OK Sandhusker, here's the dadada deal!

[agman]

Production increases of the industry don't give any insight into producer's profitability either way, Agman. They might be doing very well and using profits to expand, or they might be just getting by and hoping more numbers will make things work better.

Prove your point, that is always what you want others to do. Prove that broiler producers are not making money. By your rationale one might expect cattle producers to expand when they lose money.

For the broiler producer this is not a one or two year event. He has been increasing production by approximately 4% annually for the past twenty-five years. That is what growing consumer demand does for an industry. Contrary to the belief of the misinformed, those profits do get back to the producer.

Without beef demand improving from 1998-mid 2004 where do you think cattle prices would be? Hint, fed cattle prices would be approximately $18/cwt lower than the $84.65/cwt annual average last year. That would make a 500 pound calf $43/cwt lower.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Prove your point, that is always what you want others to do. Prove that broiler producers are not making money. By your rationale one might expect cattle producers to expand when they lose money."

You show me where I said broiler producers are not making money and then I'll prove it. My point is that increased production is not an indicator of profitability.

I guess you're not aware that many cattle producers have gone the expansion way in order to try to increase profits. You've never heard any cattleman say, "I need to get bigger or get out"? You need a few contacts with manure on their boots.

 

[agman]

Agman, "Prove your point, that is always what you want others to do. Prove that broiler producers are not making money. By your rationale one might expect cattle producers to expand when they lose money."

You show me where I said broiler producers are not making money and then I'll prove it. My point is that increased production is not an indicator of profitability.

I guess you're not aware that many cattle producers have gone the expansion way in order to try to increase profits. You've never heard any cattleman say, "I need to get bigger or get out"? You need a few contacts with manure on their boots.

Yes, I have heard that many times but that is the same thing that has driven the broiler producer-profits. Profits are not always synomous with size. Size does not ensure continued growth, profits do. Profits, that is what has driven the broiler industry. BTW, I have more contacts with very successful cattlemen, even some with manure on their boots, then you will garner in your entire life.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Production increases of the industry don't give any insight into producer's profitability either way, Agman. They might be doing very well and using profits to expand, or they might be just getting by and hoping more numbers will make things work better."

The fact that producers are still raising chickens sure as heck does give insight to profitability. WHY WOULD THEY RAISE CHICKENS IF THEY WEREN'T PROFITABLE????

It's not like anyone strives for the status of a chicken farmer.

I don't raise pigs anymore because I couldn't compete with the larger more efficient corporations through the lean times. Should I join you blamers in blaming concentration??? POOR ME?


Robert Mac,

There is no way that I will ever support regulation of prosperity and punishment for achievement so smaller less efficient plants can remain operable. R-CULT had a huge hand in furthering concentration in this industry with their BSE fear mongering but they will never accept responsibility for it. They're still trying to convince themselves that they actually did something good for the producer.

Just like stopping Canadian imports of live cattle further concentrated this industry, Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling will also further concentrate this industry. It is the larger more efficient packing plants that can afford to prove where cattle were "born, raised, and slaughtered" much more so than the smaller less efficient packing companies.

As long as you have blaming cowboys claiming to be in the cattle industry and not the beef industry while thinking they know more about the beef industry than those who are actually in the beef industry, this will spur stupid regulations that will serve to further concentrate this industry.

IGNORANCE IS BLISS!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "The fact that producers are still raising chickens sure as heck does give insight to profitability. WHY WOULD THEY RAISE CHICKENS IF THEY WEREN'T PROFITABLE????"

You guys can try to BS somebody else. The fact that people are raising chickens tells NOTHING about profitability. Are they cash flowing enough to put money away, get their kids thru college, have a few toys, etc.. or are they just getting by to go another year?

Why not try applying your grade school logic to the airline industry? They're flying planes, sure must be profitable.

Why do companies have to put out financial information? They're in business, must be profitable.

 

[Anonymous]

Hahaha!

Yup chicken farming is almost as much fun as flying planes.


YOU MADE THE IMPLICATION THAT CHICKEN FARMERS MIGHT NOT BE PROFITABLE, PROVE IT!!!!

Oh, I almost forgot who I was talking to, YOU NEVER PROVE ANYTHING, you just make statements and create an "ILLUSION" that someone might be wrong.

This is one more example!

Silly me, what was I thinking?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

My statement, "Production increases of the industry don't give any insight into producer's profitability either way, Agman. They might be doing very well and using profits to expand, or they might be just getting by and hoping more numbers will make things work better"

Gee, SH. If you stop and read, it appears I made the implication that they might be profitable, too. I simply stated that production increases is not a measure of profitablity. There are other factors that are not being considered.

 

[Denny]

I worked for an turkey farm in highschool they had hens and raised fertilized eggs they got 50 cents an egg these people have done this for over 40 years and they keep expanding.Also they are far from POOR FARMER'S.I can't see why so many people bench about how bad it is there are oportunities out there you just need to get off your asses and get after it.The margins in ALL business are generally slim effiency is what makes money not pissing and moaning and as bankers go do the direct oposite of what they say and you'll be ok.But quit blameing someone else the world is changeing either change with it or get left behind.Remember there's always Barber College.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "Gee, SH. If you stop and read, it appears I made the implication that they might be profitable, too. I simply stated that production increases is not a measure of profitablity. There are other factors that are not being considered."

In other words, you don't know if they are profitable or not so you create an "illusion" that the might not be. As usual, you take no position and you back no position. You only question someone else's position which is par for your course.

