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

Questions for MRJ

Tex

Well-known member
Tex wrote:
mrj wrote:
MoGal, I was looking for something and found your direct q. to me.

Attempting to answer, I have to tell you I can't give OCM any credibility. They are a tool of the Livestock Marketing Assoc, IMO, and it is no surprise that they would spin packer ownership and so called captive supplies as a means by packers to cheat cattle producers with the end goal of all cattle going through livestock auctions multiple times in their short lives. The name of that game is "Keep Livestock Auctions Profitable".

BTW, MoGal, NCBA is not only "for" the American beef producers, it' is run by American beef producers, the membership!

My 1966 Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary by Readers' Digest defines "premise" as 2. A difinite portion of real estate; land with its appurtenances; also, a building or part of a building. Premise as used under NAIS, for all practical purposes is the home (building) of the owner of the cattle and the 'home' pasture of those cattle (real estate or land owned or used by the owner of the cattle). Just common sense if one isn't up on the latest conpsiracy theories.

mrj


mrj, your attempting to tie the market reforms to auction barns is ridiculous on its face.

It shows just how informed your "conspiracy" mindset happens to be.

It doesn't surprise me that your family has received awards from the NCBA. They need people like you.


mrj, what evidence do you have to support your "theory" (other than NCBA propaganda) that OCM is an arm of the LMA and supports market reforms to get more cattle into auctions that eh LMA profits from? No, correct that. If you are getting information from NCBA, please let us know who and post a copy on this forum.

Can you even tell me what part of the market reforms would even come close to doing this?

Please provide ANY information you have regarding these two questions.

I would seriously like to know.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex, awards we have received from NCBA have been either for our land stewardship, or for serving on the CBB, or acting as cattle producer intervenors along with others, and the NE Cattlemen' Assoc., in the lawsuit LMA and friends filed in their attempt to, as Herman Schumacher, then an auction market manager, stated on radio: "we have to take away the Beef Checkoff to stop NCBA". It has not been for anything I've posted and has been for the good of ALL cattle producers, not just NCBA members.

We appreciate the recognition of our efforts, and more especially the work of the MANY people NCBA recognizes for service to the cattle industry. Truly the best 'awards' for us have been the many friendships we have made with 'cattle people' from across the nation, including staff and members of NCBA and predecessor organizations over the past 50 years.

That you want to believe I take direction from anyone on what to post here is your choice, ridiculous though that idea is! I'm not easily led, and far LESS easily, TOLD what to do, say, or think!!!!

NCBA does need good members, and we try our best to be, participating every chance we get. Though I'm sure my penchant for asking questions and pushing the opposing views in discussion gets a bit tiresome for leadership and staff at times.

Those market "reforms" are coming from OCM/LMA/R-CALF, so I doubt the goals would be contrary to the goals of livestock auction businsses.
Who knows what those "reforms" will do to alliances such as USPB, Harris Ranch, even CAB??? Then there is the fact that packers in the feeding business DO compete with other buyers, which surely is better than having one less buyer competing! What about investor owned fed cattle? Will that be allowed? The cattle business is a cash/capital poor business. Infusions of capital from outside the ranch/farm are a necessity!

As Paul Engler stated recently, "can you imagine this industry starting off each week with fresh showlists totaling more than 600,000 head? That would be the likely scenario without Forward Contracting. Those contracts are used by the packing industry to assure they have the product (type of cattle) they need, when they need it in an attempt to be as efficient as possible.

Pete Crow says, "take it all they way and prevent every industry that contracts for raw materials from buying them more than 14 days in advance. Should we take it to the point that a yearling operator can't contract calves off the video auction? It's the same thing, except it isn't (necessarily) corporate."

Crow also finds it bewildering that the Senate would even think of micro-managing an industry. To me, that is not just bewildering, but absolutely frightening!

