from beef production.

Can you tell it's raining like hell up here by Calgary. I haven't spent this much time playing on ranchers for a long time. Hope all you ranchers, and packers are having a vovatoius day!

Randy, contrary to spin and propaganda by some, much of what you wish for in a North American Cattle Producer organization is what NCBA is doing.

Yes, that organization does work with packers FOR OUR MUTUAL BENEFIT, gained by learning as much as possible about what each of us (cattle producer and packer) needs to be successful. It is obvious from many posts on this site over the years that producers are sadly lacking information about how/why packers and others beyond the ranch gate in this beef industry do what they do and need what they need. So long as cattle producers are willing and eager to believe the packers are out to somehow "get the producer", we are not going to be as successful as we could be if we would learn what we need to know and work from a position of strength afforded by a united producer organization. Which is what we were working toward when NCBA was attacked by LMA and friends, which resulted in the birth of R-CALF and the lawsuit against the Beef Checkoff.

Hopefully, that is behind us and we can proceed with the necessary learning and working toward making cattle/beef production even better.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, are you talking about the same NCBA who's members voted in a policy that trade with Canada should be resumed ONLY AFTER US export markets were resumed, and who's brass signed an amicus brief demanding the border be opened immediately?

If that is the same NCBA, it sure does't look like a producer driven outfit to me.

 

[rkaiser]

You know MRJ, I would agree with you that learning about each part of the industry is important, as I agree with agman. But Canada has had a major problem for two years, and our industry leadership which included members from the packing industry has found nothing but challenge when attempting to right some of this very wrong situation.

One of the many is the idea of testing beef for export markets. This would certainly have been something to help Canada out of it's problem's accesing markets, and very Likely would have jolted more investment in packing capacity had it not been constantly put down by the packers, and those who they influence. Now that Canadian politicians and industry are finally talking seriously about using this marketing tool, opposition has subsided, only because the threat of Judge Cebull is being taken very seriously to close the border to boxed beef.

If the packers are truely part of the beef industry and belong on the boards of producer funded groups, why do they fight against the producers whenever they see opportunity for themselves and lack of it for producers.

Talk all you want about the producers being the problem in these issues, but who starts the fight. Who feels they belong within the industry groups but challenges anything that might make the producer a buck once there.

When the issues rage on over a few dollars here and there, maybe the fights are futile, but in Canada we are talking about millions of dollars in profits for one group within the industry while the other group looses billions. Cooperation to find a solution could have happened, but did not. Who can blame the packers for fighting any notion that would change the excessive profits that they were, and are, realizing.

Does this sound like a group working for one cause to you?

 

[feeder]

Everyone in this business needs to make money., from the cow-calf to feeder to packer. But one thing different between them is the packer you can't believe. IBP said this week that they were bought through first part of July. Neighbor sold cattle to them Wednesday and they go out next Tuesday. They are only looking after themselves. At least when I deal with a rancher, many times we can compromise on a price that will be good for him and still give me a chance to make a few bucks too. We both know we need each other. A packer would rather close down shifts than ever compromise. Until certain NCBA members see through some of the crap they preach about the great and wonderful packers without any blemishes, the NCBA will never stand for the ordinary livestock producer.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could form a Beef producer group working for Cattlemen and women across North America after this BSE Bull Sheet Economics issue gets settled.

Take out the protectionist attitudes and find ways for Grassroots producers to stem the tide of equity loss and start putting some of our well earned money in our own pockets.

If we did ever get to a point where profits were reality, we could hire somebody with a wealth of knowledge and large ego to defend us against the packers if some of them said they were going broke because of us.

The packers have two major gorups, and probably more. Thay also find a way to sit on the board of all of our Canadian producer groups, funded by cattlemen through a checkoff. Is that the way with America as well? Of course Rcalf has no packers sitting on their board, and if they could eliminate the radical protectionist from their midst, they might be the start of something that is for the cattleman. CCA, ABP, CBEF etc. etc, have a major packer agenda, and have lost a lot of credibility from the grassroots sector. I'm not saying that is the packers FAULT, just a simple and true statement. Canada really has no Packer group, so maybe they feel left out, and need a place to call home. Their packers belong to the AMI and NMA.

If this post reaks of packer hatered to some of you, that is simply your perspective. I would like to point out the need for producers to have as much say in the industry as packers. The need for producers to be respected for what they do. Most ranchers do not have the time of day to sit here and learn from agman. They are busy trying to keep the wolf from the door. Maybe a strong producer group could teach them the ropes from the slaughterhouse forward, and maybe even help producers to take part in the profits, OR losses that come from beef production.

