Random Musings From A Random Mind

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) If salesbarns are capable of doing such a great job for the producer-how come any other alternatives ever started up.

2) You don't need to be a huge producer to sell into a value added grid.

3) I always get the local barns to bid on my cattle before I place them on feed-there so busy trying to rape you on the shrink or the sortnot once

4) If were going to get the government to legislate how we can sell our product we might as well just have state farms and work for a wage-it was sure a success over in Russia.

1) I guess we'd have to ask the guys who first started going around the barns and find out why. I consider these guys to be on the same field as the guys who skip around the Wheat Board, ignoring that in the past 70 yrs the Wheat Board was shut down 3 times and each of those 3 times, wheat prices dove into the ground.

Cattle and grain producers are in competition with one another. You and I both know that if every single producer sold to a common place at a common price, there would be one SOB down the road offering his stock up at a couple cents/lb less so he could get it delivered early or for some other concession.

2) The average cattle herd size in Saskatchewan is 50 adults. I'm above average size, yet I can't sell to Excel in Moose Jaw without a liner load. I know there are other packers outside of Excel, but by the time I pay the shipping to them, I would have been further ahead to do what I'm doing right now: backgrounding to 8-900 lbs and sending them down the road.

3) I'm not sure whose idea it was to have sale barns bidding for animals and guaranteeing prices, but it wasn't good for producers. NR, I dunno if you ever went to Tisdale auction market, but that place was a cesspool of crooked dealings and mismangement. In my little example, the sale barn was intended to be just that: a barn where people brought their animals to be sold. No price guarantees. I'm not sure if you've ever dealt with Kelvington, but to my way of thinking, they've got it right. No price guarantees, their employees are not allowed to work both sides of the market (arranging for producers to bring their stock in AND buying for packers/feedlots during the sale), and they don't run a regular sale anymore, just pre-sorts.

4) I think you're going a little extreme. The stock market is a good example of regulated single desk trading that works in a free market society. The Wheat Board is another (yes I know its been mismanaged, but that doesn't change that its a good idea). Individual producers do not have enough market power to go up against the other market forces, and still stay in business, so the playing field needs to be levelled. Otherwise, individual producers will be gone, and we'll be left with corporate cow/calf producers and those small individuals will simply be hired hands. If you don't believe it can happen, look at the grain farming community right now.

 

[Jason]

Don't you guys that support the auction method of selling fats wonder how packer buyers arrive at the prices they pay for cattle?

We live in an information age. The information as to what cattle average for yield, cut out price, retail price etc. etc. are all available. The prolem is small outfits like Rod, like myself, like hobby cattlemen like Sandhusker that don't feed enough cattle to finish to spend the time to stay 100% current.

Buyers pay according to market signals.

Because of this another business has developed, feedlots that cater to small lots of cattle. They stay current, and can group cattle in liner loads to arrange packer shipments.

Interestingly enough, I have never been refused on a small load of fats, but I have refused to take a price offered more than once. I know my costs and if I sell a nearly fat 2 year old for cow price it is my choice. Sometimes getting the better price costs more for fuel to deliver her than it is worth.

 

[Soapweed]

And you wouldn't buy that Mexican horse without checking it out- you would want to know as much as possible about it, including where it came from--

I have sure bought enough American horses that I didn't check out very good before I bought them. Some it didn't matter, because they were good horses. Granted, some I should have checked out a little better. Some were just flat misrepresented by good old redneck Americans wearing nice looking cowboy hats, no less.

It is much better to do business on a handshake with an honest man, than it is to have all the signed paperwork in the world with a dishonest person. That is the voice of experience talking.

You know where the shirt comes from because it is required to be labeled- everything else you buy is required to be labeled-except meat...

And you probably condemn me for buying it because it said "made in China". I admit, I bought it knowing it was made in China. It is a good shirt, and the price was right. Frankly, where it was made didn't matter.

The only reason that meat is not labeled is so the Packers/Retailers can continue the fraud of passing off cheap imported meat as a US product to make bigger profits off it....

That is one man's opinion. I am not necessarily sticking up for the packers/retailers, but I have no real reason to condemn them, either. We should never judge until we have walked a mile in their moccasins. I'd much rather be a cowboy and ride a horse.