Tex, as I've stated many times, my information comes from many sources. We are Farm Bureau members as well as members of several other organizations, and I read a lot and watch a little TV. I even take walks and think about things!!!! It beyond silly for you to believe anyone at NCBA gave me "information" as the basis for my conclusions about R-CALF and friends, Farm Bill changes, or anything other than answering my occasional question about association Policy points or Beef Checkoff projects.

Relax! Spooks are done for another year! Halloween is over! Except for some of the Politicians, that is.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
So here are the two questions again:


How is OCM or the reforms related to the LMA as you stated in your post?

How would the proposed reforms result in giving more business to the LMA as you stated in your post?



The fact is, you are just parroting misinformation and are not smart enough to know it. Look who you quoted.


MRJ:
Those market "reforms" are coming from OCM/LMA/R-CALF, so I doubt the goals would be contrary to the goals of livestock auction businsses.

Tex: So you are basing your assumptions on your doubts and presumptions, not facts. That is the same problem the current head of the civil rights enforcement appointee had problems with when grilled by oversight committee. He didn't fare to well. Look for his ouster.

Who knows what those "reforms" will do to alliances such as USPB, Harris Ranch, even CAB??? Then there is the fact that packers in the feeding business DO compete with other buyers, which surely is better than having one less buyer competing! What about investor owned fed cattle? Will that be allowed? The cattle business is a cash/capital poor business. Infusions of capital from outside the ranch/farm are a necessity!

How do they compete? If a packer has a better deal to give someone wouldn't these guys be the first in line to get it instead of real competition where any rancher or non packer feeder could get it? You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

As Paul Engler stated recently, "can you imagine this industry starting off each week with fresh showlists totaling more than 600,000 head? That would be the likely scenario without Forward Contracting. Those contracts are used by the packing industry to assure they have the product (type of cattle) they need, when they need it in an attempt to be as efficient as possible.

I could imagine something even bigger than that-----the stock market. Make those contracts public. Stock purchase prices and terms are. They are also seen in real time, or as close as you can get.

Pete Crow says, "take it all they way and prevent every industry that contracts for raw materials from buying them more than 14 days in advance. Should we take it to the point that a yearling operator can't contract calves off the video auction? It's the same thing, except it isn't (necessarily) corporate."

Tex: Packers abused their purchase practices and manipulated the market. I would be against this law as unnecessary except for the fact that it happened, the courts didn't understand the fraud, and overturned a jury verdict and inserting its own verdict. Since the courts do not have the ability to see how free markets work and understand market frauds, this regulation is appropriate. He is right that it would have been better to have judges who were competent than to have to have more laws and regulations the industry has to deal with.

By the way, packers can contract for their raw materials in advance---they just have to have a fixed price--not one that is based on a future price subject to their own purchasing practices and manipulation. Yearling operators can still contract and sell video calves, regardless of this bit of misinformation by Crow (which shows his competence or lack thereof) you still quote him. Is this also the depth of your knowledge on this issue to be taken in so easily? Perhaps you should listen to more informed people regarding these issues.


Crow also finds it bewildering that the Senate would even think of micro-managing an industry. To me, that is not just bewildering, but absolutely frightening!

Tex: Again, I agree with Crow. The Senate should never have been involved. The courts didn't do their job and so someone has to make sure it gets done. If I were the Senate, I would seriously be looking at the way we nominate and approve judges to the bench. It doesn't help that a lot of those members in the Senate Judiciary Committee have direct ties with the industry and campaign bribes to boot. Micro managing is not what the Senate should be wasting its time on---making sure the judges they approve do their job would prevent this necessity.


Again:

How is OCM related to the LMA as you stated in your post?

How would the proposed reforms result in giving more business to the LMA as you stated in your post?


Reminder---Here is what you said:
"
Attempting to answer, I have to tell you I can't give OCM any credibility. They are a tool of the Livestock Marketing Assoc, IMO, and it is no surprise that they would spin packer ownership and so called captive supplies as a means by packers to cheat cattle producers with the end goal of all cattle going through livestock auctions multiple times in their short lives. The name of that game is "Keep Livestock Auctions Profitable".
"
 

mrj

Well-known member
Addressing your lie first, I was not, nor am not "parroting misinformation" as you claim.

