• 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 WORKING FOR THE CATTLE MAN AGAIN

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
October 26, 2005


Copy By: Natasha Bentz, Field Coordinator
Phone: 406-252-2516; e-mail: [email protected]

Media Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected] For Immediate Release


CEO Participates in Texas Panel Discussion


(Goliad, Texas) – Goliad County Farm Bureau recently hosted a panel discussion with R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard and NCBA President Jim McAdams before an audience of about 100 people from South Texas.



Goliad County Farm Bureau President Pat Calhoun moderated the event. Each participant was given 20 minutes to present their respective organization’s current issues. Then Calhoun took questions from the audience and gave both speakers a chance to respond.



“It was not my intention to have a debate, rather a forum where both organizations could present their policy on the issues, and give producers the chance to interact with both sides at the same time,” said Calhoun.



McAdams stated that NCBA believes alternate domestic protein sources are the main competition to the beef industry, not low-cost beef producing export nations. Thus, Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (M-COOL) would not be an effective marketing tool and if it were implemented, producers would endure the brunt of the cost, according to McAdams.



Bullard disagreed.



“The cost of M-COOL has been purposely overstated by M-COOL opponents. We can implement COOL at no cost to producers simply by requiring all imported live cattle to be marked with a foreign marking, leaving all other cattle eligible for the USA label,” said Bullard.



R-CALF USA believes that low-cost beef-producing export nations present significant competition to U.S. cattle producers, and M-COOL would be a very successful marketing and promotional tool in differentiating domestic and foreign beef, thus allowing the consumer to choose.



“While we opposed the Australian agreement on grounds that it did not provide market opportunities for U.S. cattle producers, we were at least able to provide a safeguard that protects the U.S. cattle industry from price-depressing import surges, but the CAFTA agreement abandoned this important safeguard,” said Bullard.



He explained that one of the key reasons R-CALF USA opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) was because the agreement did not contain the cattle and beef safeguard mechanism that R-CALF USA successfully included in the Australia Free Trade Agreement. McAdams responded by claiming that R-CALF USA did not play an active role in negotiating the Australian Free Trade Agreement.



Bullard pointed out that during the 1990s, prior to BSE in 2003, the fed-cattle price was $67 per head, as opposed to $77 in 1990. While the U.S. cattle producer was losing $10 on cattle, U.S. retail prices averaged $2.77 per pound in 1998 and $3.32 per pound in 2002. According to the Livestock Marketing Information Center in Colorado, in 1992 the packer-margin as reflected by the live-to-cutout spread was $62 per head which more than doubled in 2002 to $142 per head. Therefore, while cattle producers did not benefit from increased beef demand from 1998 through 2002, the downstream retailers and packers were capturing not only their share of their value-added contribution to the beef supply chain, but they were capturing a growing share of the producers’ production contribution as well.



“U.S. cattle producers are involved in a highly competitive industry, and they are in competition with extremely powerful forces that do not share their desire to maximize the profitability for cattle producers,” said Bullard. “The 18,000 members of R-CALF USA have clearly demonstrated that changes are needed to ensure that producers can effectively compete for the available profits in the very profitable beef supply chain.”





# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA's membership consists primarily of cow-calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members - over 18,000 strong - are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
HAY MAKER said:
October 26, 2005


Copy By: Natasha Bentz, Field Coordinator
Phone: 406-252-2516; e-mail: [email protected]

Media Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected] For Immediate Release


CEO Participates in Texas Panel Discussion


(Goliad, Texas) – Goliad County Farm Bureau recently hosted a panel discussion with R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard and NCBA President Jim McAdams before an audience of about 100 people from South Texas.


