Packer May Sue Inspectors

[Econ101]

In the economic struggle between the packers and the unions and between the packers and the producers, the packers have the advantage. They are controlled by one voice. That one voice can manipulate and seek advantages in the many voices against it. That is the central case against captive supply. When a monopsonist, or monopolist can sway the markets, not based on supply and demand, but based on an equilibrium of price that is manipulated, we call that market failure.

It is this phenomena known in economics and illustrated by the actions of market power in the 19th and 20th century that has given us anti-trust legislation and the PSA. The first parts of Section 202 do not allow this strategy of market manipulation to occur:

Prohibited practices enumerated:
(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or
(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect; or


But Tyson has an excuse for them to occur and it is "legitimate business reason". This is the fraud of the 11th circuit ruling.

 

[fedup2]

Sorry but I don't have time to play your little games Tam. As far as where you implied this was the union site terrible tyson:

Tam"I went to a site the Union had put up for their member to get information and comment on the strike. Since it's titled Terrible Tyson I thought I would be reading how the union member supported the strike and how they think the Union is doing a good job representing them Was I ever surprized at what I read coming from the members of the UFCW. "

Tam"From what I read last night on a site titled Terrible Tyson I think they should have renamed it The Revenge of the Union."

This is pure BS!

You keep referring to 54 posts! At least in your last post you admitted they were not 54 posts supporting tyson! In fact there were darn few & they were anonymous. You twisted this entire story around until it was pure BS.

There are also links on this site by posters to point you to an article. If I post a link to show what peta or ncba, r-calf or whatever, does that make this a peta site because the link is on here? What you tried to do here was pure BS and wrong. I've glanced at a couple of your posts before and I'm not about to play the little games that go on forever here. If you believe in something, post the truth about it. It should carry its own weight. Deliberate deception has no place on a forum sharing information.

 

[rkaiser]

Jason -

Getting hundreds of ranchers mad about BSE in a meeting and cussing gov't subsidy failures or unknown packer profits, is not productive. Knowing the truth about packer profits makes a person much more informed about supporting a new venture. With the competition existing and the possibility of pressure exerted by Tyson/Cargill on new ventures, a new venture will need more than passing producer support. Honest numbers and information would 'steel' the resolve of those who sign on for the ride.

Yip Jason, BIG C even wrote on the ads announcing their first meetings. "Come out and get mad".

Do you know what BIG C stands for Jason. Beef Initiative Group Canada. We asked producers to come out and give us some ideas. In fact the packing proposal idea did not come til well along in the process and came from a man who was no where near the founding group. After examining all of the IDEAS that came out of the initial meetings, we decided to focus on the producer owned facility since it was the only one that would help every producer in Canada.

I guess in hind sight, we should have asked a numbers genius like yourself or to come out to show us the TRUTH about numbers, hey Jason. :lol: :lol: :lol: Packer profits are not always excessive, but to ignore the massive profits made due to the partially closed border is just plain pathetic on your part.

 

[Tam]

Sorry but I don't have time to play your little games Tam. As far as where you implied this was the union site terrible tyson:

Tam"I went to a site the Union had put up for their member to get information and comment on the strike. Since it's titled Terrible Tyson I thought I would be reading how the union member supported the strike and how they think the Union is doing a good job representing them Was I ever surprized at what I read coming from the members of the UFCW. "

Tam"From what I read last night on a site titled Terrible Tyson I think they should have renamed it The Revenge of the Union."

This is pure BS!

You keep referring to 54 posts! At least in your last post you admitted they were not 54 posts supporting tyson! In fact there were darn few & they were anonymous. You twisted this entire story around until it was pure BS.

There are also links on this site by posters to point you to an article. If I post a link to show what peta or ncba, r-calf or whatever, does that make this a peta site because the link is on here? What you tried to do here was pure BS and wrong. I've glanced at a couple of your posts before and I'm not about to play the little games that go on forever here. If you believe in something, post the truth about it. It should carry its own weight. Deliberate deception has no place on a forum sharing information.

Fedup do you believe that the terribletyson.com site web put up by the Union? Yes or no.

 

[Econ101]

Sorry but I don't have time to play your little games Tam. As far as where you implied this was the union site terrible tyson:

Tam"I went to a site the Union had put up for their member to get information and comment on the strike. Since it's titled Terrible Tyson I thought I would be reading how the union member supported the strike and how they think the Union is doing a good job representing them Was I ever surprized at what I read coming from the members of the UFCW. "

Tam"From what I read last night on a site titled Terrible Tyson I think they should have renamed it The Revenge of the Union."

This is pure BS!

You keep referring to 54 posts! At least in your last post you admitted they were not 54 posts supporting tyson! In fact there were darn few & they were anonymous. You twisted this entire story around until it was pure BS.

There are also links on this site by posters to point you to an article. If I post a link to show what peta or ncba, r-calf or whatever, does that make this a peta site because the link is on here? What you tried to do here was pure BS and wrong. I've glanced at a couple of your posts before and I'm not about to play the little games that go on forever here. If you believe in something, post the truth about it. It should carry its own weight. Deliberate deception has no place on a forum sharing information.

Fedup do you believe that the terribletyson.com site web put up by the Union? Yes or no.

