Random Musings From A Random Mind

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Look at what you've learned here about red meat yield, costs of processing, and SRM removal. Heck your $600+ profit dwindled to $93 just by what you had not considered. Wouldn't you be doing yourself a favor to further that education?

SH, I've always understood what gross and net profits were. That $600 I quoted was a GROSS profit. I didn't even attempt to calculate a NET packer profit. As far as red meat yield, I made an error in calculations, not learned anything. So just drop the $600 arguement. I corrected my error down to $400. But even at the final $93 NET profit I ended up with, its a far cry from the $3.88 that you're quoting.

I did learn that people are using a 36% (come on man, 36%?) red meat yield on HAMBURGER cows to try and justify packer profit margins.

appreciate economies of scale. Like I told you, my local locker plant has to pay to have his ofal hauled off. Do you think he can pay you what your cattle would be worth if that ofal had value?

And like I said, I know what they're paying to have the ofal hauled away. Its peanuts. I'm not even sure why my brother in law bothers to haul when there are more profitable loads waiting for him.

This is the same argument about selling feeder calves off the place

No its not. Then you're back to a SINGLE BID system that won't result in true price discovery. These are not lies and misinformation, but economic realities.

So what if formula cattle are based on last week's weekly weighted average of the cash market. SO WHAT? You know that before you agree to sell that way.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I've already illustrated several times how contract pricing based on weighted cash market average can drive down market prices.

Every feeder has the cash market option if they so choose.

Now we're back to perceived vs real choices. If contract markets drive down cash markets, then we're really only left with one TRUE option: contract.

Also consider the fact that forward contracts were initiated BY PRODUCERS who wanted to minimize their basis risk.

And like I said, if uneducated producers attempt to destroy the industry through cash market basis contracts, its up to other producers to either educate them or get rules in place to prevent uneducated producers from destroying the market.

Then how can you explain the fact that there is times when the cash market following the formula market is higher than the previous week's formula price???

I never once said that in the short term cash basis markets couldn't be higher than the formula, however I am saying that over the next few decades you will see a reduction in dollars paid to the producer for his animals due to these cash basis contracts and captive supplies.

Do yourself a favor SH and read some historical books on the grain trade. Go back as far as about 1850, and make sure you get some reading in there on the Wheat Board. Stick to factual books that report earnings and market pricing, versus some of the books that utilize alot of editorial and emotion. You'll see why I'm as nervous as I am. The cow/calf industry is heading down the EXACT same path, and in our arrogance, we think we can win.

What you guys fail to understand is that these major packers are competing with other major packers for the same cattle. IF THEY DON'T PAY UP, SOMEONE ELSE WILL!!! It's that damn simple.

Whose going to pay up SH? You've said it yourself. The small packer can't compete and are slowly but surely closing up shop. So once they're gone, whose going to be able to buy the 10's of thousands of animals? Small niche markets?

FORCE, why is it always FORCE. Why not start your own packing company that accepts small load lots and see how you fair.

Because you've said it yourself a dozen times. The small packer can't compete due to economies of scale. So why start a business that will almost certainly fail?

THE PACKER DOES NOT OWE YOU A LIVING!

The packer doesn't owe me a living, however I am captive to one packing plant, and he is exercising his market power to block my entry to that market.

Everyone sells in the "socialized" sale barn market where everyone receives the same price for their cattle regardless of quality. Grid pricing was initiated by producers who wanted to get paid for the quality of their cattle. Forward contracts were also initiated by producers who wanted to manage their financial risk. YOU IN TURN WANT TO TELL THESE PRODUCERS THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

You guys are still hung up on the sale barn thing. Skip by it. Forget it. But if a producer says they can get more money on a single bid or closed bid system, versus an open bid system, then that producer really doesn't understand markets.

DSCC: "Of course, if I'd went for the 8 cents above average, I would have missed the 10 - 15 cent premium that I ended up getting at the barn."

Only because the market moved in your favor during the time period between the two bids. Had you been tracking the price of corn and boxed beef, you would probably understand why the price moved.

SH, how can you say that without knowing what the market prices were during that time frame? In the last 8 years, the markets dropped 5 times from the time I took the bids to the time I sold at the barn and I still came out ahead. I keep kicking myself for taking the time to get the bids when I should simply be shipping. I'm not sure what its like in your neck of the woods, but our calf market doesn't take radical 10 cent swings unless influenced by odd market pressures like BSE.

That's supply and demand! Or the price of corn could have risen and the futures market risen allowing him to pay more the next week despite having your cattle already bought. Who is going to feel bad then?

No its not. Thats closed bidding negatively impacting the cash markets.

You can't predict how many buyers are going to need cattle at any given time nor can you predict how corn prices and futures prices will move.

As a backgrounder, I certainly can make some educated decisions about when feedlots are going to be looking for my animals. I can also make some good decisions about what corn and feed prices are going to do. I may not be accurate to the day, or to the cent, but thats only because I don't spend hours of my day doing an accurate analysis. Rough estimates get me close enough.