Besides, how do you go about labeling hamburger that is a mix of lots of hamburger from lots of different cattle? To my understanding, by mixing cheaper foreign beef with our 50% fat hamburger, we actually get more value for our own product. What is wrong with that? By dinking around trying to differentiate between foreign and home-grown beef, all it does is bring about more cost to us as producers, which is not recoverable. What difference does it make, as long as we get more for our product, there is quality control, and the ultimate consumers get a quality product? Sometimes by being too nit-picky, all we do is shoot ourselves in the foot.

And as far as I am concerned those that oppose an M-COOL requirement are the same as co-conspirators to that fraud...

Think what you want, but as far as I'm concerned the M-COOL crap just contributes to an already very much overloaded bureaucracy. It just depends on a person's perspective. You can be mad at me for thinking the way I do, but I can be equally as mad at R-Calf for further tangling the web.

"That government is best that governs least." I believe that, and I am totally against more rules and regulations that R-Calf thinks will save us all. Guess we are still free to each believe the way we want. Thank God for that.

 

[agman]

Soapweed, "Good. Sometimes procrastination is not all bad. I've sat on various boards, and once in a while, if you can talk the rest of the group into just "tabling" a problem until the next meeting, and then do the same at the next meeting, you can ignore something long enough for the problem to evaporate. "

The problem here is that the larger group, including the President, have made up their mind and it is only a small group representing a minority interest that are blocking it.

Another problem I see is that it won't evaporate. It's just getting started. The big packers have established positions across the globe in beef raising nations and trade barriers are dropping. These folks want to sell cheaper beef that what you can provide without anybody knowing and the stars are lining up for them. Their agenda puts your operation at risk, my bank at risk, and my community at risk. I don't like that. I'm not ashamed at all to fight against that.


Soap, "That's just it. COOL is an exercise in futility. So what if the label says "beef born, raised, and processed in the USA". The USA is pretty big, with as much ethnic diversification in cattle as there is in the people that live here. "Certified Angus" or "full-blooded Swede" means something. "Black cattle" or "blonde American" really doesn't mean much."

I'll agree with COOL not saying a whole lot about the quality. I'll pay twice as much for a Nebraska steak from a baldie than I would a steak from a Florida Brahman or any milkcow from anywhere. That's where branded beef comes in. What a "Product of USA" label means to me is "The products under this label are benefitting US producers, who pay US taxes - and US taxes fund a whole bunch of things that help us all out. Feel free to buy the beef from Canada, Brazil, or Australia, but also kindly let us know what service currently being funded by taxes you no longer want funded as we will be running short"

I think we're still on for 7 if you can make it. Come early and I'll get you straightened out on COOL! :wink:

Sandhusker you might want to ask producers in New Zealand and Australia who are now being confronted with the real cost of of MCOOL and MID to the tune of $25-$30 per head. There is zero evidence that it has helped spur domestic consumer demand-just added costs to the system.

You and I differ on this but I do believe those greedy retailers and packers, as you claim, would already label beef accordingly if it actually spurred beef demand.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Don't you guys that support the auction method of selling fats wonder how packer buyers arrive at the prices they pay for cattle?

2) Interestingly enough, I have never been refused on a small load of fats,

1) Its not how the packers arrive at their final decision on what to pay that I have a problem with. What I find problematic is that they are allowed to generate contracts using last weeks market average as a basis. This isn't good. It provides them with too much impetus to mess with the auction price. Or if the conspiracy doesn't do it for you, then as more and more people deliver straight to the packer on a contract basis, the barn becomes less competitive and the basis for the market is killed.

Jason, you and I, and most of the people on these forums, are aware of the vast amount of information available to us and the different methods of marketting and how it may or may not pay. But for every one of us, there are a hundred guys out there who don't know. And because they aren't informed, they will continue to make errors and allow the prices and margins to be driven closed. And then it doesn't matter how well informed I am, I'm out of business just as sure as the uninformed guy next to me. Since we can't beat the information into their heads, or force them to make use of it, then I think we need a way to ensure their errors can't influence you or I.

2) I wish I could say the same.