Tam, why are the working conditions so bad at the plant? Is it your contention that that they are not?

 

[Tam]

I am so sick of Tam and Jason yapping about BIG C. Find faults and focus on them, and then sit back and be proud of yourselves for all of your efforts.

Did either of you ever go to a BIG C meeting. Likely not. The very first meeting had nothing to do with a BIG C Plant proposal. In fact it took several meeting before it even made the agenda. And when it did, it was always after a lot of very good discussion about what the grassroots producers of this country could do to HELP THEMSELVES. Could Tam or Jason ever see themselves offering anything at a meeting like this. Hell no. Criticism maybe, and SUPPORT FOR THE PACKERS maybe. Would have like to see that at a meeting with 6 to 700 producers angry with the unfairness in the industry due to BSE.

Our first meeting saw plant proposal after plant proposal come forward from each of their best spokesmen and in general BIG C supported each one. People asking for $5000.00 investment while giving BIG C a hundred bucks and thanking us for the chance to reach a big group of people. Of all the people who talked to Cam and the rest of us about plant proposals, not one has ever taking the final position the Tam has taken about BIG C being a threat to their plans. Yet Tam wants the whole world to beleive the opposite.

Sunterra is doing something Jason, and thank God for that. Why don't you go and ask Tony the CEO what he thinks of Randy Kaiser, and BIG C in general. Why don't you have a chat with Rick Pascall, who we stood beside at meetings fighting for similar issues.

Saying that BIG C has done nothing but cry is amazing Jason.

Randy you can cuss Jason and myself all you want but that doesn't change the fact that so far there are more in this country that disagree with your Idea than agree with you or your plant would have checkoff backing and we would be manditory partners weither we liked it or not. Your dislike of us has and will not change the fact you don't have the backing of the majority of the producers in Canada. Maybe if you could answer a few question without sarcasm you would sway a few your way but I don't see that happening by the way you take offence to Jason and I asking questions.
Randy why don't you and BIG-C work on getting the answers to the question and concerns we have about the BIG C's IDEA? Then when you are asked to explain the IDEA, weither here on Ranchers or at a public meeting, you will beable to answer them. If you can't explain BIG-C's IDEA right here, what is telling me that you will be able to explain it any better in a public meeting that I and Jason have wasted our gas going to.
I'm with Jason you have put the cart before the horse. On BIG-C's own website they said the Feasiblity study and a Workable business plan were the things you needed to convince producers to support your PLAN. But here you are trying to get our support without either of them. When asked questions about what we are to support, your answers are I don't Know. or This is still in the IDEA stage and we haven't got that far yet. And If Jason and I were the only ones in Canada that you haven't convinced that this is a industry saving IDEA, then you would have had the vote and would have the plant started but that is not the case is it Randy. You are taking your bitterness out on us because to you we represent all the Canadian producer that don't agree with you. So Suck it Up and work on a PLAN that just might sway people your way. :wink:

 

[Econ101]

I am so sick of Tam and Jason yapping about BIG C. Find faults and focus on them, and then sit back and be proud of yourselves for all of your efforts.

Did either of you ever go to a BIG C meeting. Likely not. The very first meeting had nothing to do with a BIG C Plant proposal. In fact it took several meeting before it even made the agenda. And when it did, it was always after a lot of very good discussion about what the grassroots producers of this country could do to HELP THEMSELVES. Could Tam or Jason ever see themselves offering anything at a meeting like this. Hell no. Criticism maybe, and SUPPORT FOR THE PACKERS maybe. Would have like to see that at a meeting with 6 to 700 producers angry with the unfairness in the industry due to BSE.

Our first meeting saw plant proposal after plant proposal come forward from each of their best spokesmen and in general BIG C supported each one. People asking for $5000.00 investment while giving BIG C a hundred bucks and thanking us for the chance to reach a big group of people. Of all the people who talked to Cam and the rest of us about plant proposals, not one has ever taking the final position the Tam has taken about BIG C being a threat to their plans. Yet Tam wants the whole world to beleive the opposite.

Sunterra is doing something Jason, and thank God for that. Why don't you go and ask Tony the CEO what he thinks of Randy Kaiser, and BIG C in general. Why don't you have a chat with Rick Pascall, who we stood beside at meetings fighting for similar issues.

Saying that BIG C has done nothing but cry is amazing Jason.

Randy you can cuss Jason and myself all you want but that doesn't change the fact that so far there are more in this country that disagree with your Idea than agree with you or your plant would have checkoff backing and we would be manditory partners weither we liked it or not. Your dislike of us has and will not change the fact you don't have the backing of the majority of the producers in Canada. Maybe if you could answer a few question without sarcasm you would sway a few your way but I don't see that happening by the way you take offence to Jason and I asking questions.
Randy why don't you and BIG-C work on getting the answers to the question and concerns we have about the BIG C's IDEA? Then when you are asked to explain the IDEA, weither here on Ranchers or at a public meeting, you will beable to answer them. If you can't explain BIG-C's IDEA right here, what is telling me that you will be able to explain it any better in a public meeting that I and Jason have wasted our gas going to.
I'm with Jason you have put the cart before the horse. On BIG-C's own website they said the Feasiblity study and a Workable business plan were the things you needed to convince producers to support your PLAN. But here you are trying to get our support without either of them. When asked questions about what we are to support, your answers are I don't Know. or This is still in the IDEA stage and we haven't got that far yet. And If Jason and I were the only ones in Canada that you haven't convinced that this is a industry saving IDEA, then you would have had the vote and would have the plant started but that is not the case is it Randy. You are taking your bitterness out on us because to you we represent all the Canadian producer that don't agree with you. So Suck it Up and work on a PLAN that just might sway people your way. :wink:

Tam is rkaiser making the application to you and Jason?

