Poll...Should meat packers be banned from owning livestock?

[Soapweed]

Cash markets are sometimes open only one day a week, and even then for a very limited time.

Kind of like your poll? :???: :wink:

Poll ran for a week,I guess you were messin around again instead of voting .................good luck

http://www.agritalk.com/

Well, my horse doesn't have a radio. Even the mule with his long ears for an antennae can't pick up "Agri-talk." :wink:

 

[Tex]

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...

But why would we want to make it worse instead of better? :???: Do you admire Socialism and Communism? :?

So your answer is to have fascism?

Soap, I know you might not know why these reforms are necessary to protect suppliers (ranchers) from getting their full share of the economic pie, but they are. Packers will suppress prices in cattle markets as much as they can. If that means that they use captive supplies to do it, they will (and have shown that they did). They want to increase that spread between what the total supply costs to them (what you get paid) and what their sales are. Keeping them honest about it is what these reforms are all about.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Well,we cannot continue like we have been we are losing to many family farms,when that happens we lose small town America,to some of us this is unacceptable.
good luck

 

[lazy ace]

My brain is a little slow does anybody have an estimated projection on how much money this will add to the calf market and what will it do to the all natural markets that buy calves off the place and own them all the way? I am sure it is on here someplace but I can't find it. Thanks in advance

have a cold one


lazy ace

 

[MoGal]

LazyAce: I posted in another thread in response to MRJ, that according to a group who studied a USDA report, BEEF PRODUCERS lost 5.7 Billion in 2006 to packer owned beef. My complaint also is that the packers can close the US export market by supplying bones, ecoli, or whatever to other countries, shut down our export market and since the packers are global (Australia and Brazil) they then start shipping it from there. They (the packers) haven't lost one dam dime and they manipulate US beef markets to lower our prices.

We must write our congressional leaders and put pressure on them to pass this law or our beef will be bringing the prices of Aussie or Brazilian beef in short order.

 

[Soapweed]

We all have choices about just about everything. If as a cow/calf producer, I think that "the yearling boys are making all the money," there is sure no law that I have to sell calves right off the cow. I can hold them over to next summer and hit that hot July yearling market. My dilemma is, do I want to pay the wintering expense and face possible sickness and death loss, to hit that higher market. It depends on how much a producer wants to gamble.

If I think by retaining ownership until the cattle are harvested, there is more money to be made, it is my prerogative to "go for the gold." Having done this three times in the past, and lost money two of those times, I am now perfectly content to let others enjoy that part of the cattle deal instead.

If I think the Packers are making all the money and getting rich, it would be my option to buy shares of Conagra or Tyson and "make a killing" along with the Big Boys. I am betting that there is no more real "easy money" in the packing business than there is in any other business. The grass always seems to look greener from the other side of the fence.

To my way of thinking, the more rules, regulations, and restrictions that are imposed on the big packers, the less money they will have to spend on our cattle. If you think foreign beef imports are bothersome now, wait until we restrict the big companies enough from using American cattle that they have to further rely on this foreign beef.

This has happened all along, and is the reason American companies have outsourced most of their manufacturing. The danged Democrats, and I don't use this term loosely :? :wink: , have taxed, ruled and regulated America so bad that the companies have had to send their jobs over seas just to survive.

 

[Mike]

If I think the Packers are making all the money and getting rich, it would be my option to buy shares of Conagra or Tyson and "make a killing" along with the Big Boys.

That ain't gonna happen with Tyson. Take a look at the exhorbitant salaries, stock options, and perks paid to the top folks and the millions they have paid in attorney fees for wrongdoings, etc.

There ain't enough left to give any meaningful disbursements to the stockholders. :roll: :roll:

Forget that!

 

[Anonymous]

This has happened all along, and is the reason American companies have outsourced most of their manufacturing. The danged Democrats, and I don't use this term loosely :? :wink: , have taxed, ruled and regulated America so bad that the companies have had to send their jobs over seas just to survive.

Yep- the worlds problems are all because of those danged Democrats...We only gave the Republicans 12 years control of Congress and 6 years total control of all D.C.-- and what did we end up with--- the biggest fastest grown bureacracy in history- and the biggest ($9 Trillion) national debt in history-- and a global world that no longer trusts us or our money :roll: .... Dang those Democrats.... Yep all the worlds problems are the Democrats fault :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

This isn't about the best way to market cattle or easy money anywhere. This is about those with market power using that power to the detriment of everybody else.