Rod

 

[Soapweed]

What a "Product of USA" label means to me is "The products under this label are benefitting US producers, who pay US taxes - and US taxes fund a whole bunch of things that help us all out. Feel free to buy the beef from Canada, Brazil, or Australia, but also kindly let us know what service currently being funded by taxes you no longer want funded as we will be running short"

That is all well and good, but you are not seeing the whole picture. Just because the foreign beef originated across our national boundary doesn't mean that it hasn't been in our own country long enough to generate quite a bit in taxes. Foreign-born cattle can be grazed on American pastures, fed in American feedlots, processed in American packing plants, roped in American arenas, etc. All of this activity can also generate more taxable American money, which still funds our wonderful American system.

Good thing the original Native Americans weren't armed enough to keep out your and my foreign-born ancestors. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Sandhusker you might want to ask producers in New Zealand and Australia who are now being confronted with the real cost of of MCOOL and MID to the tune of $25-$30 per head. There is zero evidence that it has helped spur domestic consumer demand-just added costs to the system."

What is generating the expense cost, MCOOL or MID? Do they advertise only Domestic product? What about the economic effect of money staying in the country? There's a lot of things to consider here.

Agman, "You and I differ on this but I do believe those greedy retailers and packers, as you claim, would already label beef accordingly if it actually spurred beef demand."

Whoa up there. I"ve never called retailers or packers greedy - those are your words. All I've said is that packers were simply doing what can be expected of them - maximizing shareholder value. They just don't always do it in moral or legal ways.

It's all about profits, isn't it? Isn't that what increased demand is supposed to get around to doing - increasing profits? My position is that the retailers and packers will do whatever they can to increase profits - and increasing demand is not the only way to increase profits and may very well be the long and/or less efficient way to go about increasing profits. After everything shakes out, putting on label make make them a nickel - but shunning labels and buying from a cheaper supplier unbeknownst to the consumer might make them a dime. If that is the case, there was a better way to make a buck than to increase demand.

 

[Jason]

Rod, I think you are confusing the cash price with an auction price.

Cash price is what is paid for immediate delivery, or next day etc. for live steers. It is the average price of all reported sales.

Formula prices are tied to rail grade dressing and quality and can be based off the cash price.

If you think that some little guys just take a few "fats" into an auction and that is the price used by packers, relax as that is not true.

The price of fats is derived from boxed beef and cut out values. These are signals as to how much beef is moving and at what price. The packers know their costs and try for the maximum profit, but feeders know the same numbers and because they own the cattle control what they will sell them for.

The packers can offer a price but feeders accept or reject that price. If packers wait too long in a reluctant market they wind up short and empty hooks cost them more money than running in the red for a period of time.

If feeders hold too long, in a down market they can lose more in feed, overweights and price.

In the way things work right now, the feeders have the most risk, but the most power too. They buy calves months in advance based on futures markets and control the vast majority of cattle holding packers fortunes in their hands. This is why packers have started buying more calves so they control their own destiny.

XL (not excel that is a US corp) in Moose Jaw is either on a very slim margin to reject small numbers, or has had very bad luck with them, or is trying to satisfy some large feeders in Sask.

I sell to XL in Calgary and if I call a week in advance can get 2 or 3 in. I have had Cargill buyers come to the yard to look at groups of under 10.

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "No one is trying to legislate how you can sell your product."

HAVE YOU NO SHAME??????

How can anyone just lie the way you do then arrogantly pretend you didn't. You know damn well the Captive Supply Reform Act is legislation that determines HOW YOU CAN SELL YOUR PRODUCT.

STOP YOUR DAMN LYING!



~SH~

SH, I have not read the proposed bill. What I know and don't know is way beyond you almost all of the time.

As I said before, when you can not get the first choice, you may have to take the second choice. It might not be as good or efficient for the economy. First choice would be honest people in the business. Second would be an enforcable PSA. We are now past the first and second choice. That is life.

Limitations on packers being defended under the guise of taking something away from the producer will not work for me. Try your wares elsewhere.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Rod, I think you are confusing the cash price with an auction price.

Cash price is what is paid for immediate delivery, or next day etc. for live steers. It is the average price of all reported sales.

2) know their costs and try for the maximum profit, but feeders know the same numbers and because they own the cattle control what they will sell them for.

3) XL (not excel that is a US corp) in Moose Jaw is either on a very slim margin to reject small numbers, or has had very bad luck with them, or is trying to satisfy some large feeders in Sask.

