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

Read the Fine Print!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

...I agree and I will add in my opinion...will it not be ironic but if the Canadian dollar keeps rising we will see a reverse of cattle in which the Americans will be shipping live cattle from the northern states to be fed and slaughtered up here in Canada...
 
blackjack said:
...I agree and I will add in my opinion...will it not be ironic but if the Canadian dollar keeps rising we will see a reverse of cattle in which the Americans will be shipping live cattle from the northern states to be fed and slaughtered up here in Canada...

With the economic impact of Katrina, this might happen (Canadian dollar rising). This possibility is the one that we need to take up when discussing international trade. The question is, what in the heck does it have to do with producers? Was one producer more "efficient" than the other if this happens?
It would be nice to keep the discussion a little more civil than the last ones have been. Thanks.
 
Murgen, two points...who owns much of your manufacturing in Canada...USA companies own most of your beef processing...do you think they will let you make more than USA producers? They will start importing live cattle from the USA to bring down your prices!
Cheap labor is the driving force of world manufacturing(coupled with low freight cost and lack of regulations in developing countries)...China, India, Indonesia, S.A.; Argentina produces beef for $.17/lb direct cost...can you compete?

Econ101, I can see exchange rates effecting profitability as it is changing, but once they stabilize, doesn't the value of product equalize? How would a fixed exchange rate as part of a trade agreement influence trade and profitability of trade?
Thanks, Robert
 
...econ101...I don't think it is a thing of producers being more efficient than another... personally even after the energy prices level off I think the costs of transportation is going to be a be major factor in where the cattle get slaughtered...we have a provincial govt up here in Alberta that is pro business and after the BSE situtation we have learned that there has to be changes in the way we market our products... this not only applies to agriculture but to other industries as well...
...the amazing thing RobertMac is that it was hard to imagine how we still imported from other countries when we were selling cull cows for 15 cents ...
 
RobertMac said:
Murgen, two points...who owns much of your manufacturing in Canada...USA companies own most of your beef processing...do you think they will let you make more than USA producers? They will start importing live cattle from the USA to bring down your prices!
Cheap labor is the driving force of world manufacturing(coupled with low freight cost and lack of regulations in developing countries)...China, India, Indonesia, S.A.; Argentina produces beef for $.17/lb direct cost...can you compete?

Econ101, I can see exchange rates effecting profitability as it is changing, but once they stabilize, doesn't the value of product equalize? How would a fixed exchange rate as part of a trade agreement influence trade and profitability of trade?
Thanks, Robert

Fixed exchange rates in a trade agreement will never happen. It is the supply/demand curve equilibrium of the world's trade. Bush is using the same tactic that the packers are using in shifting consequences of his fiscal deficit onto the domestic producers and selling the U.S. producer out.

There has been a big uproar over China fixing its exchange rate to the U.S. dollar. There is a little crack in that one now but not enough. This argument is complex, but essentially the U. S. domestic producers want China to stop subsidizing its Chinese producers with an artificial pegging of the dollar. The artificial pegging to the dollar has allowed Pres. Bush to have an irresponsible fiscal policy and place the efficiency losses to this on the domestic producers.
 
Read the Fine Print!??? More accurate: Read the Fantasy and False Claims!

Rothwell, ocm, and OT all probably know full well that AFBF's system of governance IS a representative democratic form, with local REPRESENTATIVES going to represent the local members at the state and national conventions. They also have policy or agreement that they will present a unified front for better successes with state and national legislation. That is, on the state level, the majority of opinion of the local members will prevail in disagreements, as, on a state issue, if several county groups are on one side of an issue, and the majority of the remaining county groups are on the other side, ALL will go with the majority. On the national level, if there is difference of opinion, majority of the state groups carries and all will support the issue. This is as I, a SDFB member understand the process, and am open to civil and accurate correction if someone believes I'm in error.

Re. FB Ins., OT, would you share a comparison of FB's Blue Cross Ins. premiums AND BENEFITS? We, personally, would not have adequate health ins. if not for Farm Bureau, and relatives and friends as well as we, have been very pleased with coverage, pay-out for serious illness and injury. By the way, who owns and sells Farmers Insurance Group? How are they able to keep their premiums so low? Is the coverage and benefits comparable to AFBF' s company?

Re. FB business practices, isn't it simply good business sense that if they have money available, it should be wisely invested in stock in successful companies? By your implication, a family or individual or any business investing in these companies are controlled by them. Ludicrous!

ocm, you say "AFBF doesn't have to depend on its voting membership for financial support....they can be a top-down org. ...they never have to listen to "the grass-roots". This is what is more likely: the "grass-roots" members, members elect their representatives who serve them well by wisely investing money so that the return on investment will provide money to do more education of members and consumers, and lobbying to serve members interests legislatively than they could on dues alone, for just two feasible uses for that invested money. Bet I'm closer to correct than you are, truth be known. I've met some extremely intelligent people who are very wise ranchers involved in AFBF, and they certainly would not stand for what you claim is the case for that org.

OT, history of many organizations, from cattlemens and other ag groups to the local churches, over at least the past forty years has been that the members want the fun and benefits of membership, but not the responsibilities of leadership. Many have gone begging members to serve, and often have settled for anyone who would reluctantly accept, rather than having enough qualified, good prospects for office to hold a real election. That has led to the diminishing of many such organizations. Been there, done that!

ALso, OT, re. "NCBA's recruitment procedures". Just what would that be? How are our "recruitment procedures" different than any other organization.....other than that I don't believe we have in recent history given chances on winning a free pair of boots with a bona fide self paid membership. Maybe we should!

Sandhusker, I just can't imagine a bank loan officer who doesn't understand the concept that an organization can have a phone conference between the national leaders and the state affiliate directors where those state affiliates will DIRECT the national officers to proceed with a plan (opening the Canadian border) because they believed enough of the so called "Eleven Point Directive" had been achieved to justify proceeding. You see, those state affiliates directors, REPRESENTING many thousands of GRASS-ROOTS state affiliate members, most of whom were not at the convention to vote, trumped the few thousand national voting members at the national convention. I know it really bites you that NCBA members DO control our organization, but such is life, you just have to buck up and carry on in spite of your disappointments. But please do try to be more accurate when discussing NCBA. Your fantasy that there is a NCBA/USDA?Packer "alliance" is a good case in point.....total bunk! Get over it and get a life.

To the Canadians posting about further processing your commodities to "get your share of the riches" in a manner of speaking.......be very sure you are correct in believing packers make obscene profits......rather than the possibility that they actually operate on very thin margins........be very sure you have your markets secured and within your favorable pricing frame......be very sure that you have the expertise to do all the jobs of those "middle men" accused of sucking the profit out of the cattle producers' pockets if you plan to prosper in your endeavors. May wisdom prevail, and may we ALL enjoy success and joy in life, seeing our cups as half full, rather than half empty!

MRJ
 
MRJ, "Sandhusker, I just can't imagine a bank loan officer who doesn't understand the concept that an organization can have a phone conference between the national leaders and the state affiliate directors where those state affiliates will DIRECT the national officers to proceed with a plan (opening the Canadian border) because they believed enough of the so called "Eleven Point Directive" had been achieved to justify proceeding. You see, those state affiliates directors, REPRESENTING many thousands of GRASS-ROOTS state affiliate members, most of whom were not at the convention to vote, trumped the few thousand national voting members at the national convention. I know it really bites you that NCBA members DO control our organization, but such is life, you just have to buck up and carry on in spite of your disappointments. But please do try to be more accurate when discussing NCBA. Your fantasy that there is a NCBA/USDA?Packer "alliance" is a good case in point.....total bunk! Get over it and get a life."


You don't like it, but leadership CLEARLY did NOT follow membership's directive. You can try to smooth it by saying the State Affiliate Directors OKed the deal, but aren't they still leadership? Yes, MRJ, they are. You can sugar coat it anyway that you feel, but membership's directives were not only not met, but were reversed. It doesn't matter who OKed the reversal if it wasn't the same folks who made the directive, and that was membership.

So "enough" of the directive was deemed by leadership to have been met? What is "enough" to membership? 51%? I read the directive and didn't see where only so much of the directive was expected to be carried out. Do you think the members who voted on the issue had a certain percentage other than 100% in their minds?

One of the biggest knocks against the NCBA by former members is that leadership just does what they want to regardless of what membership wants, a prime example is the 11 point directive. You confirmed this when you mention the State Affiliates "trumping" membership! If NCBA was truly a member-driven organization, there would be no "trumping"!

Was it just a coincidence that after "trumping" membership and deciding that "enough" of the directive had been met, NCBA not only took the same position as the packers, but also became vocal allies?
 