Were you and Jason on the committee to give Tyson and Cargill the giant tax windfall without serious consideration of their own compensation due to the "salmon run"?

 

[Tam]

Randy, I wouldn't let Tam or Jason worry me too much. What's so funny about Tam's opinions is that she would argue with you if you said the sun came up this morning, if SH agreed. She's been "stroked" a couple of times you know. I don't even read those books called posts anymore.

But is does bother me that some would fight against the attempted betterment of their fellow cattlemen and countrymen just for arguements sake, and seemingly with a clear conscience. :???:

What is so funny is that Randy is taking his bitterness out on two producers but he has already admitted that he doesn't think the BIG-C plan will fly because they are so many producer against it. So Mike I guess I'm not the only one disagreeing with Randy and the BIG-C Plan.
And Mike would you back an unsupported by any feasibility study or business plan IDEA when it could cost every producer in the US $3 to$5 dollars on every animal sold in the US?

 

[rkaiser]

Great stuff Tam. If this thing would have ever gotten to the stage of taking the 3 to 5 dollars out of your pocket, a team would have been in place that would have easily competed with any management team in the industry.

Went out and asked producers at our local ABP meeting last night if they would support a producer vote to settle this thing once and for all. All but two in the house voted for the resolution. The two that did not reminded me a lot of you Tam. Tear this thing down before it can even get off the ground. They seemed just as smart as you too Tam. In fact people like yourself who KNOW everything about how ideas beyond theirs are wrong, are plenty. Problem is, lots of these people make it into positions of power due to that puppet like "do nothing" style.

I also brought forward a resolution on BSE testing. Guess what Tam. The vote was unanimous. Go figure, damn democracy at work. And not at a BIG C meeting, but at the industry standard meeting of Grassroots producers that supposedly direct the CCA????? :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Tam]

I am so sick of Tam and Jason yapping about BIG C. Find faults and focus on them, and then sit back and be proud of yourselves for all of your efforts.

Did either of you ever go to a BIG C meeting. Likely not. The very first meeting had nothing to do with a BIG C Plant proposal. In fact it took several meeting before it even made the agenda. And when it did, it was always after a lot of very good discussion about what the grassroots producers of this country could do to HELP THEMSELVES. Could Tam or Jason ever see themselves offering anything at a meeting like this. Hell no. Criticism maybe, and SUPPORT FOR THE PACKERS maybe. Would have like to see that at a meeting with 6 to 700 producers angry with the unfairness in the industry due to BSE.

Our first meeting saw plant proposal after plant proposal come forward from each of their best spokesmen and in general BIG C supported each one. People asking for $5000.00 investment while giving BIG C a hundred bucks and thanking us for the chance to reach a big group of people. Of all the people who talked to Cam and the rest of us about plant proposals, not one has ever taking the final position the Tam has taken about BIG C being a threat to their plans. Yet Tam wants the whole world to beleive the opposite.

Sunterra is doing something Jason, and thank God for that. Why don't you go and ask Tony the CEO what he thinks of Randy Kaiser, and BIG C in general. Why don't you have a chat with Rick Pascall, who we stood beside at meetings fighting for similar issues.

Saying that BIG C has done nothing but cry is amazing Jason.

Randy you can cuss Jason and myself all you want but that doesn't change the fact that so far there are more in this country that disagree with your Idea than agree with you or your plant would have checkoff backing and we would be manditory partners weither we liked it or not. Your dislike of us has and will not change the fact you don't have the backing of the majority of the producers in Canada. Maybe if you could answer a few question without sarcasm you would sway a few your way but I don't see that happening by the way you take offence to Jason and I asking questions.
Randy why don't you and BIG-C work on getting the answers to the question and concerns we have about the BIG C's IDEA? Then when you are asked to explain the IDEA, weither here on Ranchers or at a public meeting, you will beable to answer them. If you can't explain BIG-C's IDEA right here, what is telling me that you will be able to explain it any better in a public meeting that I and Jason have wasted our gas going to.
I'm with Jason you have put the cart before the horse. On BIG-C's own website they said the Feasiblity study and a Workable business plan were the things you needed to convince producers to support your PLAN. But here you are trying to get our support without either of them. When asked questions about what we are to support, your answers are I don't Know. or This is still in the IDEA stage and we haven't got that far yet. And If Jason and I were the only ones in Canada that you haven't convinced that this is a industry saving IDEA, then you would have had the vote and would have the plant started but that is not the case is it Randy. You are taking your bitterness out on us because to you we represent all the Canadian producer that don't agree with you. So Suck it Up and work on a PLAN that just might sway people your way. :wink:

Tam is rkaiser making the application to you and Jason?

