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

PACKERS STILL TRYING TO RUIN THE CATTLE BUISNESS

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Japan Suspends Imports Of Meat
From U.S. Firm For Beef Sausage

By Richard Smith

TOKYO — Japan suspended all imports from Los Angeles, California-based Jobbers Meat Packing last Friday because a sausage shipment from the company contained U.S. beef.

And the country's ministry of agriculture, forestry and fisheries will conduct random sample checks of all processed meat products for which export permit applications are filed by U.S. exporters.

The shipment, which arrived at Kobe Port February 22, included two types of sausages with labels on the wrapping saying they contain beef from U.S.-raised cattle, MAFF said in a March 2 press release on its Japanese-language website.

The press release said the the sausages with labels indicating they contain U.S. beef weighed in total 1300 kilograms and were found in 188 of 1108 boxes in the 16-ton cargo shipment.

However, a USDA certificate attached to the cargo made no mention of beef as among the ingredients. Processed beef is banned under U.S. beef export to Japan rules.

MAFF's press release said an analysis of the two types of sausages showed one of the two contained beef. The other did not, despite beef being listed as an ingredient on the label.

"This is really deplorable, so we have requested the U.S. conduct an investigation," Japanese ag minister Yoshio Kobayashi told a Monday news conference, reproduced on MAFF's website.

MAFF's press release said the suspension of imports from Jobbers Meat Packing will continue until the ministry examines the U.S. investigation's results, to ensure their is no safety problem.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Your post title is a little misleading Old boy, as this was likely human error rather than a conspiracy theory.

I opened the thread because I thought you were talking about how the packers are trying to "control" rather than ruin the North American cattle business with the help of Rcalf and the Canadian border issue :wink: .
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Randy, you and I both know the packer's "control" has come about because producers/feeders have run to feed out of their troughs. If we are going to regain any "control", producers will have to stay involved in OUR PRODUCT to the wholesale/retail level. That road starts with supporting and selling through independent/branded processors. Good luck with your work up there!
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Randy, you and I both know the packer's "control" has come about because producers/feeders have run to feed out of their troughs. If we are going to regain any "control", producers will have to stay involved in OUR PRODUCT to the wholesale/retail level. That road starts with supporting and selling through independent/branded processors. Good luck with your work up there!

Standing alone, on our own merit without government intervention, is what I have been preaching for seventeen years now. It takes alot of courage, to step out of the grasp of the packers, but the rewards are great, for those that do.

Ben Roberts
 

Jason

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
RobertMac said:
Randy, you and I both know the packer's "control" has come about because producers/feeders have run to feed out of their troughs. If we are going to regain any "control", producers will have to stay involved in OUR PRODUCT to the wholesale/retail level. That road starts with supporting and selling through independent/branded processors. Good luck with your work up there!

Standing alone, on our own merit without government intervention, is what I have been preaching for seventeen years now. It takes alot of courage, to step out of the grasp of the packers, but the rewards are great, for those that do.

Ben Roberts

I agree that producers have the most at steak (pun intended) in the retail end of the beef biz.

However, what happens when we own the processor that screws up? Someone slapped a label on sasuage that didn't contain beef, and processed beef isn't even allowed, I didn't know that small detail, how many others hadn't realized or thought about it?

It is easier to expand a cowherd and raise more calves than to try to look after the number you have now all the way to retail.

Consolidation in the cow calf sector is happening and will continue to do so before any major pasture to plate ventures are common.

The average cow herd in Canada is almost double what it was a short 3 years ago. New entrants are not just getting into 20 cows, the start up number seems to be 100 anymore.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Jason, you could have a wreck and die every time you get onto the highway...maybe you should just stay at home locked in you room where you perceive safety!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Some of us have a little different take on this issue than you, RobertMac.

Apparently it is easier to denigrate those, who for whatever reason, cannot make your system of processing and marketing your cattle work for their particular situation.

Ben, I'm pleased you don't want government intervention. But not certain what you mean. First it seemed you must not want government packing packing plants like Econ seems to think we need, but not sure.

Jason, you have good points. There have been a considerable number of producers who suffered a great deal because a packer, or promoter/marketer in a direct marketing effort to by-pass the traditional packers screwed up.

My take is that many producers are expert in what they do, and some of us do not want to learn the packing, or retailing businesses. For some of us, it is because we are too far from a significant number of consumers.

Forming, or joining some sort of alliance where producers hire experts in the allied businesses of processing, marketing, etc. makes much more sense than going after it on an individual basis, for most producers, IMO.

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
MRJ wrote: There have been a considerable number of producers who suffered a great deal because a packer, or promoter/marketer in a direct marketing effort to by-pass the traditional packers screwed up.