That is what determines what they are going to pay regardless where they are bidding on cattle.

And so you theorize that they will not pay more in an open bidding situation? The buyers head to a sale barn with an order, and a maximum price based on the feeders costs. When they get to the sale and see that cattle are selling higher than their maximums, why do you think they place the phone calls? To get authorization to pay more, IRREGARDLESS of their costs.

The Nebraska Cattlemen's Association recently contracted with an outfit that trades market information for price reporting. If you report your prices, then you have access to what other feeders are being bid. HOW CAN A MARKET BE ANY MORE TRANSPARENT THAN THAT??? This is a voluntary system and it didn't require another phony government mandate to accompish either.

This is a step in the right direction, but to get a complete picture requires all producers to report their prices. You'll never get that with a voluntary system.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Many aspects of business require a certian size to compete.

I held my own production sale on farm for 5 years plus another bull sale in town for 3 with a mother cow base of 120 cows.

I was about the smallest operator that could do such a sale, but it was tough. The costs of holding a sale are similar no matter if you sell 20k in cattle or 100k, but the bottom line sure is different.

Look at the sales listed and no one can draw a crowd with 35 bulls and no other attraction.

That effectively bars any purebred outfit from a public auction unless they have enough size.

If a packer refuses ALL less than liner loads they are within their rights. After all, each owner has to be assigned a different pen on arrival, paperwork for 1 animal as compared to 1 liner is about the same.

How can we legislate packers to be forced to do business with everyone, and at the same time not legislate buyers attend small bull sales? Where does it end?

The cattle markets are more transparent than ever. SH has described how calves are priced, the same as I described how fats are priced. It is all market signals.

Phony arguements that can not be proven will be bantied about and those that don't understand the mechinisms in place will agree that big players exert undue influence. Don't allow a lack of information to be the cause of drawing a wrong conclusion.

Sometimes the day to day battles we face looking after cattle isolate us from the rest of the world. Some people only see others at the coffee shop, or at sales they are selling at. The tiny fraction of information available at these times is almost worse than no information.

I really like the saying Agman uses, it's not wrong to be wrong, it's wrong to stay wrong.

 

[Econ101]

SH, your little "dissertation" would fit more in book form, don't you think? Mind you, I am not saying I would buy the book, because it is just plain silly in many respects. Might go good under the subject "packer fiction", but I still would not even check it out from the library.

We need only one example to show you why as I too, can write dissertations that no one wants to read. Much of this has already been covered on other threads. I find it interesting that Tyson could not convince 12 jurors but had no problem with a few judges who proved they did not know the difference in the written law between "or" and "and". It is also interesting that the economic example they used in their argument was incorrect.

Here are just a 5 examples:

1.

Quote:
Conman: "SH, I have not read the proposed bill."


Then why would you make a stupid statement suggesting that nobody is trying to legislate how feeders can sell their product???

You shot your ignorant mouth off again before you knew what you were talking about.

I don't know every bill that is proposed. You don't either. I was talking about my posts on this forum. If remedies of additional laws are required because courts do not understand or are unwilling to enforce certain provisions that protect ranchers/farmers or the market, then they might contain such provisions. Under these circumstances, this would be totally understandable. My last post on this subject inducated that this might be the case.

IF THE PSA CAN NOT BE ENFORCED, EXPECT MORE STRINGENT LEGISLATION. It is all about remedies to market manipulation. Judges had to have 3 strikes and you are out, and sentencing legislation because of their inability to enforce laws effectively and efficiently. Could happen again. It is the next best scenario, not the best scenario. Sometimes things go there.

2.

Quote:
Conman: "What I know and don't know is way beyond you almost all of the time."


Keep telling yourself that Conman. You prove your ignorance with every post you make.

I don't have to tell me anything. I posted it for your information. Your mind reading capabilities have been under scrutiny for some time. You just will not accept that fact.

3.

Quote:
Conman: "Limitations on packers being defended under the guise of taking something away from the producer will not work for me."


This is not limiting packers, it's limiting feeders and there is no justification. Every producer can sell his cattle on Angus Gene Net and "bid the grid" base price if he does not like the non negotiated base price or he can sell in the cash market. He/she does not need an ignorant packer blamer like you telling them how to sell their cattle.


This cuts at the heart of the free enterprise system.

Market manipulation rules that limit those with market manipulation tools and strategies are also part of the free enterprise system. Taking away those tools actually enhances the free enterprise system, it does not hinder it. You are just arguing to keep those tools. Feeders do not come ahead when these tools are used strategically by the packers. The packers do. I am against outlawing guns(these tools), except to those who have abused them. The law does not allow felons to have guns. It is the same principle. Feeders could still get into these contracts under the existing PSA, the packers can not, however, abuse them. Just like the gun laws. If it is good enough for the NRA, it is good enough for me. Are you going to go against Moses on this one?

4.