Were you and Jason on the committee to give Tyson and Cargill the giant tax windfall without serious consideration of their own compensation due to the "salmon run"?

If you are asking what I think you are asking, YES Randy is asking every producer in Canada including Myself and Jason to support BIG-C's IDEA and that means if they get the vote and it passes I will be paying for the plant like it or not. In other words I will become a Hated Packer because of Randy's IDEA if it ever gets out of the IDEA stage. :wink:

Again you don't seem to comprehend the government saw a sector of the beef industry suffering due to something that was beyond their control (IE the border closure due to BSE) and in hast to save that sector of the beef industry they paid DISASTER PAYMENTS to said sector. Everyone participating in said sector recieved payment based on the number of cattle owned on the day the border slammed shut. Now Tyson and Cargil both owned cattle when the border closed so they like everyone else in the feeding sector of the Canadian Beef industry qualified for payment. Do I like it No but they quaified because they owned cattle. Would you have been happy if the Canadian Government would have put a stipulation that those that qualifiied for the Disaster Feeder Payments could not belong to any other sector of the beef industry? What would have happen to those that retain ownership from pasture to slaughter would they have quailfied? Or was the Canadian government to discriminate against Tyson and Cargil just because they were packers? When the rest of the DISASTER PAYMENTS were paid out did Tyson and Cargill or any other packer get money NO because they didn't quailify. Do you spend as much time worrying about who recieves disaster payment in the US? and how to stop huge farmers from recieving payments when they don't really need the money because of their succcessfulness in said industry? Or are all your efforts to point out wrong doing saved for the Canadian beef industry?

 

[Econ101]

Randy you can cuss Jason and myself all you want but that doesn't change the fact that so far there are more in this country that disagree with your Idea than agree with you or your plant would have checkoff backing and we would be manditory partners weither we liked it or not. Your dislike of us has and will not change the fact you don't have the backing of the majority of the producers in Canada. Maybe if you could answer a few question without sarcasm you would sway a few your way but I don't see that happening by the way you take offence to Jason and I asking questions.
Randy why don't you and BIG-C work on getting the answers to the question and concerns we have about the BIG C's IDEA? Then when you are asked to explain the IDEA, weither here on Ranchers or at a public meeting, you will beable to answer them. If you can't explain BIG-C's IDEA right here, what is telling me that you will be able to explain it any better in a public meeting that I and Jason have wasted our gas going to.
I'm with Jason you have put the cart before the horse. On BIG-C's own website they said the Feasiblity study and a Workable business plan were the things you needed to convince producers to support your PLAN. But here you are trying to get our support without either of them. When asked questions about what we are to support, your answers are I don't Know. or This is still in the IDEA stage and we haven't got that far yet. And If Jason and I were the only ones in Canada that you haven't convinced that this is a industry saving IDEA, then you would have had the vote and would have the plant started but that is not the case is it Randy. You are taking your bitterness out on us because to you we represent all the Canadian producer that don't agree with you. So Suck it Up and work on a PLAN that just might sway people your way. :wink:

Tam is rkaiser making the application to you and Jason?

Were you and Jason on the committee to give Tyson and Cargill the giant tax windfall without serious consideration of their own compensation due to the "salmon run"?

If you are asking what I think you are asking, YES Randy is asking every producer in Canada including Myself and Jason to support BIG-C's IDEA and that means if they get the vote and it passes I will be paying for the plant like it or not. In other words I will become a Hated Packer because of Randy's IDEA if it ever gets out of the IDEA stage. :wink:

Again you don't seem to comprehend the government saw a sector of the beef industry suffering due to something that was beyond their control (IE the border closure due to BSE) and in hast to save that sector of the beef industry they paid DISASTER PAYMENTS to said sector. Everyone participating in said sector recieved payment based on the number of cattle owned on the day the border slammed shut. Now Tyson and Cargil both owned cattle when the border closed so they like everyone else in the feeding sector of the Canadian Beef industry qualified for payment. Do I like it No but they quaified because they owned cattle. Would you have been happy if the Canadian Government would have put a stipulation that those that qualifiied for the Disaster Feeder Payments could not belong to any other sector of the beef industry? What would have happen to those that retain ownership from pasture to slaughter would they have quailfied? Or was the Canadian government to discriminate against Tyson and Cargil just because they were packers? When the rest of the DISASTER PAYMENTS were paid out did Tyson and Cargill or any other packer get money NO because they didn't quailify. Do you spend as much time worrying about who recieves disaster payment in the US? and how to stop huge farmers from recieving payments when they don't really need the money because of their succcessfulness in said industry? Or are all your efforts to point out wrong doing saved for the Canadian beef industry?

Tam, not giving large corporations money for a problem they are largley responsible for is not discrimination. How in the world has corporate agriculture got you so turned around? I think to pay for the BSE cattle overpayment fiasco you need to have a "salmon run" tax. Maybe that is where independent packing plant financing needs to come from.

I think there should be at least a $250,000.00 cap on all subsidy payments and maybe even lower. It is not because they are "successful", it is because taxpayers do not need to give any industry participants that kind of money to "keep them in business". That kind of payment only leads to overproduction which is the main reason of lower farm prices.