Can you tell it's raining like hell up here by Calgary. I haven't spent this much time playing on ranchers for a long time. Hope all you ranchers, and packers are having a vovatoius day!

Randy, contrary to spin and propaganda by some, much of what you wish for in a North American Cattle Producer organization is what NCBA is doing.

Yes, that organization does work with packers FOR OUR MUTUAL BENEFIT, gained by learning as much as possible about what each of us (cattle producer and packer) needs to be successful. It is obvious from many posts on this site over the years that producers are sadly lacking information about how/why packers and others beyond the ranch gate in this beef industry do what they do and need what they need. So long as cattle producers are willing and eager to believe the packers are out to somehow "get the producer", we are not going to be as successful as we could be if we would learn what we need to know and work from a position of strength afforded by a united producer organization. Which is what we were working toward when NCBA was attacked by LMA and friends, which resulted in the birth of R-CALF and the lawsuit against the Beef Checkoff.

Hopefully, that is behind us and we can proceed with the necessary learning and working toward making cattle/beef production even better.

MRJ

MRJ I aint even gonna read the rest of your post,thats the best laugh Ive had this week HHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAA,Reality is R CALF exists because the NCBA is controlled by packers............good luck girl

 

[Sandhusker]

Reader, "Don't forget providing quality beef to the consumer, Randy. I fear quality has declined steadily over the past decades, as profits for the larger packers rose."

Ranchers will provide whatever gives them the biggest return. Implants are a good example of that. For the most part, they are still being paid by the pound. That is not the ideal situation for promoting quality.

Someone posted a few days ago about being at a conference where a large retailer mentioned selling "crap" because that is what was sent to him. It occured to me that the ranchers sent him "crap" because that probably is what the bidders for their cattle were asking for. Producers will change if they see the economics - the shift to black illustrates this.

Yeah, selling on grids and programs is a way to get paid for quality, but that isn't going to do much for the mystery meat in the case. Unfortunately, that mystery meat sets a lot of perceptions.

 

[mrj]

You know MRJ, I would agree with you that learning about each part of the industry is important, as I agree with agman. But Canada has had a major problem for two years, and our industry leadership which included members from the packing industry has found nothing but challenge when attempting to right some of this very wrong situation.

One of the many is the idea of testing beef for export markets. This would certainly have been something to help Canada out of it's problem's accesing markets, and very Likely would have jolted more investment in packing capacity had it not been constantly put down by the packers, and those who they influence. Now that Canadian politicians and industry are finally talking seriously about using this marketing tool, opposition has subsided, only because the threat of Judge Cebull is being taken very seriously to close the border to boxed beef.

{Randy, before making judgements and accusations on this subject, I believe we need to learn the specific reasons USDA did not allow testing by Creekstone. I'm remiss in that I have not contacted USDA to get that explanation. I have heard it stated as being due to regulations requiring such testing be done by government, but not sure of the exact terminology which led me to that conclusion. MRJ}

If the packers are truely part of the beef industry and belong on the boards of producer funded groups, why do they fight against the producers whenever they see opportunity for themselves and lack of it for producers. { You seem to be assuming that what you state here is fact. What can you cite as your basis for that? MRJ}

Talk all you want about the producers being the problem in these issues, but who starts the fight. Who feels they belong within the industry groups but challenges anything that might make the producer a buck once there. {Here, you seem to assume that the packers forced their way into these industry groups. Do you know that for a fact? I believe they were invited in to NCBA. It simply is not true (speaking of NCBA here) that packers "challenge anything that might make the producer a buck once there".

When the issues rage on over a few dollars here and there, maybe the fights are futile, but in Canada we are talking about millions of dollars in profits for one group within the industry while the other group looses billions. Cooperation to find a solution could have happened, but did not. Who can blame the packers for fighting any notion that would change the excessive profits that they were, and are, realizing. {I really would like to see an investigation by either government or an independent outfit to bring out FACTS of this accusation, given that the charges of packers making obscenely high profits in the USA have been, at the best, not proven. MRJ}

Does this sound like a group working for one cause to you?

{I do know that US packers have voluntarily put lots of their money into projects that have increased beef safety dramatically. And this is only one such action by packers which benefits all of us in the industry. Sure, it helps them, but the bottom line is that they did not HAVE to do it. They could have fought against it and did not. The end result is that beef demand increases due at least in part to such efforts have benefitted ALL in the cattle/beef industry.

Sure, packers do work to improve their own bottom line when they can. So do you and I. I make these points because I believe a little honest study will show that they are not "evil incarnate" as some people want us to believe. MRJ}