Could you expand on this please?

If what you say is commonplace (your word: considerable) does that mean any and all attempts to better the system in the future are doomed?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Some of us have a little different take on this issue than you, RobertMac.

Apparently it is easier to denigrate those, who for whatever reason, cannot make your system of processing and marketing your cattle work for their particular situation.

Ben, I'm pleased you don't want government intervention. But not certain what you mean. First it seemed you must not want government packing packing plants like Econ seems to think we need, but not sure.

Jason, you have good points. There have been a considerable number of producers who suffered a great deal because a packer, or promoter/marketer in a direct marketing effort to by-pass the traditional packers screwed up.

My take is that many producers are expert in what they do, and some of us do not want to learn the packing, or retailing businesses. For some of us, it is because we are too far from a significant number of consumers.

Forming, or joining some sort of alliance where producers hire experts in the allied businesses of processing, marketing, etc. makes much more sense than going after it on an individual basis, for most producers, IMO.

MRJ


MRJ, I NEVER said I wanted govt. packing plants. Again, you mistake what I have advocated without even asking about it.

What I said, is that they should be viewed as public goods similar to utilities.

My big problem is that packers control the slaughtering of animals and then control their sale. Packers should be required to allow ANY producer to use their services at the same cost they have for the cattle they slaughter. Then the sellers could sell their own cattle and have them slaughtered and then control their sale instead of the packer retaining these rights as is current policy.

This would allow small producers to use efficient processing and then market their own product to the market. It would allow those producers who raise and feed cattle to get a premium if they raise cattle that the market wants. If a producer can genetically produce cattle that are leaner and still have more tender and palatable cattle, they should be able to profit off of these kind of cattle to the branded products by controlling the carcass after slaughter. Now the packers control those sales.

This would go a long way to developing the market of beef for the cattle producer instead of the packer.

rkaiser is a perfect example. He can not get his cattle custom killed by the big packers in Canada. They will not do it. rkaiser has to go to a small packer who may not have the "efficiencies" and hence lower costs the big packers have. This can be a hindrance to owning good genetics because you basically have to give up that value if you are just selling cattle to packers. The real value of better cattle carcasses goes to the packer.

MRJ, if you have a question about the suggestions I make, please ask a question. Please do not assume that your interpretation is automatically correct. You often are not able to think for yourself so you are not able to think through what I say without help. It is no surprise.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
MRJ, my meaning of, no government intervention is, why do we believe that going to Washington DC and asking government to, stop packers from owning cattle, close the border from the Canadian cattle producers, etc. etc. will ever work, it never has. Why don't the cattle producers of this country and Canada stand up, and say NO MORE! some of us have. We have an eight hundred acre farm, I raise dryland wheat, peas and barley, I don't sell one bushel of grain on the commodity market. I grind my grain and feed it to my cattle and poultry, I sell all of the beef I can produce @ $2.75lb. hanging weight, and have a waiting list, I keep around two thousand laying hens, and sell eggs for $4.00 per dozen, also sell several thousand dressed fryers per year @ $2.75 per lb.

The cattle producers in this country, have not had, a greater opportunity than now, to better themselves, this is not something you have to sell, the consumers are demanding, producers bring their products to the market place. Yet, most of you want someone else to solve your problems. US Premium Beef is doing it on a lot larger scale than I am, but it works. RobertMac, rkaiser and others have had the courage to say NO MORE.

Ben Roberts
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Is it courage Ben, or knowledge? MRJ's response is so typical of what BIG C has been up against in our very own "Industry Leading CCA. :roll: "

When they get frightened they call us socialist like MRJ wants to refer to Econo. Jason has once agin shown us his fear and the limited ability to see history. Has ramping up numbers increased the profitablity of the producer in Canada Jason? Not a chance>

Like I have said a few times on this site - Rcalf - go after Japan, but go after them with respect and honor. BIG C will take the E.U. thank you very much. The wheels are in motion on this side of the 49th, how about to the south?
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Is it courage Ben, or knowledge? MRJ's response is so typical of what BIG C has been up against in our very own "Industry Leading CCA. :roll: "

When they get frightened they call us socialist like MRJ wants to refer to Econo. Jason has once agin shown us his fear and the limited ability to see history. Has ramping up numbers increased the profitablity of the producer in Canada Jason? Not a chance>

Like I have said a few times on this site - Rcalf - go after Japan, but go after them with respect and honor. BIG C will take the E.U. thank you very much. The wheels are in motion on this side of the 49th, how about to the south?

In the opening statement of my book, last paragraph, "The successful cattlemen and cattlewomen of the future, will be men and women who have equipped themselves with knowledge."