Bullard pointed out that during the 1990s, prior to BSE in 2003, the fed-cattle price was $67 per head, as opposed to $77 in 1990. While the U.S. cattle producer was losing $10 on cattle, U.S. retail prices averaged $2.77 per pound in 1998 and $3.32 per pound in 2002. According to the Livestock Marketing Information Center in Colorado, in 1992 the packer-margin as reflected by the live-to-cutout spread was $62 per head which more than doubled in 2002 to $142 per head. Therefore, while cattle producers did not benefit from increased beef demand from 1998 through 2002, the downstream retailers and packers were capturing not only their share of their value-added contribution to the beef supply chain, but they were capturing a growing share of the producers’ production contribution as well.

Bullard may be the only person who knows so little about this industry to make such erroneous statements.

Does he have a clue where beef production was during the 90's as opposed to 1990? What part of the inventory cycle were we in? Oops, he overlooked that important fact.

If producers did not benefit from improved beef demand from 1998 - 2002 where did the higher prices come from. Who supplied the money?

Gross margins say nothing about net margins? Oops, another oversight on Bullard's part. Even R-calf supporters need to be embarrassed by his cumulative phony comments. Bullard is in way over his head on these subjects.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman, do the nets change as a percent of the gross every year to keep it looking like the gross is not the number to compare? Why is this so?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
"McAdams stated that NCBA believes alternate domestic protein sources are the main competition to the beef industry, not low-cost beef producing export nations."

McAdams needs to do a google search on a country called "Brazil" and learn about their industry what their plans are concerning us.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Was I the only one who noticed Sandman and Kindergarten's inability to defend Bullards bullsh*t?

Bullard doesn't have a flippin clue what affects cattle prices yet the packer blaming turbins continue to touch the ground as he tells blamers what they want to hear.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Was I the only one who noticed Sandman and Kindergarten's inability to defend Bullards bullsh*t?

Bullard doesn't have a flippin clue what affects cattle prices yet the packer blaming turbins continue to touch the ground as he tells blamers what they want to hear.


~SH~

What did he say that was incorrect?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
HAY MAKER said:
October 26, 2005


Copy By: Natasha Bentz, Field Coordinator
Phone: 406-252-2516; e-mail: [email protected]

Media Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected] For Immediate Release


CEO Participates in Texas Panel Discussion


(Goliad, Texas) – Goliad County Farm Bureau recently hosted a panel discussion with R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard and NCBA President Jim McAdams before an audience of about 100 people from South Texas.


Bullard pointed out that during the 1990s, prior to BSE in 2003, the fed-cattle price was $67 per head, as opposed to $77 in 1990. While the U.S. cattle producer was losing $10 on cattle, U.S. retail prices averaged $2.77 per pound in 1998 and $3.32 per pound in 2002. According to the Livestock Marketing Information Center in Colorado, in 1992 the packer-margin as reflected by the live-to-cutout spread was $62 per head which more than doubled in 2002 to $142 per head. Therefore, while cattle producers did not benefit from increased beef demand from 1998 through 2002, the downstream retailers and packers were capturing not only their share of their value-added contribution to the beef supply chain, but they were capturing a growing share of the producers’ production contribution as well.

Bullard may be the only person who knows so little about this industry to make such erroneous statements.

Does he have a clue where beef production was during the 90's as opposed to 1990? What part of the inventory cycle were we in? Oops, he overlooked that important fact.

If producers did not benefit from improved beef demand from 1998 - 2002 where did the higher prices come from. Who supplied the money?

Gross margins say nothing about net margins? Oops, another oversight on Bullard's part. Even R-calf supporters need to be embarrassed by his cumulative phony comments. Bullard is in way over his head on these subjects.

Agman, I think you are getting points on a demand curve confused with the non-market power influenced equilibrium of supply and demand. I would show this to you if I could easily graph it on this forum. Responses of the total cattle supply to price happens over the longer production cycle of cattle or, as some have pointed out, by increased or decreased imports (and I argue collectively, prices of substitutes).