The obvious is that if they were not profitable, they wouldn't stay in business.



~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

There is no way that I will ever support regulation of prosperity and punishment for achievement so smaller less efficient plants can remain operable.

This goes back to my original question...at one time, the Federal government was concerned about prosperity of large corporations at the expense of small business and enacted "punishment"...PSA, brakeup of Standard Oil and ATT. That has changed...in the last twenty years, although the government still reviews them, almost no merger request have been denied...in fact when Tyson wanted to back out of the merger with IBP, they were forced to go through with it. When does market concentration of large corporate players become detrimental to small business in the free market? I see the effects in rural America and the opposite effect in Bentonville, AR. You may not appreciate it, but I too worry how to help small business without regulations that restrict a free market place. Specifically in the beef business, the only way I see to maintain a fair market without regulations is for around half of the beef sold wholesale to come directly from producers or through producer owned companies like USPB. Should the government provide low interest loans for producers to start beef companies?

 

[RobertMac]

The things I see in the local chicken industry...

a lot of turn over in producers

almost producers have off farm jobs

producers complain of anticipated profits having to be used on house upgrades so they can get their next batch of chickens...end up providing chickens to the company and working for the banker!

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

The things I see in the local chicken industry...

a lot of turn over in producers

almost producers have off farm jobs

producers complain of anticipated profits having to be used on house upgrades so they can get their next batch of chickens...end up providing chickens to the company and working for the banker!

I agree with you robert mac it's those damn Bankers. :wink:

 

[mrj]

I worked for an turkey farm in highschool they had hens and raised fertilized eggs they got 50 cents an egg these people have done this for over 40 years and they keep expanding.Also they are far from POOR FARMER'S.I can't see why so many people bench about how bad it is there are oportunities out there you just need to get off your asses and get after it.The margins in ALL business are generally slim effiency is what makes money not pissing and moaning and as bankers go do the direct oposite of what they say and you'll be ok.But quit blameing someone else the world is changeing either change with it or get left behind.Remember there's always Barber College.

Right on, Denny! I'll bet you have also noticed that those who are successful are working more than an eight hour day, too! And maybe they even work effectively and efficiently, for the most part. They might not even spend much time watching what those who complain all the time are doing, nor attending meetings where the theme is always how bad things are and how someone is taking advantage of us! Maybe we shouldn't be pointing out all this stuff......if they catch on, it might make for tougher competition!

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker: "Gee, SH. If you stop and read, it appears I made the implication that they might be profitable, too. I simply stated that production increases is not a measure of profitablity. There are other factors that are not being considered."

In other words, you don't know if they are profitable or not so you create an "illusion" that the might not be. As usual, you take no position and you back no position. You only question someone else's position which is par for your course.

The obvious is that if they were not profitable, they wouldn't stay in business.



~SH~

Once again, are they really making it or simply getting by? Your "They're in business, aren't they" indicator doesn't say. Pretty good indicator you use. You sure it just doesn't provide the "illusion" of profits? :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Once again, are they really making it or simply getting by? Your "They're in business, aren't they" indicator doesn't say. Pretty good indicator you use. You sure it just doesn't provide the "illusion" of profits?"

They are profitable or they wouldn't stay in business, period.

PROVE ME WRONG!

You won't! You'll ask more questions and make more statements because you never back any position with supporting facts.



~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

SH, the houses across the road from me have changed hands three times in the last five years...somebody is not staying in business! :shock:

 

[Sandhusker]

I'm going to make one more statement and then be done with you, SH. You're just being an arguemenative idiot. I said that increased production tells nothing of profitablity, and I'll stand behind that. If you want to show profitability, use margin, ROE, ROI, etc....something an accountant might use.

There's a huge difference in making it and just getting by - use a tool that tells the story.

You want proof? Look at ANY financial statement. There are thousands available to you right now on Yahoo Finance. You won't see an "Increased production" column. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

RM: "SH, the houses across the road from me have changed hands three times in the last five years...somebody is not staying in business!"

What the hell does that have to do with the profitability of Tyson's chicken producers?


Sandman,

The bottom line is that if chicken producers were not profitable, THEY WOULD NOT STAY IN BUSINESS.

You will not refute that. To suggest otherwise is the epitomy of stupidity.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

RM: "SH, the houses across the road from me have changed hands three times in the last five years...somebody is not staying in business!"

What the hell does that have to do with the profitability of Tyson's chicken producers?


Sandman,

The bottom line is that if chicken producers were not profitable, THEY WOULD NOT STAY IN BUSINESS.

You will not refute that. To suggest otherwise is the epitomy of stupidity.


~SH~

There's a huge difference in making it and just getting by - use a tool that tells the story

 

[Murgen]

As Randy would say, referee here! You guys are talking about the same thing.

SH, is saying they wouldn't be in business too long if they were losing money, and Sandhusker is saying, but at what profit level?

I say it doesn't matter, if they need to get bigger, to produce the same amount of net income, then they are still in the business, cause they are able to make a net income! You aren't taking into account capital gains either. If I can build capital, while still having the same amount of money in my pocket at the end of the day, then I am winning.

If they are not willing to make the changes to make the same profit, with a larger operation, then they have made their choice!

I'm not sure a banker would loan them the money to expand, if they weren't able to make the same net income or more!

Maybe Sandhusker can answer that question, you don't set them up for loss, do you?