4) I sell to XL in Calgary and if I call a week in advance can get 2 or 3 in. I have had Cargill buyers come to the yard to look at groups of under 10.

1) Actually, I get hung up on auction sales as the market price mainly because I'm a backgrounder and thats mainly how our cash price is set. I understand how they arrive at cash basis price on feeders, but a contract based on last weeks market price still gives them the impetus to mess with the cash price to try and garner more contracts. Or, a less conspiracy oriented approach: If they're guaranteed X number of contract animals, why bother with the cash market at all? Cash price falls, and so does the contract price.

2) Uneven playing field now. If the feeders have access to the packers costs, why don't I have easy access?

3) :lol: I had an Excel spreadsheet open at the time and was working with it while attempting to multitask.

4) By the time I ship to Calgary, I've lost any margin there may have been in the cattle. Its good that you have that option, however those who have multiple options have to bear in mind there are those of us who are restricted. Doesn't mean that I'm any less competitive, its just that large packers didn't find it economically feasible to build a packing facility close to me, and since small packers can't compete in the current marketplace, I have limited options.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "No one is trying to legislate how you can sell your product."

HAVE YOU NO SHAME??????

How can anyone just lie the way you do then arrogantly pretend you didn't. You know damn well the Captive Supply Reform Act is legislation that determines HOW YOU CAN SELL YOUR PRODUCT.

STOP YOUR DAMN LYING!



~SH~

Is this an online hissyfit?

 

[agman]

Agman, "Sandhusker you might want to ask producers in New Zealand and Australia who are now being confronted with the real cost of of MCOOL and MID to the tune of $25-$30 per head. There is zero evidence that it has helped spur domestic consumer demand-just added costs to the system."

What is generating the expense cost, MCOOL or MID? Do they advertise only Domestic product? What about the economic effect of money staying in the country? There's a lot of things to consider here.

Agman, "You and I differ on this but I do believe those greedy retailers and packers, as you claim, would already label beef accordingly if it actually spurred beef demand."

Whoa up there. I"ve never called retailers or packers greedy - those are your words. All I've said is that packers were simply doing what can be expected of them - maximizing shareholder value. They just don't always do it in moral or legal ways.

It's all about profits, isn't it? Isn't that what increased demand is supposed to get around to doing - increasing profits? My position is that the retailers and packers will do whatever they can to increase profits - and increasing demand is not the only way to increase profits and may very well be the long and/or less efficient way to go about increasing profits. After everything shakes out, putting on label make make them a nickel - but shunning labels and buying from a cheaper supplier unbeknownst to the consumer might make them a dime. If that is the case, there was a better way to make a buck than to increase demand.

If buying cheaper product to blend with our product makes them the most money that margin gain is eventually transferred to our product in the form of higher price paid for our product. I say that is good business.

Are you kidding, you don't think packers and retailers are greedy?!! If not, then why do you claim they manipulate prices? If they don't do it to make a profit why would they engage in such absurd activity? Is it just mental gymnastics?

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "If buying cheaper product to blend with our product makes them the most money that margin gain is eventually transferred to our product in the form of higher price paid for our product."

Why would the prices paid for our product rise when demand for our product is lowered via cheaper replacements?

 

[Mike]

Agman, "If buying cheaper product to blend with our product makes them the most money that margin gain is eventually transferred to our product in the form of higher price paid for our product."

Why would the prices paid for our product rise when demand for our product is lowered via cheaper replacements?

What he's saying that the more money the packer makes.......the more money he can pay you! :???: Catch-22

 

[Tam]

And something else to toss into the fray, and one of the reasons I began thinking about this topic:

You have to bear in mind that not all of us are big producers. As a small producer, I am economically blocked from the fat cattle market. I can't get enough animals together for a liner load, so the packer doesn't even want to talk to me. If I ship to the barn, we've already established that I'll get less money for my product, to the point where I've lost money versus selling to a feedlot as a backgrounded animal.

So I don't think we have a level playing field. Perhaps this is as simple as regs stating that packers CANNOT refuse to buy small lots of animals?

