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

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Herman Schumacher owns a few cattle, sells a few cattle and takes time every now and then to stir the pot. He’s not your average cowboy.

Let me explain.

He used to own some land, a nice little 9000 acre place where he could graze his cattle. He sold it to Ducks Unlimited and leases it back…to graze his cattle. Can I see a show of hands of people who graze their cattle on land reserved for ducks? You can herd cattle. You might even be able to herd cats with a lot of work. But those damn ducks will just fly away.

He managed the old Herreid Livestock Market until it burned down almost 30 years ago. Today, he’s the co-owner of the new Herreid Livestock Market, a place that moves quite a few animals in South Dakota.

About 8 years ago, he got together with a few friends who thought cattlemen weren’t being treated fairly and organized a small meeting in Herreid. About 1,000 of his closest friends showed up to talk about it and soon afterwards R-CALF was born. One of the three founders of this little rabble-rousing group that now counts over 18,000 people as members, he served on the board for the maximum of 6 years and stepped down a few months ago.

So I decided to spend about 5 minutes with this cattleman, sale barn operator and founding father to see what winds him up in the morning.



How did you get into the cattle business?

I basically grew up in the cattle business. I was the second oldest of nine children of Sebastian and Mary Schumacher of Zeeland, N.D. I grew up on a beef, dairy and grain farm.

After a short time in college, I returned to the family farm and got into the cattle business. In 1969, I began working for a livestock market in Wishek, N.D., as a ring man. In 1970, I went to auctioneering college in Mason City, Iowa.

In 1976, I began managing the old Herreid Livestock Market in Herreid, S.D., until it burned down in 1978. I then started auctioneering at six different livestock markets in North Dakota and South Dakota from the fall of 1978 until Gordie Ullmer and myself built a new market in Herreid, S.D., and opened it up on Sept. 25, 1981. This market has since grown into the second largest feeder-cattle market in the Dakotas.



What do you do in your downtime?

As a livestock market owner and a feedlot owner, it seems like there is very little down time. I do enjoy going to farms and ranches and visiting with the owners.



You operate the new Herreid Livestock Market which puts you in a perfect position to answer this question. Verification programs are supposed to put more money in the hands of producers. Are they delivering on the promise, and how have they affected the way you run your sale barn?

Through the brand programs in North Dakota and South Dakota, we have been source-verifying cattle for years. We have been getting premiums for customers at Herreid Livestock Market using this process for a long time.

But as a feedlot owner, we cannot get the premium for the high quality source-verified cattle when they are marketed. Primarily because of packer ownership and contract cattle, the packer has put himself in a position where he never has to pay a premium for cattle that are source verified, but instead, just buys them on the average.



You're one of the founders of R-CALF. The organization has grown tremendously in size and influence since those early days in the late 1990s. Has it become what you thought it might be and where will it go from here?

R-CALF, as an organization, grew like I thought it would. In my years in the cattle business, the producers were letting me know on a daily basis they felt that nobody was respecting them. I think R-CALF has surprised many people with its past successes, and in my opinion, R-CALF will only continue to grow.



You joined with Kansas cattle feeder Mike Callicrate and Omaha cattleman Roger Koch to file suit against Tyson, Cargill, Swift and ConAgra, alleging they misreported boxed-beef prices between April 2, 2001, and May 11, 2001. A federal jury trial to consider the class action suit began in Aberdeen a few days ago (Monday, April 3). What was the reasoning behind the action and how do you plan to prove your case?

This case, in my opinion, is a no-brainer. These packers – through the help of USDA – missed reporting of boxed beef and were able to buy cattle at artificially lower prices. This also, in my opinion, is ‘collusion’ among the four big packers because they all bid according to the false boxed-beef prices. As soon as USDA corrected the problem, the live market resounded to sharply higher cattle prices.



When the lawsuit over the National Beef Checkoff program was dismissed in the South Dakota federal court with a deal between the Livestock Marketing Association, the Cattlemen's Beef Board and the U.S. government, you were one of two individual plaintiffs who refused to sign. Why did you decide to withhold your signature?

Although we have to accept the decision made by the Supreme Court, it doesn’t mean I agree with it. Also, in the District Court in South Dakota, the Livestock Market Association’s charge was that the USDA had disqualified many producers’ signatures. We never even got to that. The judge called the Checkoff statute unconstitutional primarily because the checkoff was being used for self-promotion. I believe we still have a day left in the courtroom.



Thousands of cattlemen read cattlenetwork.com. What would you like to say to them?