My OPINIONS re. the LMA/R-CALF/OCM very apparent philosophical, if not legal, partnership have been formed over the time those groups formed. LMA most CERTAINLY had a strong hand in forming and continues strong financial SUPPORT of R-CALF.

IMO, those three groups certainly APPEAR to work hand it glove, supporting the same political agenda.

They APPEAR to support taking CHOICES of how to market cattle away from cattle producers and feeders.

They APPEAR to be taking means of assuring orderly flow of cattle through the processing plants AWAY from packers.

Taking those CHOICES away from cattle producers, cattle feeders, and packers makes me wonder, who benefits???

IMO, it's those organizations who will crow to the producers who are followers, fearing to do anything other than simply taking their cattle to the sale barn and ask "what will you GIVE me for them?", rather than making the extra effort and truly MARKETING their cattle, "we've saved you from yourselve again! You better join up and send those checks to us!"

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.........

Finally, because we disagree does not make you automatically right and me automatically wrong. And I have the 29,000 plus members of NCBA with me on this. My reasons may differ from other members, but if that junk legislation passes, it is not going to be good for the cattle producer and we are united on that point!!!!

Your claims re. the Pickett vs IBP case make me wonder again, aren't you really Econ in another disguise????

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "They APPEAR to support taking CHOICES of how to market cattle away from cattle producers and feeders. "

How?

MRJ, "They APPEAR to be taking means of assuring orderly flow of cattle through the processing plants AWAY from packers."

How?
 

PPRM

Well-known member
mrj said:
Tex, awards we have received from NCBA have been either for our land stewardship, or for serving on the CBB, or acting as cattle producer intervenors along with others, and the NE Cattlemen' Assoc., in the lawsuit LMA and friends filed in their attempt to, as Herman Schumacher, then an auction market manager, stated on radio: "we have to take away the Beef Checkoff to stop NCBA". It has not been for anything I've posted and has been for the good of ALL cattle producers, not just NCBA members.

We appreciate the recognition of our efforts, and more especially the work of the MANY people NCBA recognizes for service to the cattle industry. Truly the best 'awards' for us have been the many friendships we have made with 'cattle people' from across the nation, including staff and members of NCBA and predecessor organizations over the past 50 years.

That you want to believe I take direction from anyone on what to post here is your choice, ridiculous though that idea is! I'm not easily led, and far LESS easily, TOLD what to do, say, or think!!!!

NCBA does need good members, and we try our best to be, participating every chance we get. Though I'm sure my penchant for asking questions and pushing the opposing views in discussion gets a bit tiresome for leadership and staff at times.

Those market "reforms" are coming from OCM/LMA/R-CALF, so I doubt the goals would be contrary to the goals of livestock auction businsses.
Who knows what those "reforms" will do to alliances such as USPB, Harris Ranch, even CAB??? Then there is the fact that packers in the feeding business DO compete with other buyers, which surely is better than having one less buyer competing! What about investor owned fed cattle? Will that be allowed? The cattle business is a cash/capital poor business. Infusions of capital from outside the ranch/farm are a necessity!

As Paul Engler stated recently, "can you imagine this industry starting off each week with fresh showlists totaling more than 600,000 head? That would be the likely scenario without Forward Contracting. Those contracts are used by the packing industry to assure they have the product (type of cattle) they need, when they need it in an attempt to be as efficient as possible.

Pete Crow says, "take it all they way and prevent every industry that contracts for raw materials from buying them more than 14 days in advance. Should we take it to the point that a yearling operator can't contract calves off the video auction? It's the same thing, except it isn't (necessarily) corporate."

Crow also finds it bewildering that the Senate would even think of micro-managing an industry. To me, that is not just bewildering, but absolutely frightening!