Yes, I do worry about who receives disaster payments. Any time there is a lot of govt. money (which means the taxpayer money) trying to find a home there are people who find ways to feather their nest with it who do not "deserve" it or defraud the govt..

You keep talking about Kaiser's deal and how you want answers before you "support" it. Maybe Canadian taxpayers should have had the same opportunity to quash those "rich american family" subsidies you mention above. I can not believe you don't even support the good will in your own country to solve the processing shortage while arguing the "fairness" issue of paying companies who own possible market manipulating supplies of cattle.

I don't know a lot about Mike C.'s deal on cattle he could not sell because of retaliatory actions of a packer(s), but don't you think that is the kind of thing that the government should step in and correct? Surely for a govt. (I know it is the U.S. and not Canada) can stand up for the little guy like they are supposed to instead of handing out presents to large corporations and selling the little guy out?

I just don't really understand some people.

 

[Tam]

Great stuff Tam. If this thing would have ever gotten to the stage of taking the 3 to 5 dollars out of your pocket, a team would have been in place that would have easily competed with any management team in the industry.

Went out and asked producers at our local ABP meeting last night if they would support a producer vote to settle this thing once and for all. All but two in the house voted for the resolution. The two that did not reminded me a lot of you Tam. Tear this thing down before it can even get off the ground. They seemed just as smart as you too Tam. In fact people like yourself who KNOW everything about how ideas beyond theirs are wrong, are plenty. Problem is, lots of these people make it into positions of power due to that puppet like "do nothing" style.

I also brought forward a resolution on BSE testing. Guess what Tam. The vote was unanimous. Go figure, damn democracy at work. And not at a BIG C meeting, but at the industry standard meeting of Grassroots producers that supposedly direct the CCA????? :roll: :roll: :roll:

And Good for you Randy about the meeting last night but did you show them a business plan of what they are supporting or are they to just vote in blind faith that you will have a feasible working business plan and a management team that will easily compete with any management team in the industry?

About the testing, again
1. Does the Canadian beef industry have the testing capacity to do the testing you are asking for?
The answer is simple YES or NO Randy
2. Did the producers that voted last night know what the present testing capacity of Canada is? Yes or NO.
3. Will it make any different for the producers to ask for testing for market access if Canada doesn't have the capacity to do said testing? YES or NO.

Testing for market access may be a great idea but unless we can actually do it, it is just an IDEA.
Not that I think you will believe me but when the question about doing a sample testing for market access came up at the SSGA convention I voted for it, with reservation on how we will accomplished it. I want this cattle industry to do what ever it has to but first we have to look at what reality is going to allow us to do. What I believe the reality of the testing for market access issue is, is that we don't have the testing capacity to do it for every market we hope it will open to us. I have asked you several times to prove my beliefs about our testing capacity wrong, but since you haven't I must come to the conclusion that I'm right about our testing capacity. It is not up to where we can test for market access. Who do we test for and who do we tell we can't test for you because we don't have the testing capacity to do so? These are concerns I have about the testing alot of producers including you are asking for. Unless we can provide the testing how can we use it to negotiate a deal? Maybe what we need to build before we concentrate on more slaughter plants is a few region testing labs so we can test the cattle we are already slaughtering and see if the tested beef opens markets. Then it the tested beef does what we all hope it would we would have added testing capacity to cover the added slaughter capacity that is now in the works in plant that don't have their own labs.

 

[Tam]

Tam, not giving large corporations money for a problem they are largley responsible for is not discrimination.

Now you said you couldn't prove that it was packers that invented feeding ruminant proteins to ruminant, didn't you? So how can you say the PACKERS were largely responible for the BSE issue in Canada? BSE was what caused the border to be closed which resulted in the crash of fat cattle prices not the packer. If you look at the lawsuit that a few lawyers thought they would get going on the Canadian cattlemens behalf, you will see that they didn't name a packer in the lawsuit. They named the government and a feed mill that was thought to have made the feed that was responible for the BSE infection in Canada.

 

[Econ101]

Great stuff Tam. If this thing would have ever gotten to the stage of taking the 3 to 5 dollars out of your pocket, a team would have been in place that would have easily competed with any management team in the industry.

Went out and asked producers at our local ABP meeting last night if they would support a producer vote to settle this thing once and for all. All but two in the house voted for the resolution. The two that did not reminded me a lot of you Tam. Tear this thing down before it can even get off the ground. They seemed just as smart as you too Tam. In fact people like yourself who KNOW everything about how ideas beyond theirs are wrong, are plenty. Problem is, lots of these people make it into positions of power due to that puppet like "do nothing" style.

I also brought forward a resolution on BSE testing. Guess what Tam. The vote was unanimous. Go figure, damn democracy at work. And not at a BIG C meeting, but at the industry standard meeting of Grassroots producers that supposedly direct the CCA????? :roll: :roll: :roll:

And Good for you Randy about the meeting last night but did you show them a business plan of what they are supporting or are they to just vote in blind faith that you will have a feasible working business plan and a management team that will easily compete with any management team in the industry?