Like I said earlier, if we had a "normal" market, these rules would not be needed and would be unnecessary government regulations. However, we don't have a "normal" market. We really only have 4 buyers for fats natonwide - and one of them buys 1/3 of all the cattle. Compare that to how many buyers that are in the seats in a local sale barn. It's not a "normal" market and that means you can't have "normal" rules.

If you want a fair market where everybody gets a fair shake and an honest opportunity to profit from their labors, you simply cannot allow anybody to tip the scales in their favor just because of their size - and that is exactly what is happening today and why this legislation is past due. Nearly every law we have today is because somebody hosed somebody else and the law represents a loophole closed. This is no different.

 

[RobertMac]

This has happened all along, and is the reason American companies have outsourced most of their manufacturing. The danged Democrats, and I don't use this term loosely :? :wink: , have taxed, ruled and regulated America so bad that the companies have had to send their jobs over seas just to survive.

Yep- the worlds problems are all because of those danged Democrats...We only gave the Republicans 12 years control of Congress and 6 years total control of all D.C.-- and what did we end up with--- the biggest fastest grown bureacracy in history- and the biggest ($9 Trillion) national debt in history-- and a global world that no longer trusts us or our money :roll: .... Dang those Democrats.... Yep all the worlds problems are the Democrats fault :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

IRCC, national debt per a percentage of gdp is smallest in history.
Although I'm not happy with all the Republicans have done in the past 12 years(seemed to have lost their conservatism), I certainly don't want the Democrats back in power.

 

[RobertMac]

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?

I'm touched by your concern, but here is the difference...my packer never owns my cattle. He provides me a service...turning my live animals into packaged meat...which I pay him for, pick up my meat, and sell it to the consumer. I view the large packers that buy cattle, turn it into meat, and sell to the consumer as my competition. So, anything that burdens my competition will help me. On the other hand, the more free my competition is to do as they please, the better their advantage over me. The five largest packers buy, process, and sell the meat from over 90% of fed cattle. Their market advantage over me is incalculable...but having laws that protects my ability to market as I do is what makes a FREE MARKET!!!!

Do we really want any more rules and regulations from the government?

This is the simplistic argument from NCBA. We are a representative republic which is governed by the rule of law. Rules and regulations are the essence of our form of government. I don't want the country run by large corporations anymore than I want the country run by the government. I want laws to protect small business because I think it is small business that made this country great!

 

[Tex]

This has happened all along, and is the reason American companies have outsourced most of their manufacturing. The danged Democrats, and I don't use this term loosely :? :wink: , have taxed, ruled and regulated America so bad that the companies have had to send their jobs over seas just to survive.

Yep- the worlds problems are all because of those danged Democrats...We only gave the Republicans 12 years control of Congress and 6 years total control of all D.C.-- and what did we end up with--- the biggest fastest grown bureacracy in history- and the biggest ($9 Trillion) national debt in history-- and a global world that no longer trusts us or our money :roll: .... Dang those Democrats.... Yep all the worlds problems are the Democrats fault :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

IRCC, national debt per a percentage of gdp is smallest in history.
Although I'm not happy with all the Republicans have done in the past 12 years(seemed to have lost their conservatism), I certainly don't want the Democrats back in power.

RM, I hate to correct you on this "little" issue, but read this:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


As you can see, our national debt is way, way, way bigger than you thought. The trick, you see, comes in the wording. What is the deficit compared to gdp is a very different answer than total debt to gdp.

The deficit is what you are spending over your increase in pay. The deficit is the difference of what the govt. receives in taxes and what they spend.

You may be talking about the DEFICIT as a percent of GDP, not DEBT.

One of the more major concerns is not only the debt, but the liabilities. Debt is what we owe already. The liabilities (SS liabilities, medicare, medicaid, and other govt. spending) are much greater.

Look at it this way, the debt is the total you owe on your credit card and such. The gdp is what you earn in one year. The liabilities are all the bills you signed up to pay in the future like tv contracts, phone contracts, cable contract, and possibly your lease you signed for your auto and your housing. For the government, it is the interest they have to pay as well as future liabilities.



When you look at the real numbers, it gets pretty scary.

I was in the lending business some time ago so I looked at these numbers for the people I was working with. Too many people lived off of their current income just paying their current bills. I saw a lot who were heading to bankruptcy, losing their house, their car, or taking money out of their meager savings for retirement to pay for current expenses.

It was pretty scary.

 

[Soapweed]

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?