Tex, as I've stated many times, my information comes from many sources. We are Farm Bureau members as well as members of several other organizations, and I read a lot and watch a little TV. I even take walks and think about things!!!! It beyond silly for you to believe anyone at NCBA gave me "information" as the basis for my conclusions about R-CALF and friends, Farm Bill changes, or anything other than answering my occasional question about association Policy points or Beef Checkoff projects.

Relax! Spooks are done for another year! Halloween is over! Except for some of the Politicians, that is.

mrj

mrj,

A lot of what I read, i wonder on the back of my mind, "Would some of the suggestions make it so i can't direct market beef from my own cattle?"
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Engler and Crow are just trying to incite those who don't know what is being proposed. "Misrepresenting the facts" is a bit of an understatement here. It's the exact same story the AMI and NCBA is saying - and it isn't true.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
mrj said:
As Paul Engler stated recently, "can you imagine this industry starting off each week with fresh showlists totaling more than 600,000 head? That would be the likely scenario without Forward Contracting. Those contracts are used by the packing industry to assure they have the product (type of cattle) they need, when they need it in an attempt to be as efficient as possible.

mrj


I can remember when we actually had a new show list everyday, we weren't any worse off then, the packers still controlled the markets.

Forward contracting of cattle has taken the place of the large terminal markets, and has given the packers more control over the producers!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The MANY people NCBA recognizes for service to the cattle industry. MRJ Quote

The word ( INDUSTRY) or is it packers ?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Ben, if forward contracting is so bad for producers, why are they doing it?

Porker, maybe you don't, but many people do regard cattle production as an INDUSTRY.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
Don't wait on your answers, Sandhusker and PPRM, you probably will not get them.

MRJ parrots her thoughts, that have no real basis in fact --that someone she thinks is smarter than her told her, as her quotes show.

MRJ, can not think critically about things, she has to trust someone who understands things to tell her about them.

Take the market reforms we are talking about. She doesn't even know how to answer our questions because she doesn't understand them, and yet she spews her bias as if it were fact.

MRJ, why don't you please hand over your computer to those who are handing out the miss truths you are spreading? We might as well hear it from the horse's mouth, not yours. You have already identified some of them---Farm Bureau (National that is--Bob Young), NCBA, and their media.

...and MRJ, there are a lot of smart NCBA members who have membership and don't agree with the national bs coming out of the packer propaganda machine, but this brings up another issue. Would you be able to stand up for the truth without your perceived (I say perceived because you mention th 29,000 people as agreeing with you) herd?

Would you be able to stand up for the truth, assuming you could understand it, if you were alone?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex/econ, your same old vicious name calling tactics surely do expose your 'new' name! You obviously can't stand it when someone does not agree with your self-perceived superior intellect, can you?

I've never had any problem "standing alone" on the truth and on my beliefs. Been there, done that, will do it again!

As for my 'failure' to answer questions, bashing my head against the brick walls some on this site have erected around their little personal biases sometimes isn't worth my time. Other times, I may see the humor in it and follow through. My renowned patience is not unfailing!

As for your statement that all 29,000 members do not always agree with every policy of the organization......I can only say: DUHHHHH! I've never claimed that every policy issue was set with a unanimous vote of all members. And how ridiculous of you to assume I believed or stated such a thing! Obviously, a MAJORITY of the members DO agree with the policies, or they are changed! That is the way it works in a member driven organization, as opposed to the director run outfit.

You have NO basis in fact for your stupid and vicious statement calling NCBA a "packer propaganda machine", either.

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
I've never claimed that every policy issue was set with a unanimous vote of all members. And how ridiculous of you to assume I believed or stated such a thing!

mrj said:
Finally, because we disagree does not make you automatically right and me automatically wrong. And I have the 29,000 plus members of NCBA with me on this. My reasons may differ from other members, but if that junk legislation passes, it is not going to be good for the cattle producer and we are united on that point!!!!

:???: :? :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Ben, if forward contracting is so bad for producers, why are they doing it?