About the testing, again
1. Does the Canadian beef industry have the testing capacity to do the testing you are asking for?
The answer is simple YES or NO Randy
2. Did the producers that voted last night know what the present testing capacity of Canada is? Yes or NO.
3. Will it make any different for the producers to ask for testing for market access if Canada doesn't have the capacity to do said testing? YES or NO.

Testing for market access may be a great idea but unless we can actually do it, it is just an IDEA.
Not that I think you will believe me but when the question about doing a sample testing for market access came up at the SSGA convention I voted for it, with reservation on how we will accomplished it. I want this cattle industry to do what ever it has to but first we have to look at what reality is going to allow us to do. What I believe the reality of the testing for market access issue is, is that we don't have the testing capacity to do it for every market we hope it will open to us. I have asked you several times to prove my beliefs about our testing capacity wrong, but since you haven't I must come to the conclusion that I'm right about our testing capacity. It is not up to where we can test for market access. Who do we test for and who do we tell we can't test for you because we don't have the testing capacity to do so? These are concerns I have about the testing alot of producers including you are asking for. Unless we can provide the testing how can we use it to negotiate a deal? Maybe what we need to build before we concentrate on more slaughter plants is a few region testing labs so we can test the cattle we are already slaughtering and see if the tested beef opens markets. Then it the tested beef does what we all hope it would we would have added testing capacity to cover the added slaughter capacity that is now in the works in plant that don't have their own labs.

Tam, wouldn't that 39 million given to Tyson have paid for some of the testing you are asking for? What are your priorities?

 

[Tam]

Great stuff Tam. If this thing would have ever gotten to the stage of taking the 3 to 5 dollars out of your pocket, a team would have been in place that would have easily competed with any management team in the industry.

Went out and asked producers at our local ABP meeting last night if they would support a producer vote to settle this thing once and for all. All but two in the house voted for the resolution. The two that did not reminded me a lot of you Tam. Tear this thing down before it can even get off the ground. They seemed just as smart as you too Tam. In fact people like yourself who KNOW everything about how ideas beyond theirs are wrong, are plenty. Problem is, lots of these people make it into positions of power due to that puppet like "do nothing" style.

I also brought forward a resolution on BSE testing. Guess what Tam. The vote was unanimous. Go figure, damn democracy at work. And not at a BIG C meeting, but at the industry standard meeting of Grassroots producers that supposedly direct the CCA????? :roll: :roll: :roll:

And Good for you Randy about the meeting last night but did you show them a business plan of what they are supporting or are they to just vote in blind faith that you will have a feasible working business plan and a management team that will easily compete with any management team in the industry?

About the testing, again
1. Does the Canadian beef industry have the testing capacity to do the testing you are asking for?
The answer is simple YES or NO Randy
2. Did the producers that voted last night know what the present testing capacity of Canada is? Yes or NO.
3. Will it make any different for the producers to ask for testing for market access if Canada doesn't have the capacity to do said testing? YES or NO.

Testing for market access may be a great idea but unless we can actually do it, it is just an IDEA.
Not that I think you will believe me but when the question about doing a sample testing for market access came up at the SSGA convention I voted for it, with reservation on how we will accomplished it. I want this cattle industry to do what ever it has to but first we have to look at what reality is going to allow us to do. What I believe the reality of the testing for market access issue is, is that we don't have the testing capacity to do it for every market we hope it will open to us. I have asked you several times to prove my beliefs about our testing capacity wrong, but since you haven't I must come to the conclusion that I'm right about our testing capacity. It is not up to where we can test for market access. Who do we test for and who do we tell we can't test for you because we don't have the testing capacity to do so? These are concerns I have about the testing alot of producers including you are asking for. Unless we can provide the testing how can we use it to negotiate a deal? Maybe what we need to build before we concentrate on more slaughter plants is a few region testing labs so we can test the cattle we are already slaughtering and see if the tested beef opens markets. Then it the tested beef does what we all hope it would we would have added testing capacity to cover the added slaughter capacity that is now in the works in plant that don't have their own labs.

Tam, wouldn't that 39 million given to Tyson have paid for some of the testing you are asking for? What are your priorities?

Yes Econ maybe it would have and so would the millions the rest of the feed sector got to bail them out of a Crisis and the money that the cow calf guys got to bail them out of their crisis but that money was paid out to all qualifing producers like it or not. Now of all the money that Tyson got how much do you think they banked and how much do you think they used to restock their feedlots. And if they took the largest part of that 39 million and reinvested it back into buying calves what do you think that did to our calf prices?

 

[rkaiser]

Tam -

1. Does the Canadian beef industry have the testing capacity to do the testing you are asking for?

Yes. Japan is on the verge of allowing age verified beef. America allows beef from UTM cattle. If any market would be opened by testing, it may only be over twenty or over thirty month cattle. May not be a lot, but may help out the biggest problem producers in this country have to deal with right now.

Now go ahead and tell me how little beef this could amount amount to Tam, :roll: while we deal with another Japanese company interested in a joint venture in Canada.

Wish you could have been at the meeting last night Tam. Your endless knowledge would have been welcome. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

We had an interesting discussion about age verification last night as well. RFID tags are paid for by producers. Do producers get anything back for their investment Tam? Interesting answers at the meeting, I'd like to hear yours.

