• 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!

...Jason... I would believe your answer if the price of diesel in the spring was the same as it is today...fuel in the spring was half of what it is today...

Tyson likey knew the rules would change... I agree...

... pretty tough to sell many cuts without the grade... agree...I will add that our provincial govt and the BIC have boasted about all the new cuts from OTM's...hard to believe the packers don't know about this part of their business...

...OTM strs and hfrs get the grade and are sold as UTM's...imagine there is some margin with them... right...

...30 month rule has been a blessing...for the packer...easier to decide which animal can be discounted...

..imagine if boxed trade to the US had not opened... agree...it would have been a disaster but after the August opening why did the packer not pay fair value for the UTM'S...

...if producers could be as aware it would be awesome... agree...but no time...because most producers either have off farm jobs or other sources of income to subsidize their farms... I mainly blame govt policy for that one...

...all said and done I agree it will be up to the producer if he or she succeeds but the playing field in the last two years has hardly been fair... :-)
 
blackjack said:
...Jason... I would believe your answer if the price of diesel in the spring was the same as it is today...fuel in the spring was half of what it is today...

Hang on Blackjack...feul cheaper in spring when the transport costs were figured.... now cows can be killed at Moose Jaw after the UTM cattle.



...30 month rule has been a blessing...for the packer...easier to decide which animal can be discounted...

all producers and feeders know the 30 month rule. Most cattle can be managed to be UTM at slaughter... the only difference is "heiferettes" never a real class but some smart buyers/feeders were able to sluff those to the packers before this mess. Now those tough 3-4 year old heifers go as cows.

..imagine if boxed trade to the US had not opened... agree...it would have been a disaster but after the August opening why did the packer not pay fair value for the UTM'S...

Fair is in the eye of the beholder. We discussed this earlier before you joined the board, and as close as can be reasonably determined packers here were making $65 per head. With that profit they chose to expand capacity in Canada, good for all of us. If we lost our present capacity we all would be broke.

...if producers could be as aware it would be awesome... agree...but no time...because most producers either have off farm jobs or other sources of income to subsidize their farms... I mainly blame govt policy for that one...

...all said and done I agree it will be up to the producer if he or she succeeds but the playing field in the last two years has hardly been fair...

Yes exactly, ranchers and feeders need to spend some time working smarter than harder. Some need to get out. I have been running numbers for a while to see if I am one of them.

There are very few really tight operations that have been forced out of business during this horrible ordeal. I so far have survived a drought in 03 along with BSE. I am in far better shape this year than in 03 or in 04, but I still keep learning and running scenarios.

"Because I like the lifestyle" is a luxury many cannot afford anymore. BSE has been 'gut check' time.
 
....first thing I agree the added slaughtering capacity is a good thing(sometimes wonder why we as an industry never had insight to process further up the chain before)...but like others I hope the proposed plants besides the big two do come online...

... if the packers were making just 65$/hd that would mean their losing 100$/hd since the border opening plus the higher increase in energy costs...maybe but I do find the 65 bucks a little hard to believe...

....guess one thing about the drought as a producer we were in control of how we managed the situation... as in the BSE situation you may agree or not we had to rely on govt policies...whether it was for the border openings...or should we test OTM's for markets(we know the jury is still out on that one)... and then our only control as a producer how far up the chain with the live animal would we go... some have joined proposed packing plants as future hope... as for myself I am confident I can raise a calf and background as efficient as most...as for myself going higher up the chain... I'll maybe buy some stocks...

...as for 05 I would have to admit it has been a good year for the backgrounder but the cow calf guy took a royal kickin in fall of 04...part of that chain thing... right... :wink:
 
I don't know what the CDN boys are making or losing right now. Agman has shared that US based plants have been losing for some time now. It very well could be that plants here are starting to lose again, I don't know.

The capacity to kill all our cattle will happen eventually, but markets need to be developed as the plants come online.

Fall 04 wasn't that bad for most ranchers. The $200 to feed some calves made it easy to hold back the light end. Cheap feed made it a paying proposition. I know a handful of guys that really haven't felt any hurt from BSE at all.

Keep reading Blackjack and welcome to the Rancher.net community.
 
Who are the CDN boys Jason?

Could you also please tell me which math you use?

Cargill and Tyson in Canada sell into the same boxed beef market as Cargill and Tyson in the USA, do they not. To me that means they are receiving the same price for their beef less some transportation. Is there something I am missing so far?

Now we need to consider the price paid for cattle by the two plants on each side of the border. For the sake of arguement let's say we have 80 cent cattle in respective currency on each side of the border. Can I please use an 85 cent CDN dollar.

Now how in heavens name can you not say that Cargill and Tyson are not profitting still, here in Canada.

What is it that you must prove Jason. Of course we need packers, but competition would correct this unfairness in the Canadian market, would it not?

Why the need to defend such obvious action to take advantage of a ridiculous business situation, which hasn't really changed a lot since the open border.

Go ahead Jason, pull out the packer blamer label like your American Idol Agman and his packer defender pal SH. Or open your eyes. There are problems in the industry, and until we are allowed to adress those problems, none of us will be able to move on to the real issue of raising cattle and selling beef for the betterment of packers, AND PRODUCERS.
 
...well Rkaiser that is what I'm having a hard time with...I could be corrected but fats in March of 03 were around 1.20/lb...well will take 20 % off for increase in the dollar... my calculator tells me that the packer should be paying 96 cents / lb for a fat now...so when Jason says the packer was only making 65/ hd I guess someone needs to show me the proof...(hopefully not Chretien proof...alittle Canadian joke)

...up here in Canada the avg. price for a fat was 70 cents(or lower)the past two years... again with my calculator and a steer that avg. 1300 lbs x the 26 cents(where the fat price should have been at) that figure equals 338 dollars the packer had to work with...

...I don' t remember pre BSE the packers saying they were going broke... according to the stats the Canadian consumer were eating more beef the past two years...we were moving UTM's in a box across the border ...how come our fat price never rose... or better yet why did the packer even pay 70 cents... they knew we had no where else to go with the live fats...

...these questions need to be answered by our industry so we don't make the same mistakes over again... is there not an old saying...if you don't know how to correct the misstakes how can you move forward...
 
Get ready blackjack. You are about to be lam basted by the name calling gang.

I have asked the question "why 70 cents" for close to a year now on this site with no answer,. However suspicion of packers making an excessive profit, or taking advantage in this BSEconomic time????????????? Like I said get ready.
 
You northern packer blamers! How dare you think you know anything about the cattle markets and packer problems. They have to get money somewhere to have such a presence on capital hill and make the industry keep going!
 
You can thank your beloved R-CULT for keeping Canada in a situation of having more cattle than slaughter capacity giving Canadian packers clear advantage over Canadian producers.

Funny that R-CULT didn't file a suit against the Canadian packers for taking advantage of a closed Canadian border, a situation that they prolonged with their bogus injunction against USDA, to create a "red herring" away from their concern over Canadian imports.

That would be like Clinton lobbing a missle at a pharmaceutical building to divert the Monica Lewinsky scandal.



~SH~
 
SH...You can thank your beloved R-CULT for keeping Canada in a situation of having more cattle than slaughter capacity giving Canadian packers clear advantage over Canadian producers.


Lets see, R-CALF is responsible for every country closing the door to Canada's beef. Yeah, that makes sense!!!
 
Randy and Blackjack, I said previous I didn't know if the CDN packers were losing or making right now. Things change.

Let's look at some facts. Pre BSE $1.20 fats was based on what the US plants would pay. The CDN plants only had to offer a cent more than the US plants laid in. They never really had to figure their own break evens, although I am sure they knew them.

Blackjack, as soon as BSE hit there was a glut of beef in Canada. Demand for middle meats never slacked but we were swimming in end meats and ground product.

Randy wants a reason for why 70 cent fats for almost a year? I would say because feeders were willing to sell enough at that price for the packers to run wide open. Why not 50 cents if packers had all the control?

Boxed beef prices have fallen and transportation costs have climbed. SRM disposal is still at roughly $200 a head.

It is reasonable to assume that if US based packers are losing money then CDN based packers with the same market, paying the same price for cattle would be too.

Differences to account for are higher wages in Canada. Higher taxes, higher transport costs to large population centers.

However, that being said, I don't know what the profits/losses are at this time. That's one of the reasons Ranchers.net is so valuable. Agman graciously provides us with tidbits of insight at no cost.

It's also funny how a lady that works with Agman and no doubt gets her information from him is praised, but the source of the information is villified.

And for what it's worth, no nasty names were used in tyhe making of this post.
 
Ask yourself the following questions, SH; How long has Canada had more cattle than slaughter capacity? How long has R-CALF been in existence?

Now don't you feel silly for such a foolish post?
 
[/quote]

Randy and Blackjack, I said previous I didn't know if the CDN packers were losing or making right now. Things change.

...maybe we should be a little more like the Americans on this one...where it is in black and white what the margins are each week...

Let's look at some facts. Pre BSE $1.20 fats was based on what the US plants would pay. The CDN plants only had to offer a cent more than the US plants laid in. They never really had to figure their own break evens, although I am sure they knew them.

...I agree...

Blackjack, as soon as BSE hit there was a glut of beef in Canada. Demand for middle meats never slacked but we were swimming in end meats and ground product.

...I agree again...but that where I start having problems with the system again... at first our cattle ash. asked the govt to slow down the end meats that were imported in...and if I recall they did...now we are back importing as much as before... this is my question how could other packers around the world afford to send us the end meats when ours were the cheapest ...

Randy wants a reason for why 70 cent fats for almost a year? I would say because feeders were willing to sell enough at that price for the packers to run wide open. Why not 50 cents if packers had all the control?

...that is a fundamental question I agree with Randy that should be answered...feeders willing to sell... that is one reasons the govt did step in with the fed aside program to give the feeders a tad more breathing room...even though the feedlot sold at 70 cents I would assume they did by lower their expense on the feeder as time went on...

Boxed beef prices have fallen and transportation costs have climbed. SRM disposal is still at roughly $200 a head.

...this one is also debatable...a Alberta govt source said the costs of removing and disposal was not as high as first predicted...

It is reasonable to assume that if US based packers are losing money then CDN based packers with the same market, paying the same price for cattle would be too.

...agreed...

Differences to account for are higher wages in Canada. Higher taxes, higher transport costs to large population centers.

...major reason to process the cattle right at home... instead of coming back at us as a finished product...

However, that being said, I don't know what the profits/losses are at this time. That's one of the reasons Ranchers.net is so valuable. Agman graciously provides us with tidbits of insight at no cost.

... as we all know you put 10 farmers in a room and there going to come with 10 different answers... the knowledge we learn from economist ,brokers is never a bad thing whether we take their advice or not...

It's also funny how a lady that works with Agman and no doubt gets her information from him is praised, but the source of the information is villified.

...one of those human nature flaws...

And for what it's worth, no nasty names were used in tyhe making of this post

...it is hard to learn if we never take the time to stop and listen...
 
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?

Tommy, are you, or are you not familiar with the process where the board of directors of an organization may act for the members they represent? A system where every person must cast a vote before any action can be taken is chaotic and accomplishes little.

The board members of state affiliates of NCBA can and do meet by telephone conference on occasion, and those directors can and do make decisions affecting the members. If you are not a member of NCBA, why should it concern you? The members of NCBA, professional cattle producers, apparently have a different outlook and view of the cattle industry than you do.

MRJ
 
MRJ, "Tommy, are you, or are you not familiar with the process where the board of directors of an organization may act for the members they represent?"

Maybe that's the problem, MRJ. You claim it is member-driven, but back up and look at it. Membership passes a clear directive on a huge issue and, was it even 6 months, not only is the directive not followed, it is reversed. Leadership reverses the directive very quickly by deciding "enough" of the directive had been followed, "trumping" membership, and "going thru the proper channels". Now please tell me, how is this member-driven? Where does the member-driven part come in?
 
It would seem that a BSE test like the urine test would be cheaper than SRM disposal at roughly $200 a head.

...this one is also debatable...a Alberta govt source said the costs of removing and disposal was not as high as first predicted...
 
Jason -
Randy wants a reason for why 70 cent fats for almost a year? I would say because feeders were willing to sell enough at that price for the packers to run wide open. Why not 50 cents if packers had all the control?

That's a good one Jason. "Feeders were willing to sell at that price." :lol:

Could it also have been that feeders had no choice.

Why not 50 cents - now that is the 50 cent question. Why not 10 cents?When I asked a friend who works for Canada'a third largest packer, Neilsen Bros. that question, he said something I could hear coming from SH or Agman. "You should be kissing their a55 for offering 70 cents". My reply was that I would kiss their a55 if the price came down to that 10 cent level which was more realistic. Stealing is stealing after all, and keeping the price at 70 cents simply sucked in a bunch of blind packer lovers into thinking their moral icons were helping the producers.
 
mj...Tommy, are you, or are you not familiar with the process where the board of directors of an organization may act for the members they represent? A system where every person must cast a vote before any action can be taken is chaotic and accomplishes little.


No mj I am sorta dumb, why don't you tell me exactly how it works when the membership passes a resolution, and then the board makes a decision not to follow that same resolution?

mj...If you are not a member of NCBA, why should it concern you?

Why does it concern you about R-CALF raising money and all the other things you question them on? I tell you what mj, you and others quit posting about R-CALF and I will quit posting about the NCBA.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top