Rod

Econ says I should have the right to sell my cattle as a producer any way I want, but insists that packers shouldn't beable to contract cattle. So if I CHOOSE to contract my cattle as I feel that is my best option who do I contract them to? By limiting the packers rights on how they buy cattle, you are at the same time limiting me as a producer to sell my cattle as I SEE FIT.
Rod, What is stopping you from getting together with a few neighbors and selling a package deal? Why must we limit everyone's way to do business because some producers are limited? In every other facet of live the bigger you get the more options you have and that is what drives everyone to better themselves. Regulating the way we can buy and sell our cattle only punishes those that think out side the box and look to better themselves. Why better our herds if we know they will be sold as generic feeders at sale barn auction with everyone elses generic cattle? Do you ever sit down with the order buyer while your cattle are in the ring being auctioned off and say to him just hold the phone here, look at the data I have that proves my cattle are top notch cattle, I think they deserve a bit better price than the average. No you are forced to take what they think they are worth on that giving day with no way to convince them they are worth more. I'm not saying sale barns don't have their place but limiting everyone to using them is just plain wrong.

Econ you say that the regulations should be made up to regulate the big market power guys Who is to judge the cut off point of when a packer becomes a market power? Rod you want a level playing field why is the playing field to be regulated to level it for you but at the same time limits the rights of others that even Econ says should have the right to sell their cattle as they see fit ?

 

[Anonymous]

Soapweed
"It just depends on a person's perspective. You can be mad at me for thinking the way I do,"

---------------------------------------------

Soap--Not mad at you- just disappointed...Your credibility went down a notch in my eye. How long before a little fib leads to a big lie? A little theft leads to a major embezzlement? Just doesn't fit the western idealology...
Roy and Dale, Gene, good guys wear white hats!!

My perspective on M-COOL started about 10 years ago when one of our locals started rising thru the chairs of NCBA... I was still Sheriff when I attended several of the NCBA listening sessions where I was informed that the USDA stamp did not mean US meat or even USDA inspected, as the foreign slaughtered was actually seldom ever looked at by USDA employees...This was news to me as I had been one of the 95% of consumers that believed that the USDA stamp guaranteed US beef....It was also disturbing that in a world where everything was being required to be marked-meat products were not......

During these sessions the NCBA mucky mucks explained the changing market and how we were moving into a global trade- and they expressed the importance of being able to identify and differentiate our product in that global market..This was what they said was the necessity for M-COOL.....Without it we would just be generic beef in a world where many other countries have much cheaper costs.....

I was even shown how some of our local stores were bringing in sides of Canadian beef with the CFIA stamp on them- removing the stamp during trim process, and repackaging in packages with the USDA stamp and passing it off as US beef...This was brought to the attention of several of the local county attornies who agreed that it was a crime under the Montana Fraudlent Labeling or altering of marks or labels Law (the same law that is used for someone altering a brand)... While they agreed it was a crime they found they did not have jurisdiction since it involved interstate and international transportation--it fell under the federal jurisdiction... And since the feds were helping to perpetrate the fraud- thats where it stopped....

NCBA later- for whatever reason (I've heard a dozen different ones) changed their backing of M-COOL...But they'd done too good of job of selling me- I didn't...Especially when the current practice would probably be illegal in a majority of the states if the USDA didn't back it.....

 

[Econ101]

And something else to toss into the fray, and one of the reasons I began thinking about this topic:

You have to bear in mind that not all of us are big producers. As a small producer, I am economically blocked from the fat cattle market. I can't get enough animals together for a liner load, so the packer doesn't even want to talk to me. If I ship to the barn, we've already established that I'll get less money for my product, to the point where I've lost money versus selling to a feedlot as a backgrounded animal.

So I don't think we have a level playing field. Perhaps this is as simple as regs stating that packers CANNOT refuse to buy small lots of animals?

Rod

Econ says I should have the right to sell my cattle as a producer any way I want, but insists that packers shouldn't beable to contract cattle. So if I CHOOSE to contract my cattle as I feel that is my best option who do I contract them to? By limiting the packers rights on how they buy cattle, you are at the same time limiting me as a producer to sell my cattle as I SEE FIT.
Rod, What is stopping you from getting together with a few neighbors and selling a package deal? Why must we limit everyone's way to do business because some producers are limited? In every other facet of live the bigger you get the more options you have and that is what drives everyone to better themselves. Regulating the way we can buy and sell our cattle only punishes those that think out side the box and look to better themselves. Why better our herds if we know they will be sold as generic feeders at sale barn auction with everyone elses generic cattle? Do you ever sit down with the order buyer while your cattle are in the ring being auctioned off and say to him just hold the phone here, look at the data I have that proves my cattle are top notch cattle, I think they deserve a bit better price than the average. No you are forced to take what they think they are worth on that giving day with no way to convince them they are worth more. I'm not saying sale barns don't have their place but limiting everyone to using them is just plain wrong.

Econ you say that the regulations should be made up to regulate the big market power guys Who is to judge the cut off point of when a packer becomes a market power? Rod you want a level playing field why is the playing field to be regulated to level it for you but at the same time limits the rights of others that even Econ says should have the right to sell their cattle as they see fit ?

Tam:" By limiting the packers rights on how they buy cattle, you are at the same time limiting me as a producer to sell my cattle as I SEE FIT. "

If they are using your contract to manipulate the market, then the answer is yes, Tam. You would have not liability under this scenario, however, just the packer.

The PSA is a market power law. It attempts to disallow the use of market power in price determination. Judges who don't understand economics may have issue with it, but who made them god? They are not supposed to make law. The judges presiding over the Pickett case, both at the lower level and the appellate level were either corrupt or incompetent. I lean on incompetent because they showed their knowledge with their Robinson-Patman example. Incompetent is better than corrupt, and it is not eliminated as a possibility.

International supplies should not ever have the effect of going around domestic laws. The trade agreements made between our countries is not being enforced. It does not include PSA provisions for across the border trade. The trade negotiators have failed in their agreements by not having these provisions. It is funny that the U.S. is trying to get the trade laws passed in the CAFTA countries so the deal will go through. If I were running those countries, I wouldn't sell out my citizens as our trade negotiators have.

The people who judge these things in the U.S. are called jurors. They are not judges, or packers. They are jurors. Do you have them in your neck of the woods?

As I said before, the Capper-Volstead Act allows farmers to own cooperatives and not have this law enforced against its members. You could get into contracts with a cooperative and still have the things you are saying you want. May be rkaiser's Big C is not such a bad idea anyway.

I find it very interesting that you would want to allow those with market power to exert it at the expense of the market, Tam, if they are giving you a good deal. Just a little self serving isn't it?

 

[theHiredMansWife]

however I do feel the the market is slowly breaking down based on my own observations. I have children and want to ensure that the lifestyle that I love is still here for them when they grow up. For me, that transcends market efficiency and a corporation's right to profits. I feel that the current corporate enviroment, both in the cattle industry, and in other areas of our lives is restricting our ability to 'live a good clean life'.

I realize this is probably coming out of left field, but i just wanted to point out that the market has long since "broken down". Ie, that lifestyle that is so valuable to you is unattainable to most of us. You can't get a start in ranching unless you have a start in ranching... know what i mean? :wink:
(And by ranching, I mean where that's what you do to make your living, big or small. Working in town to support your work on the ranch is not what I'm thinking of...)

The very existance of corporations is what allows people like my husband and myself to ranch. We'd never be able to buy our own place, but we get to run the company's place like it's our own. Mostly.
Do we have something to pass on to our kids? No. (Though all too often the kids really don't care) But we have somewhere to raise our kids and their bottle calves and teach them all those things we all hold dear.

God bless corporations. Sometimes.
[/soapbox]

 

[Soapweed]

Soapweed
"It just depends on a person's perspective. You can be mad at me for thinking the way I do,"

---------------------------------------------

Soap--Not mad at you- just disappointed...Your credibility went down a notch in my eye. How long before a little fib leads to a big lie? A little theft leads to a major embezzlement? Just doesn't fit the western idealology...
Roy and Dale, Gene, good guys wear white hats!!

My perspective on M-COOL started about 10 years ago when one of our locals started rising thru the chairs of NCBA... I was still Sheriff when I attended several of the NCBA listening sessions where I was informed that the USDA stamp did not mean US meat or even USDA inspected, as the foreign slaughtered was actually seldom ever looked at by USDA employees...This was news to me as I had been one of the 95% of consumers that believed that the USDA stamp guaranteed US beef....It was also disturbing that in a world where everything was being required to be marked-meat products were not......

During these sessions the NCBA mucky mucks explained the changing market and how we were moving into a global trade- and they expressed the importance of being able to identify and differentiate our product in that global market..This was what they said was the necessity for M-COOL.....Without it we would just be generic beef in a world where many other countries have much cheaper costs.....

I was even shown how some of our local stores were bringing in sides of Canadian beef with the CFIA stamp on them- removing the stamp during trim process, and repackaging in packages with the USDA stamp and passing it off as US beef...This was brought to the attention of several of the local county attornies who agreed that it was a crime under the Montana Fraudlent Labeling or altering of marks or labels Law (the same law that is used for someone altering a brand)... While they agreed it was a crime they found they did not have jurisdiction since it involved interstate and international transportation--it fell under the federal jurisdiction... And since the feds were helping to perpetrate the fraud- thats where it stopped....

NCBA later- for whatever reason (I've heard a dozen different ones) changed their backing of M-COOL...But they'd done too good of job of selling me- I didn't...Especially when the current practice would probably be illegal in a majority of the states if the USDA didn't back it.....

Well, I can see where you are coming from, Oldtimer. Your association with the concept of COOL goes back farther than mine. And I guess a few years ago, it seemed like a better idea to me than it does now. My view on it now, is that it is kind of an "empty promise" which doesn't mean that much, and sure doesn't guarantee top quality beef.

I also see it as costly to the producer, and a cost that is pretty much unrecoverable. It is also the chief reason that we will soon be stuck with M-ID, which I look at as just another hassle to contend with.

You are right, the USDA stamp is a bit misleading. On the other hand, it doesn't say "USA Beef". It does instead imply that the beef has been "USDA inspected". This means that the beef has met the quality guidelines and was USDA inspected. I guess I don't have a problem with that, but you think maybe I should. I don't consider it a white lie; if it has been "USDA inspected" I assume that it has been inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture. Our American food safety program probably isn't perfect, but I am betting it is head and shoulders above that of any other country in the Universe.

Back to shirts made in China, things have about come full circle. I can remember when, if a cowboy had a genuine silk scarf made in China, he was gussied up about as high as could be. Now, "made in China" seems to be a tainted topic.

If a person restricted their purchases to things made completely in the USA, they wouldn't be able to get much. They sure wouldn't be able to own an automobile, because most of the parts are made out of this country. They would have to sew their clothes by hand, because they couldn't find any American made sewing machine. They would have to make their own fabric, because that is probably all made out of the USA. Let's face it, we are now in a global society, and it would be impossible to think otherwise.

Probably if we are looking for someone to blame, we could blame the Democrats. :wink: They make a good scapegoat, and their "tax everybody to death" policies and big Union backing have made industry seek other more user-friendly countries in which to do business. The big companies need less taxes and cheaper labor to operate profitably.

 

[Jason]

Except for a couple posters on the 'lunatic fringe' most of the contributors to this thread show how resourceful rancher types are.

We have the range from those that work for 'evil corps' to those that are close to being considered 'evil corps'.

The lifestyle arguement is nearly dead, as a person that has an acreage with a few animals can have the lifestyle and the standard of living they desire.

Rod by taking your calves to 800 pounds, you are starting to take back the extra value of your calves. As you continue, you will likely have the choice to hold them longer by placing in a custom lot, or buying more calves to feed with your own.

I have said this before, that there is too much to do on many places for one person anymore. There is a growing need to have specialists in areas from nutrition to marketing. Sometimes it is easier to hire a professional cowboy than to hire out the other needs.

I think rather than looking for laws that always have unintended side effects, we need to look at new ways to achieve old goals.

I have long mused about true co-op type ag operations where a group get together and have a full time numbers guy, marketer, professional cowboys, tractor jockies etc. A land owner could be hired to do what he is best at (ride herd, or drive tractor, or market cattle and/or grain/feed). The co-op could extract the most value from calves by having enough numbers to afford equipment and such to feed them out. Each co-op could look different, depending on the personalities of the members or the geography of the land involved. Big and small members would still benefit from what they have put in to it. A guy that works long hours would still be able to if he chose to, but he could slow down a hair and not lose everything either.