• 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:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Did you have anything you wanted to contradict me on regarding the "ALL CHOICE" retail beef price or are you just here to wave your pom poms again?


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "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."

You need to pose your first question to the reporter. You need to pose the rest to Bullard himself. However, as Haymaker has pointed out, whenever the R-CALF rodeo is in town, you won't ride.

SH, "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."

He's not "blaming". "Blaming" is your own much over-used catch phrase. He's simply telling it like it is. If you think he's incorrect, I would think you would take advantage of the many opportunities you have had to confront him directly.

SH, "I don't believe anything this guy says."

So who are you? Judging by the polls concerning you, not many believe anything YOU say. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "You need to pose your first question to the reporter. You need to pose the rest to Bullard himself. However, as Haymaker has pointed out, whenever the R-CALF rodeo is in town, you won't ride."

Sandman: "He's simply telling it like it is. If you think he's incorrect, I would think you would take advantage of the many opportunities you have had to confront him directly."

Bill Bullard is not telling it like it is, he's telling it like packer blamers like you and him want to believe it is. He couldn't back his positions on a bet.

Invite Bullard here and see if he lasts any longer than Leo or Mike did. Once they start having to answer pointed questions they're going to exit to a format where they can make statements.

What the heck is it with you R-CULTers. Do you really think I have nothing better to do with my time than to travel around the country correcting all the BS R-CULT spreads when I can do it right here?

I would assume that you R-CULTers simply repeat what Bill and Leo tell you anyway so I'll just correct it right here without burning up gas and disrupting blamers conventions with the truth.

I have twice confronted Bullard with questions and both times he danced around answering either of them like a circus chicken because answering either of them directly would have exposed his lack of knowledge on either topic.

I suppose you think the intimidation of mass numbers of blamers will make up for the emptyness in their positions?


Sandman: "Judging by the polls concerning you, not many believe anything YOU say."

Of course the packer blamers that participate in stupid populist opinion polls don't believe anything I say because it's not what they want to believe. When it comes to "CHEAP TALK", I don't see them correcting anything I have brought with facts to the contrary. Nope instead they resort to the same chickenshit divertionary tactics you employ.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Of course the packer blamers that participate in stupid populist opinion polls don't believe anything I say because it's not what they want to believe. When it comes to "CHEAP TALK", I don't see them correcting anything I have brought with facts to the contrary. Nope instead they resort to the same chickenshit divertionary tactics you employ."

SH, most people don't believe anything you say because you present youself as a fool. Virtually every post you make is filled with hypocracy (look at your above post and you'll find discrediting and denial) and childish rants, taunts, and name-calling (again, look above). The only reason you "havn't been refuted" is because you simply won't acknowledge when you're proved wrong - others do, however. You've been proved wrong more than Carter's has pills. You're not fooling anyone except a few - and the regulars on this board know who they are.

You need to calm down and exert a little self-control. You're chasing people away.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "The only reason you "havn't been refuted" is because you simply won't acknowledge when you're proved wrong - others do, however. You've been proved wrong more than Carter's has pills. You're not fooling anyone except a few - and the regulars on this board know who they are."

Talk is so cheap from the blamer's camp! Let me guess, because you won a bet that you contributed nothing to and I had to prove myself wrong your fellow blamers have voted you in as their spokesperson? LOL!

This is one more empty rant that diverts having to correct anything I have stated with facts to the contrary. MORE CHEAP TALK from Sandman! If it wasn't for CHEAP TALK you couldn't add anything to any discussion.

The only people I have chased away are other blamers that couldn't back their positions either when challenged. All that's left is the blamers who are the best at divertion, discrediting, and deceiving like you OT and Kindergarten. Good thing you guys have eachother because you certainly don't have any substance to back your positions.



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Back your position then SH. Quit you gopher trapping job and prove that it is posible in your packer loving world that you can survive without it.

Lemmings like yourself can study the numbers all you like, spew your bias on the web, and then go back to your government paying job and feel like you won something.

This industry is not producer friendly at the grassroots level SH, and you know damn well it isn't. Everything that anyone says against the norm is not always about your packer blamer label.