Quote:
Conman: "The judges presiding over the Pickett case, both at the lower level and the appellate level were either corrupt or incompetent."


That's what all the packer blamers say when there is no "smoking gun" to blame packers with. There was no proof of market manipulation as defined by the courts. Dropping your price to reflect your needs is not market manipulation but rather a normal supply and demand market reaction. Take it to another court Conman! Take it to feeding country in Kansas, Nebraska, or Iowa instead of Corporate blaming Alabama and see what happens. I doubt you would even find a judge willing to hear the case let alone waste everyone's time with it. It's bullsh*t and Judge Strom was smart enough to sort it out as was the 11th circuit.

If they had a powerful argument to back their case, WHY CAN'T ANY OF YOU PACKER BLAMERS BRING IT TO THE TABLE??? I'll tell you why, because it doesn't exist.

I have told you before. I am from Texas. I don't need a smoking gun. The manipulation in this case was not just a factor of supply and demand in the cash market and "Dropping your price to reflect your needs", but on a collusive price in the formula or grid offering base price that was tied to the former week's cash price instead of a total market price. The offered formula or grid price was less than the average of the market if the thinned out cash market was used as a base price.

The evidence of the manipulation is the testimony of what was offered in the cash market. There was already some evidence to that presented on this forum. Go back and read the old posting if you want. Don't try to get everyone to do your homework for you again and again. Your memory retention is a personal problem, not my problem. Sandhusker already posted it on its own topic. The jurors believed it. That is who was supposed to count.

If you want to take a case to the areas you described above, be my guest. Don't tell me what to do.

5.

Quote:
Mike: "JURORS DO NOT NEED TO KNOW THE LAW!"


Exactly, that's why they can interpret certain actions such as dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your needs in the formula market as market manipulation. It requires a judge to know whether laws were broken or not. Judge Strom clearly stated no violation of the PSA.


~SH~

Having you give jury instructions is a little ridiculous, SH. The judge overturned the verdict after the jurors made an intelligent decision and answered questions he approved.

 

[pknoeber]

I'll admit right up front that I only read about 3/4 of the first page of this thread so I might be repeating what somebody has already written in their post, but here's my take:

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard of.

There seems to be a fair majority here that believe that the packers are putting the screws to them while making huge amounts of money. Solution: Band together with other like-minded individuals and buy/build your own packing plant. Then you can join in on the gravy train that you think the packers are riding. Quit crying about it and asking the government to change it, be proactive and change it yourself. Guess who the folks were that got USPB going? It wasn't a Wall st. suit, it was the average ranchers that had a vision. Their vision worked in the free markets & they didn't ask the government to hold their hand & help them up, they held each others' hands and helped each other up.

Why does everybody want to go back to the old way of doing it? Doing it just like it's been done for 100 years is easy & comfortable & allows an operator to NOT have to learn new skill sets. With a dynamic & changing market place people will have to continually evolve & develop new skill sets. It's fairly easy to pick out those in the cattle industry that have done this & can keep up. They don't want to rush back to the old way & they will probably admit that some things used to work better then than now, but they will also be able to point out the areas that work much better now than then also. I have a specific individual in mind (a Kansan, not Paul Engler) that has made a mint of money b/c he's incredibly sharp, works very hard, adapts well & is a top-notch businessman. That's made him a multi-multi-millionaire. He didn't rely on the government to do it, he adapted to the marketplace and did it.

Why is the government always the answer?

Phil

 

[Econ101]

I'll admit right up front that I only read about 3/4 of the first page of this thread so I might be repeating what somebody has already written in their post, but here's my take:

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard of.

There seems to be a fair majority here that believe that the packers are putting the screws to them while making huge amounts of money. Solution: Band together with other like-minded individuals and buy/build your own packing plant. Then you can join in on the gravy train that you think the packers are riding. Quit crying about it and asking the government to change it, be proactive and change it yourself. Guess who the folks were that got USPB going? It wasn't a Wall st. suit, it was the average ranchers that had a vision. Their vision worked in the free markets & they didn't ask the government to hold their hand & help them up, they held each others' hands and helped each other up.

Why does everybody want to go back to the old way of doing it? Doing it just like it's been done for 100 years is easy & comfortable & allows an operator to NOT have to learn new skill sets. With a dynamic & changing market place people will have to continually evolve & develop new skill sets. It's fairly easy to pick out those in the cattle industry that have done this & can keep up. They don't want to rush back to the old way & they will probably admit that some things used to work better then than now, but they will also be able to point out the areas that work much better now than then also. I have a specific individual in mind (a Kansan, not Paul Engler) that has made a mint of money b/c he's incredibly sharp, works very hard, adapts well & is a top-notch businessman. That's made him a multi-multi-millionaire. He didn't rely on the government to do it, he adapted to the marketplace and did it.

Why is the government always the answer?

Phil

No, Phil, it is a little more complex than that. Tyson has beef and its substitutes. They can swing the market with the price manipulation tools they have. They are using these two markets to consolidate the meat markets. All consolidation allows more market power to "put the screws" to the producers and consolidate the meat industries under their control.

