I knew you'd dance around your "free trim" ignorant statement but I asked for entertainment purposes anyway.
Conman: "As Sandhusker has explained, the trim still has value. It is not "free" but its value in relation to trimmed meat is less. Since the value of the trim is already discounted, why claim you need to make it more valuable. If you are a packer and want to buy more lean cattle, then bid up the price and do it. You could do this on the domestic market. Supply and demand."
There is nothing worse than to try to explain something to someone who doesn't have the capacity to understand it. Hopefully someone out there is reading this that can benefit from the explanation but it certainly won't be Conman.
First, backfat and marbling tend to go hand in hand with most British breed based cattle. Packers number one priority is for higher grading carcasses and the backfat is a byproduct of that. Packers pay premiums for leaner carcasses but the premiums for higher grading cattle are higher than the premiums for higher yielding cattle. This results in more 50/50 trim than if Y3 carcasses were discounted.
First you say if packers were paying for leaner carcasses the trim would be free. That didn't even make sense. Now you say that the trim isn't free. WORSE YET, YOU ARE NOT EVEN SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT MOST OF THE 50/50 TRIM RESULTS FROM TRIMMING FAT, NOT LEAN. Now you are trying to backpeddle on your stupidity by explaining it off with more cheap talk.
50/50 trim has a value of $.08 per pound if it is not blended with lean trimmings. If you blend enough cheap lean trimmings with it to make it 70/30 ground beef, it has far more value than the fat value $.08 per pound. NOBODY WANTS A HAMBURGER THAT IS 50% FAT. If the packers made it into dogfood as some moron suggested, that would devalue the carcass further.
Conman: "Imports take away from the increased value of less trim cattle under this scenario."
Less trim cattle? What the hell does that mean? It's scary to think that this makes sense to you.
Imports add to the value of our carcasses by adding value to our lean trim. That is an undisputed fact.
Conman: "If it is more advantageous to bid up fat higher grading better quality cattle, then packers would do that. If it is more advantageous to bid leaner cattle, then packers would do that. "
Cattle are bidding up on higher grading cattle particularly when there is a shortage (via choice/select spread). You probably don't even know what the choice/select spread is do you?
What you fail to understand is that backfat and marbling tend to go hand in hand so if they discount the fat too severely, they will have less choice carcasses. Another example of just how little you know about this industry.
Conman: "If packers are bidding up the leaner cattle to discriminate against the cash market, there is a market and a PSA violation."
Oh, now the packers might be bidding up LEANER CATTLE to discriminate against the cash market? Haha! Phone tapped again?
Conman: "Rkaiser says his cattle will produce high quality cattle without the added trim and its corresponding costs. You mentioned the MacDonald ranches doing the same thing. If that is what the market values, then premiums should (and already are) be paid for those kind of cattle. Packers should be sending clear and articulate price signals to cattle sellers."
Listen, the packers don't need an idiot like you telling them how to run their business. I doubt they are into self destruction.
Conman: "The Pickett case showed that they were not. They were strategically discriminating to push prices down. Why do you think that Tyson did not provide the market information I asked for in a previous post regarding the payments they were paying in the formula cattle? It was the smoking gun. They failed to provide that information (committed a fraud upon the court) in order to win the case. Pickett showed the gunpowder burns all over Tyson's hands as evidence of Tyson shooting the markets. The incompetence of the judicial system and the corruption in the appellate court allowed them to get away with this----for now. The snowball of this fraud grew huge. The damages grew even more than "profits" Tyson received in the cattle industry (but not the poultry industry). Consumers lost out but so did domestic producers."
Yada Yada Yada!
Pickett never proved a damn thing! The judge overruled the jury's misunderstandings and his decision was upheld by the 11th circuit. The packer blamers lost. Get over it!
You still can't even get the fact that the burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused. It is not Tyson's responsibility to prove their innocense, it's the plaintiff's responsibility to prove Tyson's guilt. They couldn't do it so they lost.
Conman: "I have not looked at the methodology of Taylor's calculations, but from what I know of him, I would trust him over any and all of the seemingly big business influenced judges presiding in the federal courts right now. The bias of the federal judiciary is a huge issue our country must face. I totally believe in business, but the bias is just too great. We have a few crooks in the federal judiciary and we need a good house sweeping. Judgments should not be based on the political power one wields, but on the merits of the case. In the Pickett case, we were all shafted. It is the corruption of the judicial system. We are all waiting to see how high this corruption will go."
As long as someone comes along to tell packer blamers like you what you want to hear, you will support it unconditionally. If someone comes along to present the facts and interpret the laws as they were intended and it's not what you wanted to hear, it will be a conspiracy. That's how conspiring minds like yours work. Pathetic too I might add.
Conman: "Economic frauds such as these do not just disappear. The costs may be temporarily shifted. Tyson was able to shift those costs first onto the producers in the cash market and also in the captive supply markets. As supply reacted to the lower prices over the longer term, less cattle were being produced in the U.S. This has created the tighter markets we have today. The substitutes for beef, namely poultry and pork, have benefited from this larger than normal swing that price manipulation put on the cattle markets. Who cares that your packer margins (diversionary argument) have decreased by Agman's estimate of 3% when your margins in poultry have increased 38% on the low side?"
Only a complete idiot would think that Tyson would allow their beef profits to decline in favor of poultry. Another example of your complete ignorance.
Conman: "These economic frauds that GIPSA and the USDA are not catching because of their incompetence is hurting domestic producers. The USDA is bowing to big business instead of the economic interests of the United States. Either judges don't know enough about economics to respect the producer surplus or they are plain corrupt by political influences. The Pickett case shows the court's biases clearly. In essence, we are selling out domestic free market production in the U.S. to big agribusiness. There are short term gains to consumers. They are not outweighed by the long term consequences to producers and the American economy. Our really high beef prices here are a result of that swing being pushed by the packers."
Typical of your conspiring mind. If they are large and successful, they must be corrupt. How pathetic.
The biggest threat to this industry is conspiracy theorists like you Conman. Make no mistake about that.
~SH~