Open your eyes SH, look for something in other peoples posts other than searching for ways to DEFEND THE PACKERS. Or go back to trapping gophers in the real world and put your Packer Super Hero cape on whenever you visit ranchers.net.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RK: "Back your position then SH."

If you believe I have stated something in error, prove me wrong with facts to the contary. You can then share the packer blaming throne with Sandman and Econ.


RK: "Quit you gopher trapping job and prove that it is posible in your packer loving world that you can survive without it."

Listen to you. I haven't trapped a gopher since I was your age. 13 is it?

I chose my current occupation because I like it as much as running cattle which is really none of your frickin' business.

This is nothing more than another classic "RED HERRING" diversionary tactic of a factually defenseless packer blamer such as yourself.


RK: "Lemmings like yourself can study the numbers all you like, spew your bias on the web, and then go back to your government paying job and feel like you won something."

Either correct me with opposing facts or shut your mouth.


RK: "Open your eyes SH, look for something in other peoples posts other than searching for ways to DEFEND THE PACKERS. Or go back to trapping gophers in the real world and put your Packer Super Hero cape on whenever you visit ranchers.net."

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Wake me up when you have something of substance to add to the discussion.


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Susbstance, when was the last time you brought substance to anything SH.

When I say back your position SH - I mean back your packer loving stand on everything. You are such an expert on how everything in this industry is just fine, show us all how. If you rule the gopher trapping world with all of your knowledge, show us all how you can rule the primary beef producer world.

Or can you only yap, and DEFEND THE PACKERS.

Show us how packer ownership of cattle helps the producers of your country and ours. You can go on and on about how legal all the advantages that packers have are, but have you ever shown how these kind of things help the family farm to be more viable? Hell no. If packer ownership does nothing for the packers, why do they own cattle? If it is helping the family farm stay on the map, show us how. There would be substance.

Or you choose one of your other Packer Defender Topics SH, and show us how it helps the producers of Canada and the USA. Legality aside. We all know that laws in both of our countries are changed every day, and ususally by money and power in both of our countries.

Talk about cheap talk. If we all want to listen to how legal and right everthing the packers do, all we have to do is listen to our own government,,,,,,,,,, or open up a ranchers.net page and search out SH the Packer Super Hero.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ok Randy Kaiser, I'll bite..........

RK: "Show us how packer ownership of cattle helps the producers of your country and ours."

First packers should have as much right to own cattle as anyone else. Banning packers from owning cattle borders on communism as far as I'm concerned.

Second, when packers buy your feeder cattle, obviously they bought them at a higher price than the next bidder which means more dollars for producers for their feeder calves. Go ahead Randy, try refuting that fact.

Third, packers feed cattle to fill seasonal marketing voids to maintain uniform slaughter schedules. By maintaining plant efficiency, they are more profitable. By being more profitable, they have more money to spend on cattle.

I can absolutely guarantee you that you will not be able to refute either argument but I know it doesn't fit your thumbsucking packer blaming bias so be my guest and try.


RK: "If packer ownership does nothing for the packers, why do they own cattle?"

Never said it didn't help them. It helps them by filling voids in their slaughtering schedule.


Funny, I have yet to see my first packer blamer stand up in the sale barn and declare, "I DON'T WANT NO PACKERS BIDDING ON MY FEEDER CALVES.

Packers owning cattle is just something else for packer blamers like you to bitch about.


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I'll start at the end first. I don't stand up at the auction barn to blurt out, "don't sell my cattle to a mutinational packer". I simply sell my cattle through a system which excludes mutinational packers. And I will ad SH, that the profits from this are not huge. The packing industry does not usually make excessive profit like they have since May 20 2005 here in Canada.

That was the time that I became seriously interested in how this so called perfect sytem that you defend works.

RK: "Show us how packer ownership of cattle helps the producers of your country and ours."


First packers should have as much right to own cattle as anyone else. Banning packers from owning cattle borders on communism as far as I'm concerned.

Second, when packers buy your feeder cattle, obviously they bought them at a higher price than the next bidder which means more dollars for producers for their feeder calves. Go ahead Randy, try refuting that fact.

Third, packers feed cattle to fill seasonal marketing voids to maintain uniform slaughter schedules. By maintaining plant efficiency, they are more profitable. By being more profitable, they have more money to spend on cattle.

I can absolutely guarantee you that you will not be able to refute either argument but I know it doesn't fit your thumbsucking packer blaming bias so be my guest and try.

1). Are you saying that certain states in the American Union are communist SH? Or are they democratic by asking the citizens to vote on an issue that they consider might be asking for a fair and level playing field.
Your opinion that it is their right to own cattle. Fair enough SH. You have an opinion. I am not going to say that banning ownership without a democratic vote is proper, but I will say that if it is the will of the people, allowing packer ownership of cattle by a government who does not ask the people is as Red as blood.

2). When the packers buys cattle, there is always a buyer less than a cent back. There are a lot of cattle bought in North America SH. If the packers were only in the business of packing. More buyers would be in the marketplace as no one buyer would ever have the magnitude of either Tyson or Cargill. More buyers may mean more competion. That is, as long as the price for fats at the packer level was, or is never changed by the ability of packers to own cattle as you suggest.

3). Your third point is a joke. Uniformity could still be achieved in a market without packer ownership, and you know it. Forward contracts and integration between feeders and packers is not going to stop. Or would you like to stop that to prove some kind of manic packer lover point?

Packer ownership of cattle was number one SH. You have admitted that it does not help the producer accept for your phoney void filling comment.

Shall we move on.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
1). Are you saying that certain states in the American Union are communist SH? Or are they democratic by asking the citizens to vote on an issue that they consider might be asking for a fair and level playing field. Your opinion that it is their right to own cattle. Fair enough SH. You have an opinion. I am not going to say that banning ownership without a democratic vote is proper, but I will say that if it is the will of the people, allowing packer ownership of cattle by a government who does not ask the people is as Red as blood.

I'm saying banning anyone from owning cattle is a step towards communism.

"PWEASE GOVAHMENT, SAVE US WHINY PACAH BWAMERS FROM OURSELVES".

What a bunch of pathetic whining whelps!


2). When the packers buys cattle, there is always a buyer less than a cent back. There are a lot of cattle bought in North America SH. If the packers were only in the business of packing. More buyers would be in the marketplace as no one buyer would ever have the magnitude of either Tyson or Cargill. More buyers may mean more competion. That is, as long as the price for fats at the packer level was, or is never changed by the ability of packers to own cattle as you suggest.

Not allowing packers to buy feeder cattle takes money away from the producer, period.

More buyers does not lead to more money paid for cattle. MORE MONEY AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR CATTLE LEADS TO MORE MONEY PAID FOR CATTLE.


3). Your third point is a joke. Uniformity could still be achieved in a market without packer ownership, and you know it. Forward contracts and integration between feeders and packers is not going to stop.

That's your opinion because you are a joke. Packers buy feeder calves and feed them to fill seasonal marketing voids in available fat cattle. That is a fact!


RK: "Packer ownership of cattle was number one SH."

What are you talking about NUMBER ONE? What does that mean?


RK: "You have admitted that it does not help the producer accept for your phoney void filling comment."

That is a lie. I admitted that packers owning cattle does help the markets because it puts more buying power into the feeder cattle sector and creates efficiencies in the packing industry that lead to more profitability which leads to more money to be paid for fat cattle.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
SH
I'm saying banning anyone from owning cattle is a step towards communism.

"PWEASE GOVAHMENT, SAVE US WHINY PACAH BWAMERS FROM OURSELVES".

What a bunch of pathetic whining whelps!

While the mutinational packers sleep on the steps of the legislators with lobby groups etc. etc. Talk about PLEEEEEASE Mr. government. Ad to this this puppets who follow like SH and his gang and you've got Red government in action. Whine for Packer help SH, they need your support.

3). Your third point is a joke. Uniformity could still be achieved in a market without packer ownership, and you know it. Forward contracts and integration between feeders and packers is not going to stop.

That's your opinion because you are a joke. Packers buy feeder calves and feed them to fill seasonal marketing voids in available fat cattle. That is a fact!

Wouldn't you like to ad "And that's the only reason they own cattle."
You are pathetic SH. Your Fact is more than a joke. It's another one of your Fairy Tales.

Number 1 SH. Number 1 in a long list of items that you cannot show a benefit for the producer while you argue in favour of your liberal loving mutinational packers.

Your opinion of how packer ownership helps the producer is just that, your opinion. Your packer ass kissing blind following puppet bias opinion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Randy: "Uniformity could still be achieved in a market without packer ownership, and you know it."

WHO MENTIONED UNIFORMITY??? What does "UNIFORMITY" have to do with anything? MAKE IT UP AS YOU GO AGAIN HUH RANDY?

I mentioned packers owning cattle to fill seasonal voids in their slaughtering schedule. There is no way in heck I would ever support packer blaming legislation that allows the federal government to pick and choose who can and who cannot own cattle based on some packer blaming conspiracy theory. There is no reason not to allow packers to own cattle.


RK: "Forward contracts and integration between feeders and packers is not going to stop."

Exactly right! Regardless how much whiny packer blaming producers try to stop progress, they will simply get run over in the process.

This industry will move forward despite those that try to regulate the packing industry out of existance.


RK: "You are pathetic SH. Your Fact is more than a joke. It's another one of your Fairy Tales."

Talk is cheap Randy!

Once again, you find it easier to discredit than to prove anything I have stated as being wrong. Same-O thumb sucking Randy.



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
When talking of uniformity SH, I meant that crap about the packers having a constant supply to acheive ultimate production. They could have this in a world without packer ownership as well. They would simply have to organise things a bit better, or PAY the producer if they didn't.

So where are we so far SH?

Randy asked how how packer ownership helped the primary producers of North America.

SH came up with three lame opinions easily challenged by some one even as ignorant of beef marketing as Randy and SH says Randy has brought nothing.

Whatever. Were we to expect any more.

Let's move on, as I said earlier.

How did the fact that Cargill and Tyson made excessive profits in Canada due to the closed border AND cash in on a huge government cheque at the same time HELP THE PRIMARY PRODUCER ?

Simle question SH. Just like the last one.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rkaiser said:
When talking of uniformity SH, I meant that crap about the packers having a constant supply to acheive ultimate production. They could have this in a world without packer ownership as well. They would simply have to organise things a bit better, or PAY the producer if they didn't.

So where are we so far SH?

Randy asked how how packer ownership helped the primary producers of North America.

SH came up with three lame opinions easily challenged by some one even as ignorant of beef marketing as Randy and SH says Randy has brought nothing.

Whatever. Were we to expect any more.

Let's move on, as I said earlier.

How did the fact that Cargill and Tyson made excessive profits in Canada due to the closed border AND cash in on a huge government cheque at the same time HELP THE PRIMARY PRODUCER ?

Simle question SH. Just like the last one.

With all the talk about "excessive profits", I'm wondering what you all think is proper profit levels for packers, or any business, for that matter? What is proper return on investment, or any other means of measuring how well a company is performing?

Who among you is willing to tell the investors, including elderly widdows, that they are making too much money off their investments in packing plants? Hopefully, you won't still depend upon them buying and eating beef!

I still recall the freeze on beef prices back some years, and the devastation to ranchers that resulted.



MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
MRJ, "Who among you is willing to tell the investors, including elderly widdows, that they are making too much money off their investments in packing plants?"

Would that be easier than telling tax payers, including elderly pensioner widows, about giving these US companies millions of Canadian tax dollars?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
rkaiser said:
When talking of uniformity SH, I meant that crap about the packers having a constant supply to acheive ultimate production. They could have this in a world without packer ownership as well. They would simply have to organise things a bit better, or PAY the producer if they didn't.

So where are we so far SH?

Randy asked how how packer ownership helped the primary producers of North America.

SH came up with three lame opinions easily challenged by some one even as ignorant of beef marketing as Randy and SH says Randy has brought nothing.

Whatever. Were we to expect any more.

Let's move on, as I said earlier.