I was thinking about this added cost to the producer and how it may actually become mandatory rather than voluntary due to the fact that the USDA likes this form of age verification over mouthing. Is this sounding a bit like another story yet.

In the fear world of CCA. If we test for market access, we may have to test for more customers than we like. Thus added cost to the packer.

Has anyone considered this scenerio when discussing the added cost to the producer for RFID tags?

Hearing more talk of $25.00 testing. How much are RFID tags in your neck of the world Tam?

 

[Tam]

Sorry but I don't have time to play your little games Tam. As far as where you implied this was the union site terrible tyson:

Tam"I went to a site the Union had put up for their member to get information and comment on the strike. Since it's titled Terrible Tyson I thought I would be reading how the union member supported the strike and how they think the Union is doing a good job representing them Was I ever surprized at what I read coming from the members of the UFCW. "

Tam"From what I read last night on a site titled Terrible Tyson I think they should have renamed it The Revenge of the Union."

This is pure BS!

You keep referring to 54 posts! At least in your last post you admitted they were not 54 posts supporting tyson! In fact there were darn few & they were anonymous. You twisted this entire story around until it was pure BS.

There are also links on this site by posters to point you to an article. If I post a link to show what peta or ncba, r-calf or whatever, does that make this a peta site because the link is on here? What you tried to do here was pure BS and wrong. I've glanced at a couple of your posts before and I'm not about to play the little games that go on forever here. If you believe in something, post the truth about it. It should carry its own weight. Deliberate deception has no place on a forum sharing information.

Hey Fedup Where did I say all 54 comments were supporting Tyson? what I said was, I was surprized at how many member spoke up against the union. That doesn't not say they all supported Tyson only that I was surprized at how many spoke up against the Unions action. :roll: I went back and counted the posts that were against the unions actions and over half of the 54 were against the union, 30 against the Unions actions, some more were just comments about the posters not having to do with the strike. Then there was the balance of about 15 that were in support of the Union and the strike. Does the equal darn few to you?

And no Fedup it wouldn't be a peta site but did you not read the opening statement made by the Union Rep saying

Please check out the following web site and keep updated with this link:www.terribletyson.com
We developed it to keep people informed of the issues and the crisis that this Employer has created.

So tell me Fedup if a Union Rep said We developed it Wouldn't that mean that the same people that started the web page this comment was on created the terribletyson.com web site to keep their members informed? You yourself said terribletyson.com was a union web site as did some of the posters on the website I was quoting from.

Deliberate deception has no place on a forum sharing information

. Reading things into what someone said so you can discredit them has no place on this forum either but I see that as what you did. I didn't say all 54 were supporting Tyson? but you said I did. I didn't say the web site was terribletyson.com, You did. I said it was a union site you said it wasn't but the opening quote proves it was put up by the same people that put up the website, you do claim to be a union website. You said that all the posts were put on by the same anonymous poster but if you read the posts you will see they weren't. So who is trying to mislead to discredit here Fedup? :roll:

 

[Tam]

Tam -

1. Does the Canadian beef industry have the testing capacity to do the testing you are asking for?

Yes. Japan is on the verge of allowing age verified beef. America allows beef from UTM cattle. If any market would be opened by testing, it may only be over twenty or over thirty month cattle. May not be a lot, but may help out the biggest problem producers in this country have to deal with right now.

So Randy are you now taking advantage of the deal the government negotiated when they didn't buckle to the pressure to 100% test for market access? If the government would have buckled to the supporters of testing would Japan now be on the verge of taking beef from Untested Under twenty month old cattle? And if the Government wouldn't have negotiated them out of testing the Under twenty month would we have had enough testing capacity to handle the testing you were asking for?

We had an interesting discussion about age verification last night as well. RFID tags are paid for by producers. Do producers get anything back for their investment Tam? Interesting answers at the meeting, I'd like to hear yours.

I have to ask you, if there are two groups of calves same in every way but one is RFID'd with age vertification and the other is just tagged for birthplace which group of calves do you think will have more bidders if the buyers are looking to export the meat if not the whole animal?
We were told that there are some feedlot operators that will not be buying calves that don't have the RFID in them so I guess if they make your cattle more salable I would have to say that yes we will be getting something back with the tags. And if you take the time to age vertify with those tags then the buyer will know how old your animal is before they leave the feed lots for the slaughter house or on trucks hauling to the US. Just knowing for sure will eazy the minds of those that buy them think of exporting them or their meat.

I was thinking about this added cost to the producer and how it may actually become mandatory rather than voluntary due to the fact that the USDA likes this form of age verification over mouthing. Is this sounding a bit like another story yet.

What extra cost are you talking about Randy You tag your cattle already that is manditory in Canada If the feedlot operators aren't going to buy your cattle unless they are RFID'd then wouldn't you take that added cost so you can access the largest amount of buyers for your cattle anyway. The cost of age vertifing is the time you take to register a date of birth. And if that makes selling your cattle eazier because the buyer is sure of how old the animal is and weither it can be exported in a certain age classification would that not make them worth more to the buyers and you?

In the fear world of CCA. If we test for market access, we may have to test for more customers than we like. Thus added cost to the packer.