There are two distinct time periods:

1. Supply of meat proteins is relatively high. There is a lot of chicken on the market and there is a lot of beef on the market. By using the market manipulation tools in beef, they are able to drive the prices in beef down on the producer level. SH and Jason have already posted (their figures) that the spread during the Pickett manipulation time was $26.00 per head vs. an industry average over time of $3.88 per head. That is a 670% increase in profitability over the time market manipulation was asserted. During this time, chicken prices were in the tank. Tyson was able to use the cash flow from the beef side to continue operating the poultry side in an oversupply situation with low prices. This drives out small competitors that do not have beef to subsidize their operations. If you are in poultry and do not play with the big boys, you get run out of the business. Consolidation in the poultry business.

Next time period:

2. Because of the low prices paid to producers in time period 1, the supply of beef reacts (this takes time) and you go into period 2. During this time period, beef prices are high. Packers do not operate at the same margins, as some have suggested, but operate under what Agman and SH call negative margins. They seem to be losing money on every head sold with this calculated negative margin. How do they remain profitable? The chicken side (and pork). As I have shown on a previous post, the poultry prices have been between 30 and 45% higher. Profit margins are anyone's guess. If the poultry dealers were making 5 cents per lb. when prices were 52 cents then at 70 cents they are making roughly 35 cents more per lb. If all costs are the same for production (grain went down fuel went up, etc... but we are assuming for the point) then the profits on poultry went up 700%. Where does Tyson get cash flow to pay for "negative" cash flow in beef processing? Not hard to figure out. During this period, beef processors are run out of the business because they do not have chicken business to keep them afloat with their cash flows.

Tyson does have one synergy with the chicken and beef markets. They are able to feed their animal by products in beef operations to chicken. Isn't this what initiated the BSE crises in the first place in the cattle markets?

Is this an efficient market or strategic planning? Tyson did not buy IBP for nothing. They want the whole market. If we remain stupid enough to let them have it, we deserve to not be paid for our products. I am afraid if things do not change, that is where we are heading.

 

[mrj]

Sandbag: "You had no problem telling Creekstone how they couldn't market their cattle, even though it had absolutly no effect on you or anybody else. Why the double standard?"

There is no double standard. What Creekstone wanted to do was consumer fraud by "SUGGESTING" that BSE TESTED means BSE FREE.

Sandbag: "Take a look at the New York Stock Exchange. There are a number of rules on how you market your stocks - the rules increasing for the number of stock you are selling and your relationship to those companies. Yet, with all those rules, the NYSE is highly regarded for efficiency and honesty. Companies love to get their stocks off the other exchanges and get them onthe NYSE."

Rules at the NYSE might be justified.

The Captive supply reform act has no justification nor does selling fat cattle in a sale barn environment.



~SH~

I think the USDA can be convicted of that one more readily when it comes to the BSE issue. You put words into Creekstone's mouth but the words out of the USDA came from Johannes and the NCBA'rs that work there.

Regulators could not adequately regulate the phone companies either. That is why they were broken up.

Econ, do you work for someone or a business or other employer?

Did you ever work for another entity previous to your present position?

If so, do you make decisions in your job based on loyalty to previous employers?

If you do not do that, why do you assume that FORMER employees of NCBA do so?

MRJ

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Many aspects of business require a certian size to compete.

I held my own production sale on farm for 5 years plus another bull sale in town for 3 with a mother cow base of 120 cows.

<snip>

That effectively bars any purebred outfit from a public auction unless they have enough size.

2) If a packer refuses ALL less than liner loads they are within their rights. After all, each owner has to be assigned a different pen on arrival, paperwork for 1 animal as compared to 1 liner is about the same.

1) Its an interesting point Jason, but its a bit apples to oranges. The individuals going to a bull sale are just that, individuals, and as such should certainly not be forced into going somewhere. A corporation is not an individual and should not EVER expect the same rights as an individual.

Plus small PB breeders have other options that don't cost them extra money. Virtually every cattle breed association has an open sale once a year in every province. Small operators then have a chance to get into the market and not take a penalty or endure another middleman taking a profit away.

2) Then they could/should charge a paperwork fee on everyone. $100 (or $50 or whatever). The bigger guy can use his economies of scale to minimize the profit loss per animal, and the small time guy still has access to the market. The packer hasn't been harmed at all.

Jason, as I've told SH, these are not unprovable theories, but history simply repeating itself.

Rod

 

[mrj]

I would rather buy a good horse from Mexico than a bad one from Montana. I would rather eat good beef from Canada than I would bad beef from Florida. I would rather buy a well-made shirt from China, than I would a poorly made one from North Carolina. Quality is important, no matter where it is from.

I would compliment and recommend your kid if he does a good job. If my kid screws up, it will not just be swept under the rug. Honesty is important.

Value added beef with a justifiable label, such as South Dakota Premium Beef or Certified Angus, with verification to back the claims, means something. Plain jane old USA beef could mean a downer cow with cancer eye, but she is darn sure USA beef. "USA Beef" is just too broad spectrum. Give me a label instead that designates quality.

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-- 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...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....

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

OT, consumers in virtually all locations can have access to privately labeled beef. And it is more honest than beef simply labeled as "imported" or "domestic", which implies, but actually lies about, the actual safety and quality of that beef under the current M-COOL law which identifes source ONLY back to the packer when it is possible that health problems originate on the ranch of origin which is EXEMPT from identification under COOL.

Those labels you claim the packer uses to fraudulently pass off imported as domestic beef are not the responsibility of the packer.

The GOVERNMENT is responsible for those labels which indicate beef SAFETY and level of QUALITY, not origin! The packer is selling the particular level of quality of beef that he is known for to the retailers.

Producers can and do put their own "label" of identification on their beef if they so choose.........horse breeders use "identification" papers, aka registration of blood lines........however, there are some people in the horse business who mess around with those papers aren't there?

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

I would rather buy a good horse from Mexico than a bad one from Montana. I would rather eat good beef from Canada than I would bad beef from Florida. I would rather buy a well-made shirt from China, than I would a poorly made one from North Carolina. Quality is important, no matter where it is from.

I would compliment and recommend your kid if he does a good job. If my kid screws up, it will not just be swept under the rug. Honesty is important.

Value added beef with a justifiable label, such as South Dakota Premium Beef or Certified Angus, with verification to back the claims, means something. Plain jane old USA beef could mean a downer cow with cancer eye, but she is darn sure USA beef. "USA Beef" is just too broad spectrum. Give me a label instead that designates quality.

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-- 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...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....

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

OT, consumers in virtually all locations can have access to privately labeled beef. And it is more honest than beef simply labeled as "imported" or "domestic", which implies, but actually lies about, the actual safety and quality of that beef under the current M-COOL law which identifes source ONLY back to the packer when it is possible that health problems originate on the ranch of origin which is EXEMPT from identification under COOL.

I guess I live in a virtually "no location"--No affordable access to privately labeled beef here...
But I forget- your silver spoon makes you think the lower class should not be allowed to know if their beef was slaughtered in a Mexican or Uruguain plant- or was raised in Mexico and may have drank out of chemically polluted streams...You follow the NCBA theory -you poor folk just eat what we put in front of you

Those labels you claim the packer uses to fraudulently pass off imported as domestic beef are not the responsibility of the packer.

The GOVERNMENT is responsible for those labels which indicate beef SAFETY and level of QUALITY, not origin! The packer is selling the particular level of quality of beef that he is known for to the retailers.

Government and Packers are about one and the same anymore when it comes to the rules--since the USDA and NCBA leadership have to ask the Tyson/Cargils etal permission before they pass gas, let alone make a decision.....

Producers can and do put their own "label" of identification on their beef if they so choose.........horse breeders use "identification" papers, aka registration of blood lines........however, there are some people in the horse business who mess around with those papers aren't there?

Not very possible under the AQHA since all breeding stock must be DNA'ed..........

MRJ

 

[rkaiser]

Northern Rancher wrote. -

R. Kaiser do you honestly believe there are 1,000's of privately owned auction marts in Canada-I know of two maybe three in Saskatchewan-then there are DLM,Team and Superior. I've checked out alot of breeder driven branded beef programs most of them when you strip away the hyperbole are bull marketing schemes nothing more nothing less-they all take care of the promoter first finance wise. As for these new packing plants while promoted with some good intentions and at times religios fervour to realistically compete they are going to have to become alot like they were set up to compete against-we would probably be better off if the government would let our small slaughter houses operate-one of the most successful local businesses we ever had here was totally integrated-ranch-feedlot-slaughter house-meat market. The ranch and meat market are still going but government regulations made the feedlot and slaughter house unviable.

Yes Cory, I believe that there are more than two auction markets in Saskatchewan, and I would like to see more. How is it that competition is fine with 85% control by 2 packers, yet the auction barn industry has such a bunch of theives running it when the numbers are similar according to your opinion?

I've checked out alot of breeder driven branded beef programs most of them when you strip away the hyperbole are bull marketing schemes nothing more nothing less-they all take care of the promoter first finance wise.

I guess you have this fly by night schemer Kaiser guy figured out don't you Cory.

Another way to look at it, and some actually do is --- A purebred fellow raising good quality beef Bulls trying to assist his customers in marketing offspring from those bulls. At $2500.00 per bull however, your translation is probably correct. The way I have it figued, if I con guys into buying my crap for another 3 or 4 years, I should be able to retire. :roll:

Good Luck Cory
Chow

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Yes Cory, I believe that there are more than two auction markets in Saskatchewan, and I would like to see more. How is it that competition is fine with 85% control by 2 packers, yet the auction barn industry has such a bunch of theives running it when the numbers are similar according to your opinion?

Not to destroy my own arguement, but in Saskatchewan, we saw a period of sale barn consolidations. We're left with 2 (or is that 3 now?) privately owned barns and the rest are owned by Neilson brothers (or were, unless they've been sold again). Thankfully, the remaining private operations refuse to sell, and are also among the biggest in Saskatchewan, giving producers a genuine choice.

Should sale barns prove out to be a better free market mechanism, and from some of the good arguements in this debate they likely aren't ideal, we'd need to ensure that government paid attention to the monopoly laws to ensure we didn't end up with 1000 sale barns all owned by 2 corporations.

Oh wait. Isn't that awful similar to what we have now?
[/quote]

Rod

 

[Tam]

Tam, if you want to allow the big boys to manipulate the markets with their little games just so you can keep your privledged place over other cattlemen in your country, then go ahead. You have to do what is in your heart.

Cheating someone else for personal advantage is not something I want to be involved in. Produce a good product and get paid for its fair share of the value. Little games that do anything other than that are just that, little games. If you want to continue to defend them, then go ahead. I think most cattle ranchers and farm families do not have the same view. They want to put in an honest day's work and earn an honest dollar. Things may be different in your neck of the woods.


If you just don't understand what is being said and done, that is another thing. If you don't want to understand what is being said and done is also another thing entirely. I learned a long time ago that if someone wants to be evil, there is not a lot stopping them. They must live with what they have become. It is sad that in today's world, many times those are the people who gain the world but lose something far more important in the process.

You only live a certain amount of time in life. Some of us are already over the half way mark and we still haven't learned that fact.

Sure, for markets to work well, we have to have honesty. Short of that we have to have laws that can be enforced. These laws may take away from your or packer "efficiency" or profitabilty but they add to the efficiency of the market and the betterment of society.

It would seem that self called leaders in this industry would understand these issues. I think a lot of cattlemen in the U.S. are upset because the leaders of the NCBA are taking the same position that you espouse. It is self interest that is not in the interest of market efficiency, economic efficiency, or the interests of your neighbors. It is only your self interest and it has implications for everyone around you.
Keep defending your "rights" at the expense of everyone else. It is a short sighted policy.

Nice little speech here Econ to bad you have defended the rights of other to lie and cheat but here you say isn't not something you would get involved in. :wink:

Can you tell me why Rod is not self serving when he is looking out for his bottom line and the bottom lines of other just like him by limiting everyone to how they can legally sell THEIR CATTLE. YET I'm self serving when I don't want to limit others access to risk management tools that some have been using for decades to carry on the marketing of THEIR CATTLE, that I DON"T PERSONALLY USE. How am I self Serving ECON I DON"T USE CONTRACTS I USE SALE BARNS. I just don't want Rods theory to limit mine or anyone else if a contract is the risk management tool I choose to access in the future. He says himself "I'll continue to raise the best backgrounded cattle that I can and expand until I'm big enough to open up all my marketing options". If his theory is followed up with by his MLA he too will not have any other marketing options.

Cheating someone else for personal advantage is not something I want to be involved in.

Do you mean like cheating others out of a risk management marketing option that was thought up by producers decades ago just so you can get a better price for your cattle at the local sale barn. And in your case Econ limiting the way the Big boys do business just because you hate them.

Produce a good product and get paid for its fair share of the value. Little games that do anything other than that are just that, little games.

Do you mean the little games R-CALF has been playing with the North American beef industry by lieing about our beef to keep the borders closed so they could limit the US packers access to cattle that would compete for the high market dollar that they wanted all for themselves?

I think most cattle ranchers and farm families do not have the same view. They want to put in an honest day's work and earn an honest dollar. Things may be different in your neck of the woods.

I would have to say the 18,000 members of R-CALF that supported R-CALF lies and defended them by paying dues are not as honest as you would have us all believe. Everytime the R-CALF office released a press release that lied about our system they did it to give them an advantage over our beef industry and to protect the Inflated cattle prices in the US. All we really want in my neck of the woods is a fair shake and the truth but if R-CALF came out with the truth the border would be open as not even Cebull would have the guts to hold it up. Seems to me you defend a bit of cheating for personal advancement Econ.

I learned a long time ago that if someone wants to be evil, there is not a lot stopping them. They must live with what they have become. It is sad that in today's world, many times those are the people who gain the world but lose something far more important in the process.

What is more evil than defending the rights of an organization that lies about someone to further their own agenda. R-CALF spouts they are the up and coming Beef organization but just what did it cost Econ, the lost of respect of a big part of the North American Beef industry and the TRUTH thats what.
Talk about honesty why don't you try a little it will make you feel better about yourself, that or pass gas.

 

[Northern Rancher]

Geez Randolph aren't we a bit touchy today-just calling them as I see them sunshine-by the way what are Celtic Beef customers getting this week on the rail-just curious. As for salebarns -I'm sure if you sold a load of your Galloway steers at most salebarns they'd be discounted-probably wrongly so but admit it they would. When I was selling satellite cattle I know how hard it was to market nonmainstream breeds through that channel. I'm sure your motives are all the purest but let's not bullshit ourselves you are in it to make some money-nothing wrong with that if you are man enough to admit it. When I sell my bred heifers I damn sure point out that I want some profit out of the deal.