How did the fact that Cargill and Tyson made excessive profits in Canada due to the closed border AND cash in on a huge government cheque at the same time HELP THE PRIMARY PRODUCER ?

Simle question SH. Just like the last one.

With all the talk about "excessive profits", I'm wondering what you all think is proper profit levels for packers, or any business, for that matter? What is proper return on investment, or any other means of measuring how well a company is performing?

Who among you is willing to tell the investors, including elderly widdows, that they are making too much money off their investments in packing plants? Hopefully, you won't still depend upon them buying and eating beef!

I still recall the freeze on beef prices back some years, and the devastation to ranchers that resulted.



MRJ

MRJ,

Would you care to expand on that freeze on beef prices some years ago? What happened?
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
794
Reaction score
0
Here is a clipped version Econ. I believe this is what MRJ was refering to.

"President Richard Nixon, feeling pressure from consumer
activists, imposed a price freeze on beef on March 19,1973,
and at the same time announced that the freeze would be
lifted on September 12. Cattle feeders, anticipating higher
prices when the freeze was to come off, held cattle until they
were 90 to 136 kg above desired weights.

The Wreck

Thus, when the freeze was lifted on September 12, as
promised, the supply of fed cattle was too burdensome and
prices plummeted, dropping 33% in 3 mo. At the same time,
grain prices increased as much as 65%, triggered by a grain
deal with the Soviet Union. The short-term effect was losses
of $100 to $200/animal on fed cattle.

The long-term effect was numerous bankruptcies and
mergers in feedyards, all of which became known as “The
Wreck.” Cattle numbers dropped from a record 175 million
in 1975 to 95 million in 1990. American National Cattlemen’s
Association (ANCA) President Gordon Van Vleck of
California testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee
in 1975, “The entire beef industry has sustained operating
losses of $5 billion, plus a reduction in inventory value.”
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
rkaiser said:
When talking of uniformity SH, I meant that crap about the packers having a constant supply to acheive ultimate production. They could have this in a world without packer ownership as well. They would simply have to organise things a bit better, or PAY the producer if they didn't.

So where are we so far SH?

Randy asked how how packer ownership helped the primary producers of North America.

SH came up with three lame opinions easily challenged by some one even as ignorant of beef marketing as Randy and SH says Randy has brought nothing.

Whatever. Were we to expect any more.

Let's move on, as I said earlier.

How did the fact that Cargill and Tyson made excessive profits in Canada due to the closed border AND cash in on a huge government cheque at the same time HELP THE PRIMARY PRODUCER ?

Simle question SH. Just like the last one.

With all the talk about "excessive profits", I'm wondering what you all think is proper profit levels for packers, or any business, for that matter? What is proper return on investment, or any other means of measuring how well a company is performing?

Who among you is willing to tell the investors, including elderly widdows, that they are making too much money off their investments in packing plants? Hopefully, you won't still depend upon them buying and eating beef!

I still recall the freeze on beef prices back some years, and the devastation to ranchers that resulted.



MRJ

MRJ,

Would you care to expand on that freeze on beef prices some years ago? What happened?

After you answer the questions I asked about who should determine what level of profit is acceptable.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "Who among you is willing to tell the investors, including elderly widdows, that they are making too much money off their investments in packing plants?"

Would that be easier than telling tax payers, including elderly pensioner widows, about giving these US companies millions of Canadian tax dollars?

Isn't that comparing apples to oranges? CANADIAN government program to help farmers, with a possible flaw in it that allowed corporate cattle owners to collect right along with family ranches.........compared with market place profits in the USA.

However, it is also getting close to involving government designating who is allowed to own cattle by saying SOME corporate owners should not be allowed disaster payments simply because they are large corporations.

Should that become the law of the land, how long will it be until government decides that hobby ranchers are not allowed to own cattle if corporate or other large packers are not?

If packers and hobby farmer/ranchers are not allowed to own cattle, why should auction barn owners be allowed to own them.......that can present quite a conflict of interest, both at sale time, and in competing for pastures to lease/buy.

Talking about decisions as to whether government should limit who can or cannot own cattle opens up quite a can of worms.

MRJ
 

Latest posts

Top