Tommy
Well-known member
AgriTalk Poll
Should meat packers be banned from owning livestock?
Yes
87.5%
No
9.2%
Not sure
3.3%
Should meat packers be banned from owning livestock?
Yes
87.5%
No
9.2%
Not sure
3.3%
Poll...Should meat packers be banned from owning livestock?
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
It appears NCBA is certainly in tune with producers on this issue...... :roll:
PORKER
Well-known member
The 3.3% must be Packer personal.
andybob
Well-known member
Not me PORKER, I don't think that packers should own livestock both from the point of view of their being able to controll prices by owning large numbers of livestock, and the fact that in general, animal welfare is lacking due to cost cutting in the wrong places and poor attitude of the staff on many farms.PORKER said:
PORKER
Well-known member
Your RIGHT !!!!
kathydavis
Member
:!: yes, that would be like hersey owning all the cocoa trees
PPRM said:
Co-ops are allowed to do things packers aren't. As long as you were buying in a market you couldn't greatly influence, you should have no problem.
As far as a small packing plant--- not being a market maker would disqualify you in the market control issues.
Of course you could have some dipsy judge out there and a big packer ready to sue you.
There has been a big, big concern that vertical integration by the big guys and all the assets they are buying in the production side of farming may make some of these market reforms obsolete. It might be too late.
rkaiser
Well-known member
Don't worry Tex. As soon as we make the changes necessary up here in Canada, you can follow us.
Your producers have not bled enough yet. I believe that blood bath up here will lead to major changes --- that yes --- should have come before (I hate that word should) but are so evident now that you need to be a lot more than legally blind not to ignore.
As for loopholes for producer ownership vs. packer ownership. Politicians still work for the masses even though the lobby of companies is stronger than at any time in history. That is why this battle takes on so many fronts at one time.
Your producers have not bled enough yet. I believe that blood bath up here will lead to major changes --- that yes --- should have come before (I hate that word should) but are so evident now that you need to be a lot more than legally blind not to ignore.
As for loopholes for producer ownership vs. packer ownership. Politicians still work for the masses even though the lobby of companies is stronger than at any time in history. That is why this battle takes on so many fronts at one time.
katrina
Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Go get um randy!!!!!!!!
andybob
Well-known member
What we did was to form a co-operative and built a state of the art abattoir and processing plant (for pigs), in which we were shareholders. All shareholders had quotas to supply weekly numbers of bacon pigs to the company, outsiders could supply but during gluts in production would be paid a lower price. The company owned no stock, and we were shareholders rather than owners of the company, with options opening as the market grew, for new producers to buy in to the company.PPRM said:
We also networked to buy feed and medications through a seperate Farmer's Co op which benefitted us as farmers, but avoided the pitfalls of a VI dominated market.
Soapweed
Well-known member
You shut the poll down too soon; some of us didn't have an opportunity to respond. Do we really want any more rules and regulations from the government? They don't enforce the laws that are on the books now.
This is supposed to be a free country with a free enterprise capitalistic way of doing business. Why do we want more government bureaucracy and red tape clogging up the arteries of commerce? I, for one, don't.
Where do we draw the line in the sand? Both PPRM and RobertMac own cattle from pasture to plate. Do we want to make some crummy rules that would not allow them to go forth on their endeavors? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If big packing plants have to follow these types of rules, so will the small packing plants.
That government is best that governs least. Let us not forget this.
This is supposed to be a free country with a free enterprise capitalistic way of doing business. Why do we want more government bureaucracy and red tape clogging up the arteries of commerce? I, for one, don't.
Where do we draw the line in the sand? Both PPRM and RobertMac own cattle from pasture to plate. Do we want to make some crummy rules that would not allow them to go forth on their endeavors? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If big packing plants have to follow these types of rules, so will the small packing plants.
That government is best that governs least. Let us not forget this.
A
Anonymous
Guest
We'd have to go back two hundred years-- and do away with every law ever passed regulating any business to get back to a truly free enterprise market driven capitalistic economy...A little late for that...
Soapweed
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But why would we want to make it worse instead of better? :???: Do you admire Socialism and Communism? :?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Soapweed said:
Are we making it worse? Once you begin regulation- you have to keep the regulation from allowing any one part to gain unfair advantage...That hasn't been being done.....
You won't find an economist anywhere that will say that we have a true capitalistic society...Russia's after the breakdown of the Soviet Union was more capitalistic- and true free market driven- but they found they had to crack down hard and regulate because it became controlled by the Black Market and Russian Mafia-- just as the Packer Mafia has, without oversight, gained control here...
Tommy
Well-known member
Lies About the Captive Supply Reform Act
At first glance it is puzzling to consider why producers are so dead
set against the Captive Supply Reform Act (S.1017) introduced by Senator
Mike Enzi of Wyoming. But a quick reading of the many reports about the
Captive Supply Reform Act reveals the problem. Most of the information about it s untrue.