To the Canadians posting about further processing your commodities to "get your share of the riches" in a manner of speaking.......be very sure you are correct in believing packers make obscene profits......rather than the possibility that they actually operate on very thin margins........be very sure you have your markets secured and within your favorable pricing frame......be very sure that you have the expertise to do all the jobs of those "middle men" accused of sucking the profit out of the cattle producers' pockets if you plan to prosper in your endeavors. May wisdom prevail, and may we ALL enjoy success and joy in life, seeing our cups as half full, rather than half empty!

Thanks for the kind thoughts MRJ! As a country that exports 50% of our beef production, we're in good shape. Markets for export will change, we will add value. If the packers are making money, our product will be purchased, unlike the last two years! Producer ownership is griowing, I believe it will continue. Remember, our market is small enough that even freezer beef works for some!
 
Farm Bureau members should be concerned with AFBF's credentials. How can this organization represent some 5.6 million farm families across the country since the most recent, 2002 USDA Ag Census lists only 2,128,982 "farms" in existence and not all farmers are members.

MRJ- You are again missing the point (or avoiding it)---I don't care what they sell their insurance for or how good or bad it is....The point is that FB is representing themselves to represent 5.6 million farm families and USDA says their is only 2.1 million farms in existence :???:

FB is using their urban and non-farm membership to bolster their standing to the congress and the courts to support their beliefs... Many of these "members" probably don't even know which end of a cow the moo or the milk comes from...........

And with a 6.5 billion dollar income which comes from "big corporate" investments it becomes tough to buy the theory that they listen to their grassroots ag producer members.... :( [/b]
 
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "Sandhusker, I just can't imagine a bank loan officer who doesn't understand the concept that an organization can have a phone conference between the national leaders and the state affiliate directors where those state affiliates will DIRECT the national officers to proceed with a plan (opening the Canadian border) because they believed enough of the so called "Eleven Point Directive" had been achieved to justify proceeding. You see, those state affiliates directors, REPRESENTING many thousands of GRASS-ROOTS state affiliate members, most of whom were not at the convention to vote, trumped the few thousand national voting members at the national convention. I know it really bites you that NCBA members DO control our organization, but such is life, you just have to buck up and carry on in spite of your disappointments. But please do try to be more accurate when discussing NCBA. Your fantasy that there is a NCBA/USDA?Packer "alliance" is a good case in point.....total bunk! Get over it and get a life."


You don't like it, but leadership CLEARLY did NOT follow membership's directive. You can try to smooth it by saying the State Affiliate Directors OKed the deal, but aren't they still leadership? Yes, MRJ, they are. You can sugar coat it anyway that you feel, but membership's directives were not only not met, but were reversed. It doesn't matter who OKed the reversal if it wasn't the same folks who made the directive, and that was membership.

So "enough" of the directive was deemed by leadership to have been met? What is "enough" to membership? 51%? I read the directive and didn't see where only so much of the directive was expected to be carried out. Do you think the members who voted on the issue had a certain percentage other than 100% in their minds?

One of the biggest knocks against the NCBA by former members is that leadership just does what they want to regardless of what membership wants, a prime example is the 11 point directive. You confirmed this when you mention the State Affiliates "trumping" membership! If NCBA was truly a member-driven organization, there would be no "trumping"!

Was it just a coincidence that after "trumping" membership and deciding that "enough" of the directive had been met, NCBA not only took the same position as the packers, but also became vocal allies?

Sanhusker, why do you constantly try to stick to one little point without observing all the facts. Members can and did voice their opinion regarding how the NCBA should proceed. Membership can change and give their approval for actions which may supercede their previous intent. Why is that so hard to believe. Why do you constantly point to the initial intent?

I would not get carried away by citing some ex NCBA member and their claim or lack of representation. Those folks are not missed anyway. It was either their way or no way, that is why they are disgruntled. The NCBA is better off without them They provided little if any value to the organization.
 
To the Canadians posting about further processing your commodities to "get your share of the riches" in a manner of speaking.......be very sure you are correct in believing packers make obscene profits......rather than the possibility that they actually operate on very thin margins........be very sure you have your markets secured and within your favorable pricing frame......be very sure that you have the expertise to do all the jobs of those "middle men" accused of sucking the profit out of the cattle producers' pockets if you plan to prosper in your endeavors. May wisdom prevail, and may we ALL enjoy success and joy in life, seeing our cups as half full, rather than half empty!

...MRJ... thankyou for the wise words... I as well as other fellow ranchers lost a lot equity up here in the past two years and its been a hard pill to swallow sometimes...tell you the truth I blame our govt more than the packer for the situtation we were dealt... I assume you have a calculater...how come my culls bring 35 cents today compared to 15 cents just a short two months ago...could it be because the packer wanted to start losing money...I don't think so...
 
agman...Members can and did voice their opinion regarding how the NCBA should proceed.