If packer's margins always follow boxed beef prices as SH suggests (and I proved wrong in the Canadian example) there could be some evidence of market power. Don't get boxed beef prices mixed up with demand. Part of the function, yes, but not the same.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
~SH~ said:
Was I the only one who noticed Sandman and Kindergarten's inability to defend Bullards bullsh*t?

Bullard doesn't have a flippin clue what affects cattle prices yet the packer blaming turbins continue to touch the ground as he tells blamers what they want to hear.


~SH~

I bet I have seen a dozen posts from ole SH,claiming Bullard dont know this and Bullard dont know that etc,on and on,but every time Bullard is in ole SH's back yard, ready and willing to rodeo,ole SH wont ride :???: I just wonder why? Maybe SH will see this and explain it to us :wink: ............good luck
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Agman, do the nets change as a percent of the gross every year to keep it looking like the gross is not the number to compare? Why is this so?

If you don't know the answer to your questions then there is nothing I can do for you--and you claim to be some Econ wiz. You really cannot be as ignorant of facts regarding business as it appears all the time. Whow, another conspiracy theory in the making from Econ101!!!!
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
agman said:
HAY MAKER said:
October 26, 2005


Copy By: Natasha Bentz, Field Coordinator
Phone: 406-252-2516; e-mail: [email protected]

Media Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected] For Immediate Release


CEO Participates in Texas Panel Discussion


(Goliad, Texas) – Goliad County Farm Bureau recently hosted a panel discussion with R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard and NCBA President Jim McAdams before an audience of about 100 people from South Texas.


Bullard pointed out that during the 1990s, prior to BSE in 2003, the fed-cattle price was $67 per head, as opposed to $77 in 1990. While the U.S. cattle producer was losing $10 on cattle, U.S. retail prices averaged $2.77 per pound in 1998 and $3.32 per pound in 2002. According to the Livestock Marketing Information Center in Colorado, in 1992 the packer-margin as reflected by the live-to-cutout spread was $62 per head which more than doubled in 2002 to $142 per head. Therefore, while cattle producers did not benefit from increased beef demand from 1998 through 2002, the downstream retailers and packers were capturing not only their share of their value-added contribution to the beef supply chain, but they were capturing a growing share of the producers’ production contribution as well.

Bullard may be the only person who knows so little about this industry to make such erroneous statements.

Does he have a clue where beef production was during the 90's as opposed to 1990? What part of the inventory cycle were we in? Oops, he overlooked that important fact.

If producers did not benefit from improved beef demand from 1998 - 2002 where did the higher prices come from. Who supplied the money?

Gross margins say nothing about net margins? Oops, another oversight on Bullard's part. Even R-calf supporters need to be embarrassed by his cumulative phony comments. Bullard is in way over his head on these subjects.

Agman, I think you are getting points on a demand curve confused with the non-market power influenced equilibrium of supply and demand. I would show this to you if I could easily graph it on this forum. Responses of the total cattle supply to price happens over the longer production cycle of cattle or, as some have pointed out, by increased or decreased imports (and I argue collectively, prices of substitutes).

If packer's margins always follow boxed beef prices as SH suggests (and I proved wrong in the Canadian example) there could be some evidence of market power. Don't get boxed beef prices mixed up with demand. Part of the function, yes, but not the same.

Try your garbage explanations on someone else. I have forgotten more about the supply and demand of this industry than you will even know. You don't even know the basic trend in supply and demand for this industry. Your continued attempts to mask your ignorance fail at every turn. Got back to your classroom and contrive another conspiracy theory-untested I may say.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman, you know I ask questions designed for you to answer, not because I don't know the answer, but because when you answer, you show your bias. Diversion works everytime for you doesn't it? What I want it know is why are you always looking for da version of da packa?

You and I both know that companies have many ways of hiding money. Depreciation accounts, inventory, writedowns, captial expenditures etc....... I learned a lot of the tricks from a former vice pres. of standard oil. Yes, standard oil, the biggest market manipulator in history. Funny how old Rockerfella gave so much money to FLAG and other "do good" orgs. that try to limit big corp's power. Maybe he saw the light. You will too, one day.