 

[rkaiser]

Never said my name wasw Robin Hood now did I Cory. Just Randy Kaiser with the bad manners and the bad attitude.

Do you want me to tell everyone on the board more of what you have already researched about Canadian Celtic Cory? $160 on the rail for Welsh Blacks and $155 for Galloways. These prices are negotiated each year, once a year, and have been at this rate for over two years.

AND yes Cory, our marketer is struggling with inventoryand delaying payment to our producers. Every producer is being paid in order, and is receiving close to 200 bucks more than he would have gotten out of the conventional market over those last number of months. Those that have a need to run us down because of it are welcome. Canadian Celtic has survived longer than any small market competitor that I know of, and the future is as optimistic as ever. Be nice if the low end of all those cattle you have been grid selling to Cargill could be moved out of the freezers in Calgary. The profits they are receiving for top end cuts are allowing some major sales in the Calgary Co op grocery stores that challenge our trim. Good old legal competitive marketplace we live in eh. Get big or die trying.

So besides wanting me to admit something Cory, what have you got going on that is good for more than yourself?

 

[Northern Rancher]

I asked you a simple question and got a convoluted answer-I guess as long as it's myself who has to pay my bills that's who I have to worry about-Dylan and Colleen Biggs are going through the same growing pains and have been in the same situation for years-it's a tough row to hoe for sure. By the way they were the ones who got Kit Pharo forage testing bulls. Sorry that I'm not out to save the beef industry like you Randy-but I've got kids to feed and bills to pay.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, first of all, if R-CALF lied about your product, sue them for libel. What's stopping you?

Secondly, why do you support this packer spawned notion of a North American market? What has this North American market gotten you? You have virtually no Canadian packing industry, only a US packing industry - North Division. You're dependant on the US to take your production - without us you crumble. Your government will not do a thing in your favor if the USDA (packers) won't approve it. Millions of your tax dollars just went to the pockets of those same US packers who are worth billions - and you staunchly defend the system? Where is the benefit of a North American herd for you? Have you ever stopped to consider what being part of this North American herd has/will do for you?

You say R-CALF members need to think for themselves?

 

[rkaiser]

Cory -

I asked you a simple question and got a convoluted answer-I guess as long as it's myself who has to pay my bills that's who I have to worry about-Dylan and Colleen Biggs are going through the same growing pains and have been in the same situation for years-it's a tough row to hoe for sure. By the way they were the ones who got Kit Pharo forage testing bulls. Sorry that I'm not out to save the beef industry like you Randy-but I've got kids to feed and bills to pay.

And insinuations to post.

I'm out here.

 

[Econ101]

Tam, if you want to allow the big boys to manipulate the markets with their little games just so you can keep your privledged place over other cattlemen in your country, then go ahead. You have to do what is in your heart.

Cheating someone else for personal advantage is not something I want to be involved in. Produce a good product and get paid for its fair share of the value. Little games that do anything other than that are just that, little games. If you want to continue to defend them, then go ahead. I think most cattle ranchers and farm families do not have the same view. They want to put in an honest day's work and earn an honest dollar. Things may be different in your neck of the woods.


If you just don't understand what is being said and done, that is another thing. If you don't want to understand what is being said and done is also another thing entirely. I learned a long time ago that if someone wants to be evil, there is not a lot stopping them. They must live with what they have become. It is sad that in today's world, many times those are the people who gain the world but lose something far more important in the process.

You only live a certain amount of time in life. Some of us are already over the half way mark and we still haven't learned that fact.

Sure, for markets to work well, we have to have honesty. Short of that we have to have laws that can be enforced. These laws may take away from your or packer "efficiency" or profitabilty but they add to the efficiency of the market and the betterment of society.

It would seem that self called leaders in this industry would understand these issues. I think a lot of cattlemen in the U.S. are upset because the leaders of the NCBA are taking the same position that you espouse. It is self interest that is not in the interest of market efficiency, economic efficiency, or the interests of your neighbors. It is only your self interest and it has implications for everyone around you.
Keep defending your "rights" at the expense of everyone else. It is a short sighted policy.

Nice little speech here Econ to bad you have defended the rights of other to lie and cheat but here you say isn't not something you would get involved in. :wink:

Can you tell me why Rod is not self serving when he is looking out for his bottom line and the bottom lines of other just like him by limiting everyone to how they can legally sell THEIR CATTLE. YET I'm self serving when I don't want to limit others access to risk management tools that some have been using for decades to carry on the marketing of THEIR CATTLE, that I DON"T PERSONALLY USE. How am I self Serving ECON I DON"T USE CONTRACTS I USE SALE BARNS. I just don't want Rods theory to limit mine or anyone else if a contract is the risk management tool I choose to access in the future. He says himself "I'll continue to raise the best backgrounded cattle that I can and expand until I'm big enough to open up all my marketing options". If his theory is followed up with by his MLA he too will not have any other marketing options.