How many of their members voiced their opinion regarding the 11 point directive and how they should proceed agman? Was it just the leaders of the state organizations or did they contact all 25,000 of their members?
 
Tommy said:
agman...Members can and did voice their opinion regarding how the NCBA should proceed.

How many of their members voiced their opinion regarding the 11 point directive and how they should proceed agman? Was it just the leaders of the state organizations or did they contact all 25,000 of their members?

For all those that are continually looking for a sharp stick to poke NCBA regarding the 11 points.....you're running out of sharp sticks. Decisions went through the proper channels. Most of those that helped draft the 11 points were also in attendance at the recent midyear convention in Denver.

Thankfully, attendees at midyear witnessed firsthand how much more effective POSITIVE energy can be in dealing with the situations at hand.
 
blackjack said:
I as well as other fellow ranchers lost a lot equity up here in the past two years and its been a hard pill to swallow sometimes...tell you the truth I blame our govt more than the packer for the situtation we were dealt... I assume you have a calculater...how come my culls bring 35 cents today compared to 15 cents just a short two months ago...could it be because the packer wanted to start losing money...I don't think so...

FYI Blackjack, when the border opened to under 30 month cattle, the law allowed Tyson to kill cows at Brooks as well.

The competition created as well as the shift in consumers to more ground beef because of lack of disposable income has made for the increase in cull cow prices here.
 
...Jason ...that was interesting how Tyson changed apart of their slaughter floor to killing OTM's this spring at the same time XL in Moose Jaw was switching from OTM to UTM...What was up with that... how did our packers know the rules were going to change...or was it just speculation on their part...and this is where I blame the gutless Canadian government not the packer for us to getting shafted because of the thirty month rule... you know it and every other rancher up here knows who took the financial hit...hint ... it wasn't the packer...

...as for your last statement about the ground beef ... I know from reading your posts you know there is more than burgers that come from a cow...as well as any one else that as butchered their own... :wink:
 
Tommy said:
agman...Members can and did voice their opinion regarding how the NCBA should proceed.

How many of their members voiced their opinion regarding the 11 point directive and how they should proceed agman? Was it just the leaders of the state organizations or did they contact all 25,000 of their members?


Why don't you ask them?
 
agman said:
Tommy said:
agman...Members can and did voice their opinion regarding how the NCBA should proceed.

How many of their members voiced their opinion regarding the 11 point directive and how they should proceed agman? Was it just the leaders of the state organizations or did they contact all 25,000 of their members?


Why don't you ask them?

Tommy, you probably don't need to ask those boys in Texas. I believe they've already spoken.
 
Sandhusker.......Tommy, you probably don't need to ask those boys in Texas. I believe they've already spoken.

I know Sandhusker, agman made a statement like he knew how many, I just wanted to know how much of the membership voiced their opinion that the NCBA turned 180.
 
blackjack said:
...Jason ...that was interesting how Tyson changed apart of their slaughter floor to killing OTM's this spring at the same time XL in Moose Jaw was switching from OTM to UTM...What was up with that... how did our packers know the rules were going to change...or was it just speculation on their part...and this is where I blame the gutless Canadian government not the packer for us to getting shafted because of the thirty month rule... you know it and every other rancher up here knows who took the financial hit...hint ... it wasn't the packer...

...as for your last statement about the ground beef ... I know from reading your posts you know there is more than burgers that come from a cow...as well as any one else that as butchered their own... :wink:

The timing wasn't the same. XL was not making money killing those cows in Moose Jaw. They figured the number of cows from that area and calculated the cost to ship them to Calgary was less than the extra they would gain switching to a UTM plant. That move showed they had no inside info on the border opening.

Tyson likely knew the rules would change IF the border opened, and the change only means they kill OTM after the UTM are done for the day. Then they clean everything for the next day.

I know some cuts from cows can be aceptable, but they don't have a Canada grade A on those carcasses. Its pretty tough to sell many cuts without that grade. Ground product is the main use of cull cows, and demand for ground beef will influence cow prices more than most other factors.

OTM steers and heifers do get the Canada grade and are sold as UTM in Canada, but we still have very little export room for them.

The 30 month rule was a blessing to get. Imagine if the boxed trade to the US hadn't opened in August of 03.

The packers are fully aware of how any new laws will hurt or help them. They know their portion of this business VERY well. If producers could be as aware it would be awesome.
 

Latest posts

Top