Knowledge alone, is just the beginning, then you will need courage to step out, from the grasp of the packers and government control. I can only give you the history of the industry, and how it has developed through the years, that has enabled the packers to control the industry through government. I can not, give you courage.

Whats happening in the cattle industry worldwide, is what I call, PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION, this is how it works, a problem exist, let's say captive supply, the cattlemen then give their reaction, something must be done about this problem! and then always they give up any authority they have, by saying, what are (they) going to do about it! then (they) come up with a solution, and the cattle producers don't like the solution. Well just what in the hell do you expect. TAKE BACK THE CONTROL OF YOUR INDUSTRY!

Ben Roberts
 

mrj

Well-known member
Mike said:
MRJ wrote: There have been a considerable number of producers who suffered a great deal because a packer, or promoter/marketer in a direct marketing effort to by-pass the traditional packers screwed up.

Could you expand on this please?

If what you say is commonplace (your word: considerable) does that mean any and all attempts to better the system in the future are doomed?


Mike, as you frequently do, you are writing something other than what I actually said into your post and trying to make it appear it was my words.

I wrote "....considerable NUMBER OF PRODUCERS....", not considerable NUMBER OF EVENTS, which is what saying this is "commonplace" , your INTERPRETATION of my comments says.

No, I won't elaborate on the event I referenced. It was in the news a couple of years ago in SD. You should be able to find it yourself, if you are really interested.

And most certainly I do not believe any and all attempts to do better in the future are doomed. I didn't even remotely imply that scenario. Only pointing out that starting a 'farm gate to consumer plate' business is not simple, that it may not work in some locations, and for some producers.

Econ, o ye of elevated self esteem, where I live the "public utilites" are mainly the Rural Electric Systems, a government controlled cooperative. If it seems unusual to you that one could equate your call for packing plants to be treated as "public utilites"........so be it.

Did your mother teach you to be rude and unkind, or did you pick it up all by yourself?

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
MRJ: I wrote "....considerable NUMBER OF PRODUCERS....", not considerable NUMBER OF EVENTS, which is what saying this is "commonplace" , your INTERPRETATION of my comments says.

No, I won't elaborate on the event I referenced. It was in the news a couple of years ago in SD. You should be able to find it yourself, if you are really interested.

OK. I didn't think you knew what you were talking about.

On the Gin again? :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Mike said:
MRJ wrote: There have been a considerable number of producers who suffered a great deal because a packer, or promoter/marketer in a direct marketing effort to by-pass the traditional packers screwed up.

Could you expand on this please?

If what you say is commonplace (your word: considerable) does that mean any and all attempts to better the system in the future are doomed?


Mike, as you frequently do, you are writing something other than what I actually said into your post and trying to make it appear it was my words.

I wrote "....considerable NUMBER OF PRODUCERS....", not considerable NUMBER OF EVENTS, which is what saying this is "commonplace" , your INTERPRETATION of my comments says.

No, I won't elaborate on the event I referenced. It was in the news a couple of years ago in SD. You should be able to find it yourself, if you are really interested.

And most certainly I do not believe any and all attempts to do better in the future are doomed. I didn't even remotely imply that scenario. Only pointing out that starting a 'farm gate to consumer plate' business is not simple, that it may not work in some locations, and for some producers.

Econ, o ye of elevated self esteem, where I live the "public utilites" are mainly the Rural Electric Systems, a government controlled cooperative. If it seems unusual to you that one could equate your call for packing plants to be treated as "public utilites"........so be it.

Did your mother teach you to be rude and unkind, or did you pick it up all by yourself?

MRJ

MRJ, you still did not understand the concept even after I explained it to you. You must be really really dense. I know it is really hard for you to understand complex (not really that complex) concepts, but please try instead of continually trying to teach yourself your own view of what someone else says. You just don't get it right. Maybe having talking points from your beloved NCBA is about all you can handle. Perhaps you can go back and read my previous post and see the similarities I was trying to draw. Here is a hint: It is not that your utility company is a government entity. Try again.

Just to show you understand the concept, please explain why public utilities are non profit. This might require you to think.

As for my being rude, you discounted the concerns brought up in the OIG report where GIPSA was negligent in handling consumer complaints and even worse, hiding cases brought before them by producers. You discounted this as being "political".

I don't believe in being nice while you are stabbing fellow producers in the back--especially before you even read the report. That is something you seem to have no problem with. It is a reflection of your character.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Dear Tam - I see you are counting numbers so I thought I would chip in my inventory. About 170 brood cows and yes I am going to do everything that I can to take back this industry from the grasp of a few mighty pirates. Are ye with us Matey? :)
 
Top