Cheating someone else for personal advantage is not something I want to be involved in.

Do you mean like cheating others out of a risk management marketing option that was thought up by producers decades ago just so you can get a better price for your cattle at the local sale barn. And in your case Econ limiting the way the Big boys do business just because you hate them.

Produce a good product and get paid for its fair share of the value. Little games that do anything other than that are just that, little games.

Do you mean the little games R-CALF has been playing with the North American beef industry by lieing about our beef to keep the borders closed so they could limit the US packers access to cattle that would compete for the high market dollar that they wanted all for themselves?

I think most cattle ranchers and farm families do not have the same view. They want to put in an honest day's work and earn an honest dollar. Things may be different in your neck of the woods.

I would have to say the 18,000 members of R-CALF that supported R-CALF lies and defended them by paying dues are not as honest as you would have us all believe. Everytime the R-CALF office released a press release that lied about our system they did it to give them an advantage over our beef industry and to protect the Inflated cattle prices in the US. All we really want in my neck of the woods is a fair shake and the truth but if R-CALF came out with the truth the border would be open as not even Cebull would have the guts to hold it up. Seems to me you defend a bit of cheating for personal advancement Econ.

I learned a long time ago that if someone wants to be evil, there is not a lot stopping them. They must live with what they have become. It is sad that in today's world, many times those are the people who gain the world but lose something far more important in the process.

What is more evil than defending the rights of an organization that lies about someone to further their own agenda. R-CALF spouts they are the up and coming Beef organization but just what did it cost Econ, the lost of respect of a big part of the North American Beef industry and the TRUTH thats what.
Talk about honesty why don't you try a little it will make you feel better about yourself, that or pass gas.

Tam, I have said before, the PSA does not disallow contracts. It does prohibit the use of contracts to manipulate markets. That would be a deceptive device. I see it got you.

I am not an r-calf member. I have never been one. Are you a member of Peta? Maybe I can rant about them some and associate you with them.

The fact is the big boys are in Canada now more than ever. They skirted the economic protections provided to producers in the PSA with their international supplies in Canada. U.S. producers are a little upset about that. USDA seems to have policies that, at every turn, benefit packers over producers and benefit consolidation of the industry over competition. All this while dollars roll into Washington D.C. and support the corruption of our markets. Your own country rewarded them with big payouts from taxpayers while allowing the salmon run that people like rkaiser has to compete with when he sells beef.

Are you short sighted, a little slow, being manipulated, or just self serving in what you post on this website? I don't know. I have never met you or your husband. Usually it does not take me too long to find out.

Being in the cattle business and on the "inside" you should be able to see what is happening to the meat industries. If you can not, it is your own fault.


I don't "hate" the big boys. I do get upset when they break the rules of the game, get away with it, and have little squakers like you to sing their song. As I said before, market power is to be limited, not cattlemen's choices. It is unfortunate that you can not tell the difference or the reasons why.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I just don't want Rods theory to limit mine or anyone else if a contract is the risk management tool I choose to access in the future. He says himself "I'll continue to raise the best backgrounded cattle that I can and expand until I'm big enough to open up all my marketing options". If his theory is followed up with by his MLA he too will not have any other marketing options.

Tam, you still haven't answered my original question: Cash basis contracts are not good for the industry, its been proven in the grain industry. So should uneducated producers be allowed to sign them and hurt all of us?

BTW, I'm not sure if you're misquoting me, or if I didn't make it clear: Cash basis contracts have been in use in the grain industry for decades. I'm not sure about the US, but they're a relatively recent thing up here.

Rod

 

[Soapweed]

Not to destroy my own arguement, but in Saskatchewan, we saw a period of sale barn consolidations. We're left with 2 (or is that 3 now?) privately owned barns and the rest are owned by Neilson brothers (or were, unless they've been sold again). Thankfully, the remaining private operations refuse to sell, and are also among the biggest in Saskatchewan, giving producers a genuine choice.

Should sale barns prove out to be a better free market mechanism, and from some of the good arguements in this debate they likely aren't ideal, we'd need to ensure that government paid attention to the monopoly laws to ensure we didn't end up with 1000 sale barns all owned by 2 corporations.

Oh wait. Isn't that awful similar to what we have now?

Heck, a better idea would be to nip the whole deal in the bud before it ever gets off the ground. There is no reason to give the sale barns exclusive rights to sell all the cattle. The system of free enterprise works very well, if we just let it.

Build a better mousetrap, and the whole world beats a path to your door. Instead of trying to put the successful entrepeneurs out of business by restricting them with more rules and regulations, go about it from a more positive angle. Just devise a better system and then you can be the one riding high.

If we pass any new law, it should be a law that there can't be any more laws. We've got enough already.