Porker, maybe you don't, but many people do regard cattle production as an INDUSTRY.

mrj

Forward contracting in itself is fine, but that's not the problem here. The problem is when one party has knowledge the other can not possibly have nor get, and then uses that knowledge via open-ended contracts that rely on inputs that the same party can manipulate to their advantage.
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Tex/econ, your same old vicious name calling tactics surely do expose your 'new' name! You obviously can't stand it when someone does not agree with your self-perceived superior intellect, can you?

Tex:mrj, I would never compare myself to you. To be able to compare intellects, you must have at least two in the sample.

I've never had any problem "standing alone" on the truth and on my beliefs. Been there, done that, will do it again!

Tex: Even turkeys will stand in the rain and drown. You must know what you are standing for and for it to be something worth standing up.


As for my 'failure' to answer questions, bashing my head against the brick walls some on this site have erected around their little personal biases sometimes isn't worth my time. Other times, I may see the humor in it and follow through. My renowned patience is not unfailing!

Tex:I am glad you can laugh at this. If not, you just might go insane. I find it humorous to watch turkeys also.

As for your statement that all 29,000 members do not always agree with every policy of the organization......I can only say: DUHHHHH! I've never claimed that every policy issue was set with a unanimous vote of all members. And how ridiculous of you to assume I believed or stated such a thing! Obviously, a MAJORITY of the members DO agree with the policies, or they are changed! That is the way it works in a member driven organization, as opposed to the director run outfit.

Tex: I guess, that is, until the leaders overturn them! See rm's post.

You have NO basis in fact for your stupid and vicious statement calling NCBA a "packer propaganda machine", either.

mrj

Tex: If the shoe fits, Cinderella......

After the war, high ranking officials in Germany didn't want to be called what they were either.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
mrj said:
Ben, if forward contracting is so bad for producers, why are they doing it?

Maxine, forward contracting is not always bad for the producers that are contracting. Only for the producers that also have cattle to sell on the same day. When the packers have enough cattle contracted they pay less for the rest. If I were a feeder that wanted to contract all of the cattle in my lot, the first thing I would do, would be to join the NCBA.




Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Maxine, forward contracting is not always bad for the producers that are contracting. Only for the producers that also have cattle to sell on the same day. When the packers have enough cattle contracted they pay less for the rest. If I were a feeder that wanted to contract all of the cattle in my lot, the first thing I would do, would be to join the NCBA.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Are you implying something, Ben???? :wink:
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Ben Roberts said:
Maxine, forward contracting is not always bad for the producers that are contracting. Only for the producers that also have cattle to sell on the same day. When the packers have enough cattle contracted they pay less for the rest. If I were a feeder that wanted to contract all of the cattle in my lot, the first thing I would do, would be to join the NCBA.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Are you implying something, Ben???? :wink:


I have been to many feedlots in the past 40 years, and i've noticed, since 1995 the feedlots that are strong NCBA members, do get preferential treatment, from the packer buyers.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

mrj

Well-known member
Does you "noticing" something automatically mean it is a verified fact?

What I've noticed for the past 48 years is that many members of NCBA and its predecessor cattlemens' organizations are the leaders and more successful people in the cattle business. Very possibly it is that level of education and expertise in the cattle industry and level of knowledge about the BEEF industry, whether formal or accumaluted from personal experience, is the real reason for what you "observed", rather than the preferential treatment of NCBA members which you imply.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Does you "noticing" something automatically mean it is a verified fact?

What I've noticed for the past 48 years is that many members of NCBA and its predecessor cattlemens' organizations are the leaders and more successful people in the cattle business. Very possibly it is that level of education and expertise in the cattle industry and level of knowledge about the BEEF industry, whether formal or accumaluted from personal experience, is the real reason for what you "observed", rather than the preferential treatment of NCBA members which you imply.

mrj

Leadership from that level of education and expertise in the beef industry has cost us how many dollars in lost sales to Japan and Korea?

Those leaders need to be booted while there are still some of us around to do some booting.
 
Top