I bet you wouldn't know a slide down the supply curve if it hit you in the head. Hey, case already proven. Do you want to go into the economics of the RPA example or are you just plain scared?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Agman, you know I ask questions designed for you to answer, not because I don't know the answer, but because when you answer, you show your bias. Diversion works everytime for you doesn't it? What I want it know is why are you always looking for da version of da packa?

You and I both know that companies have many ways of hiding money. Depreciation accounts, inventory, writedowns, captial expenditures etc....... I learned a lot of the tricks from a former vice pres. of standard oil. Yes, standard oil, the biggest market manipulator in history. Funny how old Rockerfella gave so much money to FLAG and other "do good" orgs. that try to limit big corp's power. Maybe he saw the light. You will too, one day.

I bet you wouldn't know a slide down the supply curve if it hit you in the head. Hey, case already proven. Do you want to go into the economics of the RPA example or are you just plain scared?

Scared of you; you are so easy it is totally laughable. No one has to ask you a question to expose your bias, you do that on your own.

Yes, every post you make shows how little you know, not how much you know. As I said previously, I have forgotten more about Supply/Demand analysis and the beef industry than you will ever know. You are so intelligent (your claim), but lack almost all knowledge of the beef industry.

You did not even know the basic level or trend in per capita consumption of beef which is the "X" variable in supply demand analysis. It is sad that someone who professes to be so intelligent regrading economic analysis did not even know the "X" variable. So tell the world now without knowing that variable how much Supply/Demand analysis you ever actually did yourself regarding beef demand? I fully expect you have not one piece of research per this subject to your credit, not one. It is over your head is it not? You just have untested theories or assumptions just as Taylor did at trial!!! As such you are all talk and no facts as usual.

I see that by trying to bait me as you have previously claimed you just got the fish hook stuck in your own lip once again. Intelligence is the ability to learn. Knowledge is what has been learned. You fail constantly on both accounts. Your lack of knowledge regarding the beef industry is truly astonishing. How can one person know so very little? Evidently, knowledge is not a prerequisite to "tenure".

BTW, is your phone still tapped or have you decided that such paranoia and self-elevation does not get it on this forum with even the most ardent supporters of your phony, unsupported and totally biased views.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Agman, you know I ask questions designed for you to answer, not because I don't know the answer, but because when you answer, you show your bias. Diversion works everytime for you doesn't it? What I want it know is why are you always looking for da version of da packa?

You and I both know that companies have many ways of hiding money. Depreciation accounts, inventory, writedowns, captial expenditures etc....... I learned a lot of the tricks from a former vice pres. of standard oil. Yes, standard oil, the biggest market manipulator in history. Funny how old Rockerfella gave so much money to FLAG and other "do good" orgs. that try to limit big corp's power. Maybe he saw the light. You will too, one day.

I bet you wouldn't know a slide down the supply curve if it hit you in the head. Hey, case already proven. Do you want to go into the economics of the RPA example or are you just plain scared?

Scared of you; you are so easy it is totally laughable. No one has to ask you a question to expose your bias, you do that on your own.

Yes, every post you make shows how little you know, not how much you know. As I said previously, I have forgotten more about Supply/Demand analysis and the beef industry than you will ever know. You are so intelligent (your claim), but lack almost all knowledge of the beef industry.

You did not even know the basic level or trend in per capita consumption of beef which is the "X" variable in supply demand analysis. It is sad that someone who professes to be so intelligent regrading economic analysis did not even know the "X" variable. So tell the world now without knowing that variable how much Supply/Demand analysis you ever actually did yourself regarding beef demand? I fully expect you have not one piece of research per this subject to your credit, not one. It is over your head is it not? You just have untested theories or assumptions just as Taylor did at trial!!! As such you are all talk and no facts as usual.