Never before in history has it been more important to an industry to stand together. The domestic cattle industry is facing problems with the implementation of Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL); packer concentration; a captive supply of cattle; unfair trade; and food-safety issues.

These problems, if left unchecked, will be the demise of the domestic cattle industry. We will become nothing short of contract growers, not unlike the poultry and pork industries. You have to realize power comes in numbers, and again, if the cattle industry comes together, we will continue to win the battle.



This page was last edited Wednesday May 03, 2006.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One of the biggest threats to this industry is guys like Herman Schumacher continually stating things about this industry that are absolutely untrue.

Herman Schumacher testified in Washington D.C., USING USDA's DATA, that "there was no greater proof of market manipulation between the retail to fat cattle price spread". USDA themselves rebutted that statement by stating that THEIR USDA "ALL CHOICE" retail beef pricing series was not representative of all beef sales.

That's what you can expect from R-CULT/LMA/OCM and company!

This industry is bathed in this type of ignorance from the Livestock Marketing Police that tell blamers what they want to hear.


Herman Schumacher: "But as a feedlot owner, we cannot get the premium for the high quality source-verified cattle when they are marketed. Primarily because of packer ownership and contract cattle, the packer has put himself in a position where he never has to pay a premium for cattle that are source verified, but instead, just buys them on the average."

That is absolutely untrue.

Right now both USPB and Angus Gene Net are paying premiums for source verfified cattle.

Just because Mike Callicrate doesn't know how to market Herman's cattle doesn't mean that those markets are not available.


~SH~
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
How many of the so called 18000 members actually own cattle? R-calf has did more to hurt the consumption of beef in the US than any anti meat group... they should be proud.... :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
How many of the so called 18000 members actually own cattle? R-calf has did more to hurt the consumption of beef in the US than any anti meat group... they should be proud.... :lol: :lol:

MR, you KNOW I'm not going to let this one slide! :lol: Do you have any way to measure how much (if any) R-CALF hurt consumption?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
How many of the so called 18000 members actually own cattle? R-calf has did more to hurt the consumption of beef in the US than any anti meat group... they should be proud.... :lol: :lol:

The risk here is that lack of independent quality oversight might lead to higher packer profits in the short run but in the long run kill the market.

By not supporting the protections the PSA give to poultry producers in the USA, the NCBA has allowed their biggest substitute to beat them greatly on price and volume (which affects prices of substitutes). This is the largest failing of the NCBA when it comes to cattlemen's concerns and one of the biggest pieces of evidence that the packers (who are in poultry and pork also) are controlling the USDA.

Has the NCBA come out for Congressional Hearings for these issues to be found out? Have they given JoAnn Waterfield a "free walk" so the truth can be more easily hidden?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Manitoba,

Had NCBA and NCBA not been there to offset the lies that R-CULT was telling the media about BSE to stop Canadian imports, beef consumption would have suffered MORE. I'm sure it suffered to some degree but it would be hard to prove. You can't tell the consumers that having bse in your native herd means your beef is "contaminated" and "high risk" and not have that affect consumer confidence in beef to some degree AFTER WE HAD BSE IN OUR NATIVE HERD but R-CULT & Co. can't see that far past the back of a Canadian potload of cattle.


~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
sh,the above stated facts were recently resolved in a court of law,maybe you have heard the verdict ?.................good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hayseed: "sh,the above stated facts were recently resolved in a court of law,maybe you have heard the verdict ?"

The verdict by the jury, which has yet to stand the appeals process, was far less than the alleged damages once again revealing the ignorance of the plaintiffs.


~SH~
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Manitoba_Rancher said:
How many of the so called 18000 members actually own cattle? R-calf has did more to hurt the consumption of beef in the US than any anti meat group... they should be proud.... :lol: :lol:

MR, you KNOW I'm not going to let this one slide! :lol: Do you have any way to measure how much (if any) R-CALF hurt consumption?

You know sandhusker I like giving you a hard time..... :wink: :)
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Manitoba_Rancher said:
How many of the so called 18000 members actually own cattle? R-calf has did more to hurt the consumption of beef in the US than any anti meat group... they should be proud.... :lol: :lol:

MR, you KNOW I'm not going to let this one slide! :lol: Do you have any way to measure how much (if any) R-CALF hurt consumption?