Randy if you tell one customer you will test for him so you can access his market, how are you going to explain that to the rest of your customers that are wondering why you aren't testing for them? Are you going to tell them that the other customer deserves it but they don't? Once you start down the road of testing for market access it is to late to back out if all your customers expect to be treated the same and you don't have the capacity to follow through.

I thought we had already discussed that the true reality of the beef industry is that any added cost to the packer could and probably will be passed back to the producer. So it you are worried about the cost of a $2 or $3 tag that will make your cattle more salable what are you going to do when the packer tells the feedlot guy he has to pay $25 dollars less for the fat cattle to cover the cost of a test. and in turn the feeder tells you he has to pay you $25 less for your calves to recoup the money he gave up to the packer to cover the cost of the test?

Hearing more talk of $25.00 testing. How much are RFID tags in your neck of the world Tam?

Well Randy it didn't cost us $25 dollars and the buyers knew how old the animals we sold were. The packer will also know if they have to be tested and if they qualify to be exported to Japan if that market opens up to Under twenty months old. So I would said that is a beneifit. Another beneifit is the time the new tags will save if another BSE positive animal is found. If we can cut the time of the investigation down to days instead of weeks like other investigation have taken that will beneifit the whole industry in credibility in the eyes of our trading partners. What would the BSE problem we have, had cost us if we hadn't had the technology that we did have? Improving on it can only save us even more if another case is found.

 

[Bill]

And if the Government wouldn't have negotiated them out of testing the Under twenty month

Tam by that statment one would gather that we are sending under twenty months to Japan. That hasn't happened yet. Hopefully it will and the sooner the better. The interesting thing will then be how the Japanese consumer accepts untested beef when sold along side beef that is tested.

 

[Econ101]

Tam -

Yes. Japan is on the verge of allowing age verified beef. America allows beef from UTM cattle. If any market would be opened by testing, it may only be over twenty or over thirty month cattle. May not be a lot, but may help out the biggest problem producers in this country have to deal with right now.

So Randy are you now taking advantage of the deal the government negotiated when they didn't buckle to the pressure to 100% test for market access? If the government would have buckled to the supporters of testing would Japan now be on the verge of taking beef from Untested Under twenty month old cattle? And if the Government wouldn't have negotiated them out of testing the Under twenty month would we have had enough testing capacity to handle the testing you were asking for?

We had an interesting discussion about age verification last night as well. RFID tags are paid for by producers. Do producers get anything back for their investment Tam? Interesting answers at the meeting, I'd like to hear yours.

I have to ask you, if there are two groups of calves same in every way but one is RFID'd with age vertification and the other is just tagged for birthplace which group of calves do you think will have more bidders if the buyers are looking to export the meat if not the whole animal?
We were told that there are some feedlot operators that will not be buying calves that don't have the RFID in them so I guess if they make your cattle more salable I would have to say that yes we will be getting something back with the tags. And if you take the time to age vertify with those tags then the buyer will know how old your animal is before they leave the feed lots for the slaughter house or on trucks hauling to the US. Just knowing for sure will eazy the minds of those that buy them think of exporting them or their meat.

I was thinking about this added cost to the producer and how it may actually become mandatory rather than voluntary due to the fact that the USDA likes this form of age verification over mouthing. Is this sounding a bit like another story yet.

What extra cost are you talking about Randy You tag your cattle already that is manditory in Canada If the feedlot operators aren't going to buy your cattle unless they are RFID'd then wouldn't you take that added cost so you can access the largest amount of buyers for your cattle anyway. The cost of age vertifing is the time you take to register a date of birth. And if that makes selling your cattle eazier because the buyer is sure of how old the animal is and weither it can be exported in a certain age classification would that not make them worth more to the buyers and you?

In the fear world of CCA. If we test for market access, we may have to test for more customers than we like. Thus added cost to the packer.

Randy if you tell one customer you will test for him so you can access his market, how are you going to explain that to the rest of your customers that are wondering why you aren't testing for them? Are you going to tell them that the other customer deserves it but they don't? Once you start down the road of testing for market access it is to late to back out if all your customers expect to be treated the same and you don't have the capacity to follow through.

I thought we had already discussed that the true reality of the beef industry is that any added cost to the packer could and probably will be passed back to the producer. So it you are worried about the cost of a $2 or $3 tag that will make your cattle more salable what are you going to do when the packer tells the feedlot guy he has to pay $25 dollars less for the fat cattle to cover the cost of a test. and in turn the feeder tells you he has to pay you $25 less for your calves to recoup the money he gave up to the packer to cover the cost of the test?

Hearing more talk of $25.00 testing. How much are RFID tags in your neck of the world Tam?

Well Randy it didn't cost us $25 dollars and the buyers knew how old the animals we sold were. The packer will also know if they have to be tested and if they qualify to be exported to Japan if that market opens up to Under twenty months old. So I would said that is a beneifit. Another beneifit is the time the new tags will save if another BSE positive animal is found. If we can cut the time of the investigation down to days instead of weeks like other investigation have taken that will beneifit the whole industry in credibility in the eyes of our trading partners. What would the BSE problem we have, had cost us if we hadn't had the technology that we did have? Improving on it can only save us even more if another case is found.

Tam, There are problem makers in this world and there are problem solvers. It is plain to see by actions who is who on this board.

Good luck up in Canada.