I see that by trying to bait me as you have previously claimed you just got the fish hook stuck in your own lip once again. Intelligence is the ability to learn. Knowledge is what has been learned. You fail constantly on both accounts. Your lack of knowledge regarding the beef industry is truly astonishing. How can one person know so very little? Evidently, knowledge is not a prerequisite to "tenure".

BTW, is your phone still tapped or have you decided that such paranoia and self-elevation does not get it on this forum with even the most ardent supporters of your phony, unsupported and totally biased views.

Agman, bring up the "x" variable if you want, make a case that no one could possibly figure out the supply and demand factors and hence never prove market manipulation. That is your standard. It was not the one required by law at the trial.

If you want to divert again, try it. Instead maybe you would like to go back to the RPA thread and try your hand at economics. The problem you have is that you don't even know what constitutes market manipulation---or will never admit to it. Get stuck in your "facts" about the industry and your "superior" knowledge about the industry. The fact is you don't know anything about economics or you wouldn't be diverting from the Robinson Patman Act (RPA) example. You did not succeed in fooling the 12 jurors. An old judge and an apparent set of appellate judges who proved they don't know anything about economics is all you have to stand on.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman,

Let's just look at what your hero said...........

Bullard pointed out that during the 1990s, prior to BSE in 2003, the fed-cattle price was $67 per head, as opposed to $77 in 1990. While the U.S. cattle producer was losing $10 on cattle, U.S. retail prices averaged $2.77 per pound in 1998 and $3.32 per pound in 2002. According to the Livestock Marketing Information Center in Colorado, in 1992 the packer-margin as reflected by the live-to-cutout spread was $62 per head which more than doubled in 2002 to $142 per head. Therefore, while cattle producers did not benefit from increased beef demand from 1998 through 2002, the downstream retailers and packers were capturing not only their share of their value-added contribution to the beef supply chain, but they were capturing a growing share of the producers’ production contribution as well.

During the 90's the fed cattle price was $67 as opposed to $77 in 1990?

First off 1990 is part of the 90's. Second, $67 is an average price for the 90's rather than a yearly price. He compares the higher price for 1990 to an average of the 90's. WHAT DOES THAT TELL ANYONE??? Why didn't he also compare the low of the 90's to the average of the 90's? That would paint a bigger picture wouldn't it? I'll tell you why, because he's painting a typical R-CULT "GLOOM AND DOOM" picture.


We've already been over the part about retail beef price reporting. At the time this data was taken, USDA's retail beef price reporting was an "ALL CHOICE" retail beef price report that did not include:

1. FEATURED PRICES such as two for one sales and $.99 lean ground beef sales, etc.

2. SELECT BEEF - select beef does not sell for choice price.

3. NO ROLL - No roll sells for less than choice.

4. DISCARDED BEEF that is not sold by expiration date.

THE "ALL CHOISE" RETAIL BEEF PRICE REPORT IS HARDLY AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF RETAIL BEEF PRICES LET ALONE PROFITS.

As far as the $62 to $142 per head live to cut out spread, I would like to know how those figures were derived because frankly, I don't believe them. If the cut out value is also based on the "ALL CHOICE" retail beef price, that information has been shattered above.

Bullard's packer blaming bias absolutely screams. This is the same guy that says we don't need an export market to distribute our production and says we'd be in a very favorable position financially without an export market.

I don't believe anything this guy says.



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Talk about a screaming bias. Whether Bullard is right or wrong SH will scream with his bias. Capitalise his letters, make them bold, and call anyone who doesn't agree with his screaming bias a long list of names.

Bullard may have low credibility, but SH and his screaming shows his Packer Lover bias even more.

Now tell us how you are simply about truth SH. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Great Post Randy! Tremendous depth. Way to back your position with factual information. I'm so impressed. You've come so far from the packer blamer you once were. Here, here is your "bucky beaver badge" for such a wonderful post.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top