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

Question for Agman, SH, and or Jason

Help Support Ranchers.net:

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
How are Canadians supposed to accept the fact that last weeks anouncement has caused the mutinational packers to offer 20 cents a pound less for live cattle today?

Seems that the boxed beef trade had slowed Canadian (American owned) lines due to supply the last couple of weeks showing signs of a more functional market. American fats rose what, 2 cents. Is that not more of a normal market reponse to speculation?

Please don't say it's ALL Rcalf's fault. It certainly is one factor, but not 20 cents worth.

Pretty hard for Canadians to keep accepting Packer excuses and Rcalf blame.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Until you have enough slaughter capacity for your cattle numbers, the leverage is clearly in the packer's hands.

Nobody's making excuses for packers taking advantage of the leverage a closed Canadian border has provided for them.

Now remind me, who's keeping the border closed????



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
:) An American district court Judge is keeping the border closed.

You never adressed the fact that for the first time in two years, fats in Canada were fairly tight in the time frame leading up to the announcement.

Yes Rcalf is a bunch of half wit bungling fools, but we can't keep ignoring the rest of the game.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Uncertianty and speculation are not good for the beef industry.

Not knowing what the March 7 potential opening would bring, Lakeside went hunting for cattle. They bought 150,000 head to try to maintain their operations.

I don't know what prices they paid, likely equal to cash prices that week, close to the 90 cent CDN mark.

The producers were obviously willing to take a bird in the hand, as they sold.

I don't know for sure, but Cargill would have done a similar thing to protect their interests.

Prices would obviously fall based on no major players buying cattle at all. Previous, packers had shortened kill weeks as fat cattle were not available. Now that they have bought all they can find, is the lower price anything other than having to offer some kind of price for those who didn't hedge their bets?

I know I do the same type of thing when buying feed. If uncertianty over the new crop is there and there is an opportunity to buy cheap feed, I try to buy enough to cover me in case of drought. If new crop develops, I lower the price I will pay for feed based on my already having a stockpile.

It is true the packers have an advantage as they can just shut down and kill less if there is no money, where producers can't just decide not to have a calf crop.

The question becomes, do the packers have an obligation to run at break even during this crisis? Do the packers really intend to break producers? I would answer no to both questions.

New packing capacity will make margins stay slimmer, but no packers will continually lose money... even the producer owned plants proposed cannot run at a loss indefinately.

Producers are starting to realize what living off their equity means, some are coming to the stark realization that they are not efficient. Packers learned these lessons years ago.

Just because we have been born into this lifestyle doesn't mean we have a God given right to continue in it, it is a business and those who refuse to treat it as such are doomed to failure.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Now remind me, who's keeping the border closed????


Judge Cebull is keeping the border closed, don't you pay attention to current events? :roll: You see, he is a Federal Judge. R-CALF thought the USDA was trying to pull a snowjob so they filed with the court. R-CALF argued their side of the story and the USDA argued their side of the story. The Judge then ruled that R-CALF was onto something enough to warrant keeping the border closed.

Closing the border (or opening it) is a GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. The judge is a part of the government. Understand how that works now?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
The US is keeping the border closed through efforts of R-Calf, the Senate and NCBA.

R-Calf deserves the flack they take on this site for the manner in which they try to keep it closed but they are not alone in wanting it to remain closed. About the only ones who want it open is a handful of packers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker,

If we have a domestic case of BSE, will R-CALF sue USDA for allowing our consumers to eat contaminated beef?

Can we expect to read R-CALF's BSE "fear mongering" that ignores increased surveilance, SRM removal, and the feed ban in publications such as the Wall Street Journal?

The fact that none of you R-CALF followers can see the bigger picture of the consequences of lying about the safety of Canadian beef speaks to the levels this industry will stoop to further an agenda.

I have never been more ashamed of this industry than I am right now. How truly pathetic to build a case against Canada based on lies and load a gun and point it at our own heads. R-CALF has reached an all time low.



~SH~
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rkaiser said:
How are Canadians supposed to accept the fact that last weeks anouncement has caused the mutinational packers to offer 20 cents a pound less for live cattle today?

Please don't say it's ALL Rcalf's fault. It certainly is one factor, but not 20 cents worth.

Pretty hard for Canadians to keep accepting Packer excuses and Rcalf blame.

REaponse...I met last evening with one of the most knowledgeable people in Alberta. He pointed to the decline but did not blame the packers for all teh problems. How many cattle were on the government 90 feed support program? What was the target weight for acceptance and what are their current weights? How many of these cattle were targeted for a March 7 trade date that must now be absorbed in Canada.

I do not agree at all with the judge's ruling but you must answer and consider the impact of the aforementioned factors to be objective. I will work in earnest to help Canadians from the negative impact of the recent ruling. The framework for this effort was establishced last evening. We will need your help. My commitment and time will be pro bono as I believe this is a matter of principal. Hopefully, I will get to meet some of you at the appropriate time when I am in Alberta. Have a great day.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
Thank you for all your good common sense and intelligence, which we appreciate very much.

Common sense and intelligence seem to be becoming very rare commodities these days. 8)
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
:) Yes agman I have to agree, your response gives another angle that I had not considered. Hard to deal with the emotional side all the time. Read the story I will post anew.

Randy
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
agman said:
I will work in earnest to help Canadians from the negative impact of the recent ruling. The framework for this effort was establishced last evening. We will need your help. My commitment and time will be pro bono as I believe this is a matter of principal. Hopefully, I will get to meet some of you at the appropriate time when I am in Alberta. Have a great day.

Agman thank you for all efforts to educate all of us in this industry. I would be very pleased to meet you when you come to Alberta. I am not a big player, just a hard worker trying to survive. All chances I get to learn are welcome.

Jason Trowbridge
Southern Angus Farms
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
rkaiser, you must be mistaken about 2 giant packers explioting the opportunity to knock the hell out of fed prices. Here's the deal, packers have the absolute mandate to maximize profits - never think otherwise. I believe, consistant with econ law, that having 2 processors allows the players more control to profit from a windfall than say 15 processors.
 

Latest posts

Top