R-CALF meeting

[Econ101]

There is a crack in the door for cattle producers...marketing direct to the consumer, selling through independent branded programs, and selling through producer owned co-op. All will take extra work, but nothing comes for free. The key to success in these programs is to stick with them even if you can get more dollars from the big packers. Or call Randy...he may take your calves!

The value in that channel must be made before that can happen. Unfortunately most of the information to get that type of information out would hurt the cattle producers. It would be more efficient for the government regulating agencies to act as efficient as packers make producers act. Of course yours is the second best scenario, Robert Mac. With your scenario, too, the P&S Act and real USDA inspection would still need to be implemented or it too would be a dead end in the long run. The difference you are able to make a customer pay for a "higher quality" product has to outweigh the spread between your product and the "lower quality" packer product.

I wish you lots of luck, Robert Mac, but I am afraid you are going to need more than that to be economically successful. The Tyson strategy is to plow back all profits until they gain enough market power to play economic tricks like they played in Pickett and in their poultry businesses. Industry concentration has a lot to do with this and political money thrown around. If the PSA is not efficiently enforced you probably will not be successful in the long run.

 

[Murgen]

The difference you are able to make a customer pay for a "higher quality" product has to outweigh the spread between your product and the "lower quality" packer product.

Maybe the trick is to not always look for the higher price, but to always have your product sold at an above average, or profitable price!

Some branded beef products, producer owned products, tie up supply of their product, based on consistent quality. And this allows them to consistently make a profit and become somewhat of "price-maker"

But these types of arrangements are sometimes regarded as "contracts" or captive supply.

 

[Econ101]

The difference you are able to make a customer pay for a "higher quality" product has to outweigh the spread between your product and the "lower quality" packer product.

Maybe the trick is to not always look for the higher price, but to always have your product sold at an above average, or profitable price!

Some branded beef products, producer owned products, tie up supply of their product, based on consistent quality. And this allows them to consistently make a profit and become somewhat of "price-maker"

But these types of arrangements are sometimes regarded as "contracts" or captive supply.

Murgen, I wish that were true. It would be if the PSA was enforced intelligently. My arguments are not against these contracts but against the abuse of them. Hope you can see the difference. The PSA needs to enforced internationally if we are dealing with international companies. If it were enforced, the higher prices received from the border closing would have gone to the producers of Canada instead of financing Tyson's takeover of another packing plant.

Gotta go......

 

[Murgen]

Well Econ101, it is true. There are programs out there that have based their buying and premiums, paid directly to producers, on providing a consistent product to the consumer. They have tied up a market and loyality.

Why a producer would continue to sell on average is beyond me.

Here's one such program, http://www.laurasleanbeef.com/forCattleProducers/bonusProgram.php
and they even pay transportation costs!

and if members of Ranchers would like more info. on branded beef programs that pay premiums for a specified product, just ask! There are many out there. Hopefully they are not run out of town by outlawing captive supplies, which most of them incorporate through contracting the calves. Being paid for value isn't such a bad thing!

But this value is based on segregated/specified product, and not on buying average. They don't want average, which sales barn buying gives you, they want a product that meet certain specifications, and are willing to pay extra for meeting such criteria. That's efficiency. If there was no efficiency in it, the buyer would not be able to provide the premium.

Sitting back and blaming packers for buying average, and then having them divide the product into different markets doesn't cut it with me. If you want to take advantage of the efficiencies of knowing your market, then don't sell on average. Find your niche, produce for your niche, and contract to your niche.

If packers did not have a steady supply of "average" product (and volume of average), to direct towards different markets after the hide was off and graded, they would lose efficiency. Contract with those paying for specifications, and the big boys would have to pay more for average, cause there would be less of it!

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten Economics: "The Pickett case was an economic fraud and exactly the kind of abuse the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was written to address. The arguments in your talking points were simply diverticuli. You have proven more than anyone that knowing little facts about this industry does not make you an expert to be trusted in your often proclaimed "truth". Propaganda always relies on little facts strewn around to make try to make specious arguments sound correct. It is part of a good story teller's yarn."

Yada yada yada!

I have never seen anyone talk so much and say so little. To date, you have yet to provide one stitch of proof of market manipulation to support the Pickett verdict. Not one. You just go on pretending it actually occurred because that is what you want to believe.

The legal system saw through the bullsh*t while you continue to defend it.


You know damn well you implied that the plant had their own graders. Quit trying to hide your ignorance now by spinning your original story.

Kindergarten Economics: "You have already been trapped by Sandman and have become an R-CALF supporter."

Sandman has never trapped me. I trapped myself when I agreed to calendar year 2004. He only recommended 2004 for "simplicity sake". I didn't review the information I had to see that FY 2005 is where the losses in Pasco and Boise escalated. He doesn't have anything other than challenging my position so how can he possibly trap me? Sandman is just like you, factually void. What he does well is divert and discredit. You two must have attended the same debate class.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Charlie 1948,

The "pricing our product" catch phrase sounds good but how do you price your product unless you own it from pasture to plate?

Secondly, how do you price your product in relation to competitive meats like poultry and pork when consumers are having to buy $3.00 gas?

You can price your product to cover your costs and realize a profit but if the consumers don't find value in your product above the value of pork and poultry, you are out of luck.

There is all sorts of arm chair market analysts out there who have a never ending list of conspiracy theories for lower cattle prices, not suggesting you are one of them, but the bottom line is that not one more dime will fall in the producers pocket unless it comes from the consumer. It won't come from the feeder, it won't come from the packer, it won't come from the processor, and it won't come from the retailer. The middle men are margin operators in this industry and what they can pay is ultimately determined by the consumer.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Sandman has never trapped me. I trapped myself when I agreed to calendar year 2004. He only recommended 2004 for "simplicity sake". I didn't review the information I had to see that FY 2005 is where the losses in Pasco and Boise escalated. He doesn't have anything other than challenging my position so how can he possibly trap me? Sandman is just like you, factually void. What he does well is divert and discredit. You two must have attended the same debate class."

You know, SH, it appears that R-CALF has your $100 because YOU were factually void. So now you want to talk about 2005, yet your original factually void statement supposedly was the entire time the border was closed. What about 2004 and over half of 2003? Why can't you provide ANY financials for ANY time period? Factually void?

 

[Econ101]

SH:

Sandman has never trapped me. I trapped myself....

I laughed for five minutes over that one. I have to figure out how to put that on the bottom of my posts. Classic.

 

[Econ101]

I just had to see if I did this right. I can imagine you out in the winter saying this to some little animal staring at you trying to get out of the trap you set for him. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

I just had to see if I did this right. I can imagine you out in the winter saying this to some little animal staring at you trying to get out of the trap you set for him.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :???:

 

[Sandhusker]

DENIAL, anyone?

 

[Anonymous]

Still dancing around having to provide the proof that I lied huh Sandman? GEE, WHODA THOUGHT?????

I guess your bullsh*t about "when someone around Cody calls someone a liar, they better be able to back it" doesn't apply to you huh? Imagine that!

Denial is right!

Fact is, Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants lost more money than Lakeside made while the Canadian border was closed.

Perhaps I need to explain this to you. If you take the total profits of these plants during the time period when the Canadian border was closed to Canadian live cattle exports to the U.S. against the total losses of these plants during that same time period, the total losses in Boise and Pasco would be greater than the total profits for the Lakeside plant. Do you understand that? That doesn't mean that every month of that time period showed losses in Pasco and Boise were greater than profits at Lakeside, I was referring to the total for the entire time period when the border was closed. As the Canadian feeder cattle supply in the NW dried up, losses increased at Pasco and Boise. As the slaughter capacity in Canada increased, the profits in Lakeside dwindled. I provided proof of both.

You claimed that I lied but now you're dancing around having to back that allegation like the parasite you are. You want everyone else to prove their innocense rather than you proving their guilt. All it would take is a phone call but then you'd have egg on your lying face and you couldn't handle that could you? This way you can pretend to be right like the pathetic SOB you are.

Laugh all you want Econ, I don't care. Your desperation to peg something on me is no mystery here. As many times as you have been proven wrong, and failed to back your positions, it's no wonder why you would have a feeding frenzy with this. The fact is that I did trap myself by agreeing to calendar year 2004. My original statement that Sandman called a lie was for the entire period of time when the border was closed. The information I had based my statement on showed the huge losses in Pasco and Boise occurred during the spring of 2005 while the profits at Lakeside dwindled during that same time period. When I agreed to calendar year 2004, I didn't remember when these losses occurred. That's the only mistake I made. Sandman didn't prove me wrong, I proved myself wrong, readily admitted it, and paid up while Sandman contributed absolutely nothing to the bet. Instead, he continues to create the illusion that I lied rather than finding out the truth. Sandman says, "when someone around Cody, NE calls someone a liar, they better be able to back it". Did Sandman practice what he preached? Of course he didn't because he's a worthless parasite. He calls someone a liar then expects them to prove that they're not a liar.

My original statement that Sandman called a lie stands as written and not one of you can prove that it's not true. The call I made to a Tyson representative confirmed what I had stated which was based on what I had read.

I was right on my original statement and Sandman was wrong but he will never admit it nor back his position that I lied because that is the type of pathetic, deceptive individual he really is. He typifies the R-CULT mold with his total lack of integrity.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH,
I am not trying to peg anything on you. I just want you to stop getting away with such a loud and erroneous barrage of trash being strewn about here on this forum.

I even woke up in the middle of the night laughing. You have to admit, bringing joy to this world is a good thing. I hope I can bring as much real joy to you in my posts instead of the reaping sarcastic laughter you are prone to post.

 

[Jason]

SH remember you are debating a banker and a prof. They can't reason a number from losses of x per head. They only want it spelled out for them in an official investors booklet that says this plant lost this many dollars and that plant made this many dollars.

Market fluctuations and plants ramping up and slowing down production happen for no reason in their little worlds, other than someone is out to get the little guy.

Business is ugly, and it is getting uglier, those with no insight will be left behind whining about the 'good old days'.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten economics: "I just want you to stop getting away with such a loud and erroneous barrage of trash being strewn about here on this forum."

Talk is no cheaper than it is from you Kindergarten. You have never proven me wrong on a single thing yet. All you can do is make your feeble chickensh*t attempts to discredit just as you have done again.

When you can prove anything I have stated is incorrect with facts to the contrary, BRING IT! Until that point, you have nothing but cheap talk.

Not once have you brought anything of substance to back your position and you won't because you can't. You just say what you believe, you don't prove it. You are "factually void" to defend your position!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Fact is, Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants lost more money than Lakeside made while the Canadian border was closed."

SH, "Perhaps I need to explain this to you. If you take the total profits of these plants during the time period when the Canadian border was closed to Canadian live cattle exports to the U.S. against the total losses of these plants during that same time period, the total losses in Boise and Pasco would be greater than the total profits for the Lakeside plant. Do you understand that?"

I understand that is your position, yet you can't prove it. Losses and profits in business are measured in DOLLARS, SH. So what were those total profit figures and total loss figures? Don't you think they are important to proving anything?

SH, "That doesn't mean that every month of that time period showed losses in Pasco and Boise were greater than profits at Lakeside, I was referring to the total for the entire time period when the border was closed. As the Canadian feeder cattle supply in the NW dried up, losses increased at Pasco and Boise. As the slaughter capacity in Canada increased, the profits in Lakeside dwindled. I provided proof of both."

Yep, but no proof of how it all shaked out in a measurable term. Yes, dwindling supplies hurt Boise and Pacow, but HOW MUCH? Yes, Lakeside's profits may have decreased as capacity increased, but HOW MUCH? WHICH NUMBER IS GREATER? SH, have you ever read a financial statement? They have ACTUAL DOLLAR FIGURES and DEFINED TIME PERIODS. Crazy concept, isn't it?

Either provide dollar figures to compare or GIVE IT UP AND MOVE ON! We appreciate the comedy, but after you hear the joke too many times it gets stale.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman,

You said I lied. Either back that allegation with supporting proof or admit that you lied about me lying.

You accused me of lying, now either back that allegation or show everyone what a worthless parasite you really are by continuing to divert. The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.

You were the one that said around Cody, NE if someone calls someone else a liar they better be able to back it. You didn't! That just shows what a hypocrite you really are.

Now back your allegation or admit that you can't!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH remember you are debating a banker and a prof. They can't reason a number from losses of x per head. They only want it spelled out for them in an official investors booklet that says this plant lost this many dollars and that plant made this many dollars.

Market fluctuations and plants ramping up and slowing down production happen for no reason in their little worlds, other than someone is out to get the little guy.

Business is ugly, and it is getting uglier, those with no insight will be left behind whining about the 'good old days'.

Maybe you can help all of us out, Jason. You've seen SH's "evidence", "facts", and "proof". Just what were the losses of the two US plants and what was the gains of Lakeside? What was the dollar (US or Canadian) difference?

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman,

You said I lied. Either back that allegation with supporting proof or admit that you lied about me lying.

You accused me of lying, now either back that allegation or show everyone what a worthless parasite you really are by continuing to divert. The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.

You were the one that said around Cody, NE if someone calls someone else a liar they better be able to back it. You didn't! That just shows what a hypocrite you really are.

Now back your allegation or admit that you can't!


~SH~

SH, maybe I owe you an apology. I said that you were lying. Now that I sit back and evaluate who I'm dealing with, I realize you have time and time again exhibited the ability to ignore facts, reason, and common sense to believe what you want to believe. I'm sure that, in your world, your statement was correct. I will now move to strike the words "lie" and "lair", and insert the words "hopelessly and completely full of crap". Do you feel better now that this unforgivable challenge to your honor has been revoked? Can you get on with your life?

SH, I apologize from the bottom of my deceptive parasitic clone heart. You are not a liar and did not lie. You simply lack the ability to discern the real world from your private "reality".

NOW, CAN WE MOVE ON?

 

[Anonymous]

Oh quit sliming your way around having to back your position with your Clintonian double talk Sandman. You make me sick.

Sandman: "Now that I sit back and evaluate who I'm dealing with, I realize you have time and time again exhibited the ability to ignore facts, reason, and common sense to believe what you want to believe.'

Prove it cheap talker!

Prove that I lied or keep sliming your way around having to back your position while you have everyone else back theirs you parasite.


~SH~