You know sandhusker I like giving you a hard time.....
:wink: :)

NO what you like is being ignorant,why dont you go back to the coffe shop now,you are embarassing yourself.............good luck
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Manitoba_Rancher said:
How many of the so called 18000 members actually own cattle? R-calf has did more to hurt the consumption of beef in the US than any anti meat group... they should be proud.... :lol: :lol:

MR, you KNOW I'm not going to let this one slide! :lol: Do you have any way to measure how much (if any) R-CALF hurt consumption?

You know sandhusker I like giving you a hard time..... :wink: :)

I'm watching you, man. 8)
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Hayseed: "sh,the above stated facts were recently resolved in a court of law,maybe you have heard the verdict ?"

The verdict by the jury, which has yet to stand the appeals process, was far less than the alleged damages once again revealing the ignorance of the plaintiffs.


~SH~

Yeah, it sure was ignorant to file a lawsuit where you get only an eight-figure settlement. What a waste of time. :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Yeah, it sure was ignorant to file a lawsuit where you get only an eight-figure settlement. What a waste of time."

Have the checks been issued yet? I wouldn't count your money until the verdict has passed the appeals process. The last time you packer blamers started counting your money it wasn't long until you were counting what your court costs were.

Yes, it is a waste of time considering the fact that one feeder's gain will be another feeder's loss but you packer blamers never could see that far ahead.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Yeah, it sure was ignorant to file a lawsuit where you get only an eight-figure settlement. What a waste of time."

Have the checks been issued yet? I wouldn't count your money until the verdict has passed the appeals process. The last time you packer blamers started counting your money it wasn't long until you were counting what your court costs were.

Yes, it is a waste of time considering the fact that one feeder's gain will be another feeder's loss but you packer blamers never could see that far ahead.


~SH~

SH, enough comments on how crooked the 11th circuit is. We all know it. You don't have to keep pulling up the failings of our government. It is only going to get the politicians the packers and other industries have been paying off in hot water. Their approval rating is so low because of the way they have been looting our economy for themselves and their friends. You don't need to keep bringing it up.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "Yes, it is a waste of time considering the fact that one feeder's gain will be another feeder's loss but you packer blamers never could see that far ahead."

That can't happen in a competitive environment that you say exists. If packer can lower their prices for legal bills, they can lower their prices for anything.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "That can't happen in a competitive environment that you say exists. If packer can lower their prices for legal bills, they can lower their prices for anything."

Still throwing out the same worthless argument I see.

If you remove equity equally from each packer, it can and will happen. If the USDA adds a food safety expense or stupid law like "M"COOL to each one of the major packers expense list, they will each have that much less equity available to buy cattle with. Is that too deep for you?

All three major packers were fined equally taking an equal amount of equity away from each of them which will be that much less money available to buy cattle with.

I can't believe how ignorant you packer blamers really are. Did you think they would just absorb the loss and come back and bid as aggressively on cattle as always?

YOU DIDN'T JUST REMOVE EQUITY FROM ONE OF THE MAJOR PACKERS, YOU REMOVED EQUITY EQUALLY FROM ALL OF THEM. In that situation, one feeder's gain will be another feeder's loss but your too damn ignorant to realize it.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "That can't happen in a competitive environment that you say exists. If packer can lower their prices for legal bills, they can lower their prices for anything."

Still throwing out the same worthless argument I see.

If you remove equity equally from each packer, it can and will happen. If the USDA adds a food safety expense or stupid law like "M"COOL to each one of the major packers expense list, they will each have that much less equity available to buy cattle with. Is that too deep for you?

All three major packers were fined equally taking an equal amount of equity away from each of them which will be that much less money available to buy cattle with.

I can't believe how ignorant you packer blamers really are. Did you think they would just absorb the loss and come back and bid as aggressively on cattle as always?

YOU DIDN'T JUST REMOVE EQUITY FROM ONE OF THE MAJOR PACKERS, YOU REMOVED EQUITY EQUALLY FROM ALL OF THEM. In that situation, one feeder's gain will be another feeder's loss but your too damn ignorant to realize it.


~SH~

I guess the jury didn't remove the equity equally, did they? You do prove my point with this reasoning that it is all about comparative advantage in the concentration game.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "I guess the jury didn't remove the equity equally, did they?"

CAN'T YOU READ????

The jury fined Excel, Tyson, and Swift equally based on their percentage of the marketshare.

Where did you come up with something else? From the lady at Walmart?


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "I guess the jury didn't remove the equity equally, did they?"

CAN'T YOU READ????

The jury fined Excel, Tyson, and Swift equally based on their percentage of the marketshare.

Where did you come up with something else? From the lady at Walmart?


~SH~

So in dollar terms it does not hit them equally. Can't you add?
 
Top