The most prominent lie is that the bill would prohibit forward contracts.
Anyone reading the bill could clearly see that this allegation is not
true.
The opponents of reform are not merely misreading the bill; they are
deliberately spreading lies about it. The American Meat Institute (AMI)
started last year with a misinformation campaign to stir up producers
against it. NCBA president, John Queen, joined in by saying that he did
not want forward contracts outlawed by the bill.
More recently the head of US Premium Beef blasted Enzi's bill with the
same kind of misinformation. The information in his release indicates that
either he has not read the simple language of the bill, or he has no
hesitation to ie about it.
Actually the Captive Supply Reform Act would give producers (sellers)
of cattle more freedom than they currently have. According to the
Livestock and Meat Marketing Study commissioned by GIPSA, producers who engage in captive supply contracts give up a discount on their cattle prices in order to get market access. All producers do not have free access to bids and offers.
Cash markets are sometimes open only one day a week, and even then for a very limited time. Buyers are definitely controlling access to bids and
offers. Only a privileged few have free access. Current practice means
that cattle sold to a packer under these agreements do not get priced until after they are slaughtered. By then it is too late for a seller to look for a better bid.
The Captive Supply Reform Act would require that forward contracts be
tied to a set price (or base price for grids) or to a futures price.
Contrary to published reports, value-added premiums for quality are not prohibited.
Market access would be free. If a buyer on Wall Street could legally
control access to bids and offers, the entire stock market would disintegrate.
TheCaptive Supply Reform Act is just a single piece of legislation
intended tomake the cattle and hog markets work a little more like Wall Street.
What would be wrong with following the time-proven principles used there?
It's that simple.
So why is the NCBA still lying about it?
At first glance it is puzzling to consider why producers are so dead
set against the Captive Supply Reform Act (S.1017) introduced by Senator
Mike Enzi of Wyoming. But a quick reading of the many reports about the
Captive Supply Reform Act reveals the problem. Most of the information about it s untrue.
The most prominent lie is that the bill would prohibit forward contracts.
Anyone reading the bill could clearly see that this allegation is not
true.
The opponents of reform are not merely misreading the bill; they are
deliberately spreading lies about it. The American Meat Institute (AMI)
started last year with a misinformation campaign to stir up producers
against it. NCBA president, John Queen, joined in by saying that he did
not want forward contracts outlawed by the bill.
More recently the head of US Premium Beef blasted Enzi's bill with the
same kind of misinformation. The information in his release indicates that
either he has not read the simple language of the bill, or he has no
hesitation to ie about it.
Actually the Captive Supply Reform Act would give producers (sellers)
of cattle more freedom than they currently have. According to the
Livestock and Meat Marketing Study commissioned by GIPSA, producers who engage in captive supply contracts give up a discount on their cattle prices in order to get market access. All producers do not have free access to bids and offers.
Cash markets are sometimes open only one day a week, and even then for a very limited time. Buyers are definitely controlling access to bids and
offers. Only a privileged few have free access. Current practice means
that cattle sold to a packer under these agreements do not get priced until after they are slaughtered. By then it is too late for a seller to look for a better bid.
The Captive Supply Reform Act would require that forward contracts be
tied to a set price (or base price for grids) or to a futures price.
Contrary to published reports, value-added premiums for quality are not prohibited.
Market access would be free. If a buyer on Wall Street could legally
control access to bids and offers, the entire stock market would disintegrate.
TheCaptive Supply Reform Act is just a single piece of legislation
intended tomake the cattle and hog markets work a little more like Wall Street.
What would be wrong with following the time-proven principles used there?
It's that simple.
So why is the NCBA still lying about it?
Soapweed
Well-known member
Tommy said:
Kind of like your poll? :???: :wink:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
The New York Stock Exchange tried to go the minimal rules route, too. It didn't work. The fat cats preyed on the little guys and it was just a mess. They are now one of the most regulated markets in the world, and ALL participants now view the NYSE as fair and a reputable and TRUSTED place to do business. There is a different set of rules depending on who you are and WHAT YOU CAN DO TO OTHERS BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE that are addressed. Everybody is far better off because of those rules, and we will be too.
In a "normal" market, these rules would be needles intervention. However, we don't have a "normal" market - nothing close to it.
I find it interesting that the opponents of the legislation are resorting to a strategy of dishonesty to thwart it.
Now, off to get that 30 point buck....
In a "normal" market, these rules would be needles intervention. However, we don't have a "normal" market - nothing close to it.
I find it interesting that the opponents of the legislation are resorting to a strategy of dishonesty to thwart it.
Now, off to get that 30 point buck....
Soapweed said:Tommy said:
Kind of like your poll? :???: :wink:
Poll ran for a week,I guess you were messin around again instead of voting
.................good luckhttp://www.agritalk.com/