I'm touched by your concern, but here is the difference...my packer never owns my cattle. He provides me a service...turning my live animals into packaged meat...which I pay him for, pick up my meat, and sell it to the consumer. I view the large packers that buy cattle, turn it into meat, and sell to the consumer as my competition. So, anything that burdens my competition will help me. On the other hand, the more free my competition is to do as they please, the better their advantage over me. The five largest packers buy, process, and sell the meat from over 90% of fed cattle. Their market advantage over me is incalculable...but having laws that protects my ability to market as I do is what makes a FREE MARKET!!!!

Here is where your philosophy and mine differ. You regard the big packers as "competition." I regard them as a vital and necessary part of the equation for my cattle to even have a market. If it were not for the large efficient packers, I would have to start butchering and selling my cattle myself. This I darn sure don't want to have to do. My other option would be selling to small less efficient packers who couldn't afford to pay me nearly as much for my cattle.

 

[Soapweed]

If I think the Packers are making all the money and getting rich, it would be my option to buy shares of Conagra or Tyson and "make a killing" along with the Big Boys.

That ain't gonna happen with Tyson. Take a look at the exhorbitant salaries, stock options, and perks paid to the top folks and the millions they have paid in attorney fees for wrongdoings, etc.

There ain't enough left to give any meaningful disbursements to the stockholders. :roll: :roll:

Forget that!

A few others that are highly overpaid for services rendered would also include Bill Callahan and Bill Bullard.

 

[Sandhusker]

Bill Callahan I'll agree. Bill Bullard is trying to keep all of us in business.

 

[RobertMac]

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?

I'm touched by your concern, but here is the difference...my packer never owns my cattle. He provides me a service...turning my live animals into packaged meat...which I pay him for, pick up my meat, and sell it to the consumer. I view the large packers that buy cattle, turn it into meat, and sell to the consumer as my competition. So, anything that burdens my competition will help me. On the other hand, the more free my competition is to do as they please, the better their advantage over me. The five largest packers buy, process, and sell the meat from over 90% of fed cattle. Their market advantage over me is incalculable...but having laws that protects my ability to market as I do is what makes a FREE MARKET!!!!

Here is where your philosophy and mine differ. You regard the big packers as "competition." I regard them as a vital and necessary part of the equation for my cattle to even have a market. If it were not for the large efficient packers, I would have to start butchering and selling my cattle myself. This I darn sure don't want to have to do. My other option would be selling to small less efficient packers who couldn't afford to pay me nearly as much for my cattle.

RobertMuck(remember, you started it)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sorry about my unintentional miss-spelling :dunce:
I'm sure no offense taken either direction...I'll try to do better. :wink:

No doubt, the big packers are "a vital and necessary part of the equation", but as it is now, they are too big a part of the equation...Tyson is 1/3 of the market. That opens the door for market abuse...and that necessitates the need for more rules and regulations. If we had 100 packers processing the same 90% of fed cattle, we wouldn't need more rules and regulations...the market would be self regulating...as a free market should be! True value of our cattle is found when producers have the ability to sell directly to the consumer...just as Ben, PPRM and myself have found(and many others). This efficiency argument is also bogus...are the large packers going to use their efficiency to pay you more for your calves or to gain more market share? I think that question has already been answered!

My other option would be selling to small less efficient packers who couldn't afford to pay me nearly as much for my cattle.

This is short term thinking that will cost all producers in the long term!Look at the situation Canadian producers are in...what are their options???? Many are still fighting someone like Randy...who will need government rules and regulations to protect him from Tyson's and Cargill's unfair marketing practices when he becomes large enough to be viewed as a threat by them!!!(Might be already, watch out Randy)

Producers have to change their thinking and start supporting independent packers (Branded Beef programs)...even(or especially) if you have to turn down more dollars from the big packers!!!!

Question: Will you consider the big packers competition when they start importing beef from S.A.? If you wait until it gets here to decide, it will be too late!!!

 

[katrina]

Soap, I didn't get to vote either...... So my guess would be that we would cancel out each others vote......
Good arguments on both sides I might say.........

 

[Ben Roberts]

Bill Callahan I'll agree. Bill Bullard is trying to keep all of us in business.

Wrong, Bill Bullard, is just filling out a resume for his next job interview.

 

[Tommy]

Katrina...Soap, I didn't get to vote either...... So my guess would be that we would cancel out each others vote......
Good arguments on both sides I might say.........


Everyone had a chance to vote in the poll on AgriTalk. I read the packers are upset with the poll now.

 

[Ben Roberts]

The very last-thing producers need to be, are meat packers!!!!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts