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

Right wing, Left wing, Chicken wing.

Help Support Ranchers.net:

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Is socialism, communism?If you care about the grassroots producers on this continent, should you move to Russia? Why is it such an awful thing to attempt to stand up for the rights of Cattle producers in this country?

Have our current "Capitalism and free market champions" who run the Checkoff funded NCBA and CCA made a real diffence to the bottom line for producers of both of our countries.

Now go on and brand me a socialist/communist for such outrageous statements. What a joke, and what a simple excuse to dispose of anyone who thinks away from the norm.

I like to look at this from the Canadian side of the border, mostly because I'm Canadian so bear with me.

I have to laugh at how the Capitalist system of America can see one man, one judge hold up a border closure. How one Governor can apply a tax and hold up shipments of cattle already run through the hoops by both CFIA and USDA. Are these examles of perfection in the Capitalist system?

Don't for a moment speak out against the packer monopoly. That is anti - capitalist,,, socialist/communist talk. :roll:
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
Exactly right! Why is "every man for himself" held up to be such an ideal? Maybe because as long as those on the bottom of the food chain, (us) are busy scrapping amongst ourselves, and eating each other up in a desperate attempt at survival we won't see the real truth.

The real truth is that in the whole world, primary agricultural producers are the only ones who don't work together. As long as we are doing our best to out-compete our neighbours and benefit from their troubles, then we can be controlled. We can be told what we receive for our products, and what the terms will be. We don't set our prices, we take what we are handed. And what we are handed is just enough to keep us under control.

What has happened in the Canadian beef industry in the past two years is what happens when primary producers don't receive enough to keep them quiet. They finally get mad and start working together. This is not what big business wants. The last thing Cargill and Tyson want is a competitor who owns the whole supply chain.

By being the ones who produce the product in the first place, why are WE not the ones calling the shots and setting the prices? By WE I mean Canadian and American cattle producers. That notion has taken hold in Canada, and hopefully will not fade. This is our best chance in the last hundred years to finally get control of our futures, and you can bet the big boys will do their best to nip this little idea in the bud.

One man's socialism is another man's co-operation. :!:
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
We could blame ourselves Kato, or we could look at the work that our Industry organisations have done over the last 20 years or so and ask what they truely have accomplished. We hear the bragging about connection to the consumer through our checkoff dollars. Has that changed the price spread between a new pickup and a steer calf?

The main focus of CCA and NCBA, for years, has been to join forces with the packers, work together for a brighter future. When is this brighter future coming?

I say that the packers, and especially the mutinational packers have enjoyed a heyday of free advertising from those who think the packer butters their bread. Packers, like more and more feeders are simply margin players trying to get their raw material as cheap as they can.

I love to hear Agman talk of the packers will to help producers. Why would they want to bite off the hand that feeds them; Agman asks?
I am sure that America is just like Canada where it would be ridiculous to say that someone is not waiting in the wings to grab a peice of land and raise some COWS. If and when all the small ranchers give up in Canada, some oil rich fellow will see the tax advantages of loosing a bit of money in the cow biz, buy some land, which generaly increases in value, and hire back some of the guys who found out that leaving the cow business wasn't so easy. If the Oil guy decides he's had enough, there will always be a dreamer or two out there who will buy a little peice and take his chances.

In other words, cows are not going away and the packers know that for a fact. If things look a bit glim, mutinationals will start to buy land and cows like they have already here in this third world country we call Canada.

I am so happy to see the initiatives begun in Canada to retain ownership through to slaughter and even beyond.

I only wish the protectionist within Rcalf would also see this potential and stop fighting the packer loving lemers who are simply not seeing the big picture. The big picture being the ability for the family ranch to survive in North America. Follow the packer agenda forever boys, it won't help the primary producers of this country one iota.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
randy: "Why is it such an awful thing to attempt to stand up for the rights of Cattle producers in this country?'

Who are you talking to?

If you are referring to R-CULTers in the U.S., it's one thing to take a stand for something that makes sense, it's quite another to be so ignorant of the facts that you would risk the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption to stop the importation of 5% of our U.S. beef consumption.

It's one thing to support labeling that has value to consumers, it's quite another to pass a flawed country of origin labeling law that adds expense with no proof of benefits, exempts 75% of the imports, and prohibits the only thing that would have given it value.

It's one thing to have concerns about genuine, provable market manipulation actions, it's quite another to make up lies about market manipulation and punish feeders by restricting their marketing options.


randy: " Have our current "Capitalism and free market champions" who run the Checkoff funded NCBA and CCA made a real diffence to the bottom line for producers of both of our countries."

Without beef promotion and new product development, beef demand would not be what it is. Without beef promotion and new product development, the lows in our cattle cycles would be lower than what they are.

NCBA is not funded by checkoff dollars. That is a lie!


randy: "Don't for a moment speak out against the packer monopoly. That is anti - capitalist,,, socialist/communist talk."

Oh quit sucking your thumb. Nobody is stopping you from blaming packers.

There's a big difference between a legitimate complaint and repeating lies just so you can "BWAME DA PACKAH".

For example how can it be a packer monopoly when you have more than one company with packing plants in Canada.

Once again you stated something that is untrue.

You don't have the right to state false information without being corrected.


randy: "I say that the packers, and especially the mutinational packers have enjoyed a heyday of free advertising from those who think the packer butters their bread. Packers, like more and more feeders are simply margin players trying to get their raw material as cheap as they can."

Since packers are margin operators and pay us accordingly who has more to gain from beef promotion than the producer does?

Go ahead, force packers to pay for advertising so they can take that expense off the price of cattle. Whatever makes you happy!


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Thanks for correcting me on the NCBA thing SH.

And your claim that producers will pay for advertising one way or another is legitimate.

Monopoly is one, I will agree, but does 50% of a country's packing capacity allow for any leverage?

Still doesn't answer my question about helping producers in any other way than your "Packer is God" scheme.

We have been following your way SH, and the primary producer and the family farm are in as much peril as ever.

Any new ideas?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
SH -
Without beef promotion and new product development, beef demand would not be what it is. Without beef promotion and new product development, the lows in our cattle cycles would be lower than what they are.

NCBA is not funded by checkoff dollars. That is a lie!

You know how much I like that Packer Blamer label don't you Packer (SH)Suck Hole.

Could you help me out here, or do you want to get into more nastyness.

I quoted your claim about advertising which is simply that. A claim. Can't be proven. Maybe if our producers never started paying for advertising, we would not find ourselves in this postion. Yes if we stopped now, packers would make us pay through pricing. Is that right. Is everything else right that has happened over the past twenty years in the cattle biz?

Can't question it though, you are then a bwamer or whatever!

Which organisation does the checkoff in America go to, if not the NCBA?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I agree with you, Randy. Look where the leadership has gotten us;

Our share of the consumer's beef dollar is less.

The number of buyers for our fats are much less.

All of these "endorsed by the cattleman" trade deals are with beef exporting nations rather than importers.

We can't regain our former best customer because our leaders will not meed their demands, and the "cattleman's organizataion" actually backs that.

They claim to promote private enterprise and adding value, but then say that sound science is a requirement when precident is already established that it is not a requirement.

They actually get a member driven directive, and then ignore it and do the opposite.

I think this town needs a new sheriff.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rkaiser said:
SH -
Without beef promotion and new product development, beef demand would not be what it is. Without beef promotion and new product development, the lows in our cattle cycles would be lower than what they are.

NCBA is not funded by checkoff dollars. That is a lie!

You know how much I like that Packer Blamer label don't you Packer (SH)Suck Hole.

Could you help me out here, or do you want to get into more nastyness.

I quoted your claim about advertising which is simply that. A claim. Can't be proven. Maybe if our producers never started paying for advertising, we would not find ourselves in this postion. Yes if we stopped now, packers would make us pay through pricing. Is that right. Is everything else right that has happened over the past twenty years in the cattle biz?

Can't question it though, you are then a bwamer or whatever!

Which organisation does the checkoff in America go to, if not the NCBA?

Once again, the Beef Checkoff in the USA goes first to the state Beef Industry Council or equivalent organization. South Dakota BIC is comprised of representatives of at least eight state-wide cattle organizations and includes Stockgrowers, CattleWomen, SD Cattlemen, SD Cattlemens' Auxilliary, Farm Bureau, Farmers Union and SDLMA among others (just so you know R-CALF is well represented in SD).

The state Beef Council sends the national share, half the dollar, to the Cattlemens Beef Board which administers the national program. CBB is comprised of people from each state, nominated by their cattle producer peers and confirmed by USDA. Directors on CBB may be from any state organization. There is NO requirement that any of them be NCBA members.

NCBA is comprised of two divisions. The Federation of State Beef Councils is the national organization of the state Beef Councils, just like it sounds to be. Those members are from virtually all state cattle organizations, again with NO requirement for membership in the Policy division of NCBA. This is the part of NCBA that does contract work for the CBB, paid on a cost recovery only basis.

The Policy division of NCBA is the membership organization that some of you seem to love to hate, and falsely accuse of "living off the checkoff" and "using your checkoff dollars to work against you".....with absolutely no basis in fact!

There is absolute seperation of finances between these three groups.

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
So if there is complete separation why do they take credit for Checkoff money?
Like this?
*********************************************************
New steaks shoulder their way onto the grill
Thursday, June 30, 2005

By Katy McLaughlin, The Wall Street Journal


With beef prices near record highs -- think $9-a-pound ribeyes -- the beef industry is looking for new ways to sell more parts of the cow as "steak." As a result, backyard chefs this Fourth of July are likely to find an array of new and unfamiliar cuts of beef at the meat counter.

These cuts -- which can have unwieldy names, such as the "shoulder center ranch steak," "shoulder top blade flat iron steak," and "petite tender medallion" -- have been increasingly showing up at restaurants, largely because they cost less than traditional T-bones and porterhouses. Today, 20,000 restaurants serve the new steaks, up from 10,000 only a year ago, according to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, a trade group.

Now, an increasing number of supermarkets around the country are carrying these as well. Unlike the classic top loins and filet mignons, which come from the center of the animal, the new steaks -- known as value cuts within the industry -- are from the chuck (shoulder) and the round (hind quarters) of the cow.

Beef prices have been remarkably high for two years, partly because of the rising popularity of red meat amid the low-carbohydrate-diet craze. The average retail price for a pound of beef in May was $4.26, according to the Department of Agriculture, just pennies less than the record of $4.32, set in 2003.

Prices didn't fall even during the mad-cow scare of 2003, when a Canadian cow was found to be infected with disease. Industry analysts and meat retailers say last week's announcement of a new case of the disease in a U.S. animal isn't expected to affect prices.

Filet mignon now averages nearly $14 a pound. By contrast, a flat-iron steak costs less than $5 a pound, on average, says FreshLook Marketing Group, which analyzes fresh food sales. In general, the value cuts cost as much as 20 percent less than those from the center of the cow, according to the NCBA, the trade association.

The new cuts are the product of the industry's drive to re-map the way a cow's carcass is butchered -- something that hasn't changed much in more than a half-century. The NCBA's effort began in 1995, when producers realized that demand for cuts from the shoulder and hind quarters, such as pot roast and stew meat, was falling. The group spent about $300,000 on a "muscle profiling study" to get a better handle on the taste and texture of all parts of the animal.

Bucky Gwartney, a meat scientist for the NCBA, designed the study, in which he and scientists from the University of Nebraska and the University of Florida analyzed 5,616 cuts of meat from the chuck and round areas. They submitted the cuts to various tests, including chemical analysis and "sheer force testing" (a cutting procedure that determines, in technical terms, meat tenderness).

Panels of trained tasters ate samples of each cut to see how they stacked up. Mr. Gwartney says his personal favorite is the petite tender, citing "the shape, the versatility, the tenderness, and the flavor."

The study results released in 2000 enabled the industry to identify eight key value cuts, four of which are among the 10 most tender cuts in the beef carcass. These include the flat iron, second in tenderness only to filet mignon, the shoulder center steak, the petite center and the sirloin tip center steak.

Beef experts who aren't producers vary in their opinions of the new steaks. Laurent Tourondel, the chef at BLT Steak, a highly rated and expensive steak-house in Manhattan, sometimes serves a flat-iron steak for $28, compared with $42 for a New York strip. The flat iron is "an amazing piece of meat, for the flavor it has," Mr. Tourondel says. Jeff Lyons, senior general merchandise manager for the Costco chain, says he doesn't sell the new cuts because "the loin is where you get the best steak."

Ed Steinmetz, vice president of meat and seafood at Giant Eagle, a chain of 221 Eastern supermarkets, says that while his stores will cut flat irons for customers who want them, he recommends traditional cuts such as chuck eye steaks and top sirloins to people who want a less expensive cut of meat to grill.

The most widely available of the new steaks is the flat iron, sold by retailers ranging from Giant Eagle to the mail-order and specialty store concern Omaha Steaks, which added a marinated version for fajitas to its offerings last month. The next most popular cut is the shoulder petite tender, which is being touted as the beef industry's answer to the easy-to-cook boneless, skinless chicken breast.

Some chains, like the 69 Marsh stores and the 38 LoBills, almost all in Indiana and Ohio, carry all eight cuts, including the less common sirloin tip center steak and the shoulder center steak.

Although the new cuts are sold by 2,000 markets, finding them still can be a challenge. Jay Carlson, a co-owner of a restaurant-supply company in Philadelphia, first learned about flat irons last summer when he saw them listed on a client's menu. None of his local markets carry them, so he bought some frozen ones from Omaha Steaks and grilled them. "They were very lean, tender," Mr. Carlson says. This week, he plans to canvass upscale butcher shops in the area to locate fresh flat irons to grill for the Fourth of July.

Another complication for food shoppers: baffling nomenclature. Steak names already were hard to figure out because they vary widely by region; the same cut may be called a New York strip or a Kansas City steak.The new steaks are adding to the confusion by sporting one name in restaurants and another in markets. Restaurants serve a "ranch" steak; retailers call it a "shoulder center steak." The flat-iron steak, the most popular of the new cuts, is a version of a shoulder top blade steak, but some supermarkets sell a shoulder top blade steak that isn't a flat iron. If the words "flat iron" aren't on the label, ask the meat manager for clarification.

For consumers who aren't looking to trade in their filet mignon for flat irons, there is some good news on the horizon. Beef prices are declining at the wholesale level, and some big-box stores, like Costco, which react quickly to wholesale price changes, already have lowered some steak prices by as much as $2 a pound. In many supermarkets, the prices for steak haven't yet fallen.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
randy: "We have been following your way SH, and the primary producer and the family farm are in as much peril as ever."

What is "MY WAY" randy?

The non blaming, non whining, non bitching way of presenting factual information that is contrary to the packer blaming way? Is that MY WAY?

I present facts and you hate that. Someone presents a conspiracy theory on packers and you love that.

You want to know what "MY WAY" is randy instead of whatever the hell you think it might be?

MY WAY is for producers to own and control their financial destiny through efforts such as USPB or have producers enter into custom kill contracts with packers. THAT WAY THEY CAN'T BITCH ABOUT THE PACKERS!


randy: "I quoted your claim about advertising which is simply that. A claim. Can't be proven. Maybe if our producers never started paying for advertising, we would not find ourselves in this postion."

You are wrong again randy!

It can be proven. Ask any retailer how the 10 minute microwavable products added value to the chuck and round. Flint Hill Farms stated that they were paying $3 / cwt more for fat cattle due to the added value of the chuck and round through the 10 minute microwavable products. Ask any retailer of the success of the "Flat Iron Steak". There is no question of the value that has been added because of the beef quality assurance program but why the heck do I have to justify our checkoff program to you? If it was up to me, checkoff dollars would be spent solely for progressive producers on their value based branded beef products and the blamers and their commodity beef industry could wither on the vine while they waste their money suing packers.


randy: "Yes if we stopped now, packers would make us pay through pricing. Is that right. Is everything else right that has happened over the past twenty years in the cattle biz?"

IF IT'S WRONG THAN BECOME A PACKER AND QUIT YOUR RELENTLESS BITCHING!



Sandman: "I agree with you, Randy."

Of course you would agree with anyone that blames packers. Blamers stick together like flies to crap.


Sandman: "Look where the leadership has gotten us;"

Yup, look where the leadership has gotten us. Highest cattle prices ever recorded and we didn't even do it with our normal export markets.


Sandman: "Our share of the consumer's beef dollar is less."

While gas prices did what?
While wages did what?
While transportation costs did what?
While carcass weights did what?

That same old R-CULT tunnel vision.


Sandman: "The number of buyers for our fats are much less."

While higher cattle prices had never been recorded.

Who would have thought that we could have $120 fat cattle prices with 80% of the packing industry owned by 5 companies?


Sandman: "All of these "endorsed by the cattleman" trade deals are with beef exporting nations rather than importers."

Resulted in a seven year average $1.3 "BILLION DOLLAR" surplus in the trade of live cattle and beef. Meanwhile R-CULT thinks we'd be better off without any trade.


Sandman: "We can't regain our former best customer because our leaders will not meed their demands, and the "cattleman's organizataion" actually backs that."

Some support consumer deception while others don't.


Sandman: "They actually get a member driven directive, and then ignore it and do the opposite."

Be specific, back your allegation!


Sandman: "I think this town needs a new sheriff."

Well it sure as heck won't be R-CULT's ROSCOOOOOE P. COLETRAIN or OCM'S BARNEY FIFE!



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Your way Packer Suck Hole.

Your FACTS Packer Suck Hole.

Talk about a relentless bitcher. Can't stand anything but the packer way.

I support producer ownership you friggin looser.

I am part of an integrated chain.

Everything in your world (Packers are always right world) is not perfect Suck Hole.

You don't blame SH, you don't whine, you only speak facts,,,,,,,, what a joke.

You blame and whine every post you make. Do the rest of us fight with ourselves -- NO. It takes a whining, blaming, packer loving defender like yourself to fight with us.

Call everything I do blaming the packers Suck Hole. What I am trying to provide is alternatives to the way things have been and will forever be as long as the industry has Suck Holes like yourselves beleiving that Mutinational packers are out to help the producers of this country.

Tear that apart dipshit!
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
Randy,
First let's agree that what you Canadians have suffered with border stoppage has been responsible for your packers' opportubity to gouge. We both agree that firms should act to maximize profits, and it seems BOTH packers up north did exactly this. Now if your packing industry were comprised of 10 smaller players, they wouldn't have been able to exploit their strength like they have the last 2 years.

I'm down with producers sidestepping a packing monopsony by investing an extra 5% to process what they produce; furthermore the verticle integration of producer processing avoids the adversarial exchange at the finnished point.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I will agree with that Brad. It twists my lid to be labeled a packer blamer and hear all of the talk associating my comments with the American model. Canadian producers felt a cold chill from the packers freezer for almost two years since the border was opened to boxed beef. A whole different story than America, and room for comment on packer control and yes, gouging.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
randy: "Can't stand anything but the packer way."

If that was true why would I support producer's owning and controlling their financial destiny????? Hmmmm????

I actually took measures to take cattle away from the major packers so how can I be a defender of the way things are?

Can't answer that can you?

You're so emotional over anyone presenting anything other than packer blame that you can't even think straight.

What do you expect to gain by continually bitching about the way packers are conducting business when there is nothing illegal about it?

You won't answer that either!


randy: "What I am trying to provide is alternatives to the way things have been and will forever be as long as the industry has Suck Holes like yourselves beleiving that Mutinational packers are out to help the producers of this country."

What solutions/alternatives did you present in your latest rant randy?

You won't be able to find it because it doesn't exist.


randy: "I am part of an integrated chain."

THEN WHY THE RELENTLESS BITCHING ABOUT THE CURRENT SYSTEM???

Control your own destiny and pull those cattle out of the the traditional system and quit complaining about the things you cannot change. If you are slaughtering your own cattle why would you care what the rest of the industry does as long as it doesn't affect you?


randy: "Everything in your world (Packers are always right world) is not perfect Suck Hole."

Oh, here we go again...............

WHO THE HELL EVER SAID THAT THE PACKERS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT????

There is a difference between what you believe is "RIGHT" and what is "LEGAL".

I SAID WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS NOT ILLEGAL AND NO DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY ANY ONE ELSE CONDUCTS BUSINESS.

That is a fact. A fact that you cannot accept. If you were in their shoes do you think you would actually pay more for cattle in Canada then you had to when you had packing plants setting empty in the northern states?

Can't answer that honestly either can you?

Don't give me this "high moral ground" speech when you are not even honest enough to admit that you buy breeding stock as cheaply as you can. The Seedstock producer's profitability is not your problem. Oh, but that's different???????

Admit it, the packer is an easy target because you don't have to put a face with the blame.

You'd do it the same way and you cannot face the reality of that.

If I thought the traditional system of cattle processing was perfect I would not have invested in Northern Plains Premium Beef.

Your "packer defense" dog won't hunt!


randy: "You don't blame SH, you don't whine, you only speak facts,,,,,,,, what a joke."

Talk is cheap!

You are more than welcome to correct anything I have stated with facts to the contrary but you won't.

On the other hand, you state things constantly that are incorrect and then you fly off on one of your little temper tantrums when everyone doesn't just nod their head in agreement at your false information (NCBA funded by the checkoff).

The popularity of this site has a lot to do with the fact that this is not just another home for packer blamers and import blamers to spread their bullsh*t without ever having to face the facts that contradict it.

Like I said, when you think you can contradict anything I have stated with opposing facts, bring it. I welcome it.


randy: "It takes a whining, blaming, packer loving defender like yourself to fight with us."

Whatever you say!

There's only two worlds with you. One of packer hate and blame and one of packer loving and defending. There is no room in those worlds for truth, facts, or common sense.

If someone says what you want to hear, that's the way it is. If someone challenges you on the accuracy of your blame, you're pissed.

Start a website randy, packerblame.com. I'm sure you'll have lots of visitors.


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
You are right about one thing SH, nothing I can do will change the big picture and I should simply look after my self and my own.

Any comment I make about Packer profit, or packer advantage will be seen by you and yours as PACKER BLAMING. They must love you to death. A man who stands up for everything they do which is all legal, and will not change as long as no one challenges the system.


Read some of what I have said from your own non emotional point of view.

I applaud your sense to retain interest in your beef, but why on earth did you do it in the first place.

There must have been a point in your life when you saw unfairness in the current sytem. I would imagine that you where not blaming anyone or any policy when you made the decision for change. In fact that was my position. I simply saw and see opportunity in retained ownership. My choice was made before BSE came along. When was your choice made?
What prompted you to think you could take some of what the packers were taking?

After seeing and taking for a couple of years on a small scale, I decided to join a group that would try to push this to a larger level. To attract producers to a situation such as this, comparisons needed to be made. Comparisons to the currently legal and accepted system that saw producers loose billions, and packers profit millions due to this BSE debacle.

If this all makes me a simple minded packer blamer in your eyes SH, that's life. I will ignore your common sense remarks as well and call you a Packer Suck Hole, until some one backs down and sees that some of what we talk is from the same book.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
randy, now that I have your attention perhaps you're willing to listen.

The producer controls this industry and always has.

I don't care how much you or anyone else bitches about packers until they have actually participated or learned about that industry, they cannot possibly know what is involved.

Future Beef thought they had it all figured out. Now that company is owned by Creekstone.

The simple fact that there used to be a lot more packing companies than there is now proves that there is competition in this industry. The less efficient companies could not compete.

I am well aware of the situation in Canada and you can thank R-CULT for that. You don't like the idea of Cargill and Tyson expanding to absorb your cattle production but who can kill cattle any cheaper when your production equals your slaughtering capacity?

How many men are left at the end of every auction? Two! The two with the deepest pockets and the biggest need for that product. Now before the spinmasters spin that into advocating only two packers, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying it only takes two to compete and Pepsi and Coke have proven that. We should be thankful we have 5 major players that remain in the U.S.

Getting back to my point, if you took the equity in land, livestock, and machinery in the Canadian cattle industry, Cargill and Tyson wouldn't make a pimple on your ars.

You control the grass, you control the hay, you control the water for those cattle, you control the land, and you own the industry until you give up control of the cattle.

It's a lot easier for the producers to do what USPB did and the "BIG C" wants to do than it is for the packers to buy the land, livestock, and machinery. That's a cold hard fact! This "chickenization" fear mongering is just more bullsh*t.

Any producer can finish his own cattle, process his own cattle, and sell the beef. Sure, there's some inspection guidelines that goes with it but producers are doing it all over. Robert Mac is doing it. Jason is doing it. Mike Callicrate is doing it. What they'll all tell you, if they are completely honest, is that it's no big money making deal as they have been led to believe.

If there was money in it, more people would be doing it. That's just the way capitalism works.

This industry wastes so damn much precious time and energy bitching internally about the other segments of the industry when not one more thin dime will enter this industry without coming from the consumer. Producers used to bitch about the feeders and the concentration in the feeding industry. After seeing a number of feeders go broke and producers going broke retaining ownership without protection, they learned about that segment of the industry.

Instead of working with packers or entering into the processing industry ourselves, we bitch and moan about the packers based on what some Derry Brownfield type fear mongerer planted in our heads and we don't even know what we're talking about.

What happens in Pickett vs. ibp? THE PACKER BLAMERS LOST!

The packer blamers lost court cases before Pickett and they will lose after Pickett because the facts don't support their rhetoric.

ALL THE TIME THE PORK AND POULTRY INDUSTRY ARE LAUGHING AND STEALING MORE OF THE CONSUMERS DOLLAR AWAY FROM BEEF.

Then the same idiots that are busy pissing and moaning about packers want to end the industry's self help program to spend those same dollars on losing lawsuits.

Until some of the progressive producers in this industry stand up to these lies and "fear mongering" bullsh*t, we will end up where the sheep industry just came from.

The sheep industry recently reinstated their checkoff with an 80% landslide margin because they saw first hand where the blamers led them. Most of the blamers went out of business anyway still blaming New Zealand lamb imports. Now the blamers are gone and the progressives in the industry are once again moving forward and they are talking about the sheep industry as a whole, not pitting one country against the other.

Every day I have to listen to the Livestock Marketing Police pissing and moaning about things they don't even understand. They have a following of fellow blamers that just trail along and nod their heads like horses fighting face flies.

WHAT A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!

Nobody has ever blamed or regulated their way to prosperity and that is exactly what road R-CULT is heading down.

You want to know why I invested in a packing venture? Because I knew that this industry could move forward if more producers had a vested financial interest in their beef products as opposed to sitting around sale barn cafes and bitching about an industry they know nothing about. I was never under the impression that it would be a big money making deal, I was just under the impression that the industry couldn't get any better than producers owning and controlling their financial destiny rather than suing the other segments of the industry.

Just to give you a perfect example of this "cloned mind syndrome", I have heard numerous R-CULTers complain about captive supplies. I have asked every one of them to define the term and they couldn't even define it. Hayseed's just one more example. How can you have such strong opinions of something you cannot even define? That's why I consider it a CULT.

The U.S. cattle industry has never had it so good with current prices and the blamers have never been so mad about it. WHERE'S THE LOGIC?

That's where blame leads a person.

The segment of this industry that is doing the loudest complaining, the Livestock Marketing Police, is carving their profit off the backs of producers in the name of "TRUE PRICE DISCOVERY" while they fight every progressive producer venture to come along to keep those cattle routed through their barns.

There is only one "true price discovery" and that is what consumers are willing to pay for a high quality cut of beef.

There, that's why I have such little time for blaming.



~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rkaiser said:
You are right about one thing SH, nothing I can do will change the big picture and I should simply look after my self and my own.

Any comment I make about Packer profit, or packer advantage will be seen by you and yours as PACKER BLAMING. They must love you to death. A man who stands up for everything they do which is all legal, and will not change as long as no one challenges the system.


Read some of what I have said from your own non emotional point of view.

I applaud your sense to retain interest in your beef, but why on earth did you do it in the first place.

There must have been a point in your life when you saw unfairness in the current sytem. I would imagine that you where not blaming anyone or any policy when you made the decision for change. In fact that was my position. I simply saw and see opportunity in retained ownership. My choice was made before BSE came along. When was your choice made?
What prompted you to think you could take some of what the packers were taking?

After seeing and taking for a couple of years on a small scale, I decided to join a group that would try to push this to a larger level. To attract producers to a situation such as this, comparisons needed to be made. Comparisons to the currently legal and accepted system that saw producers loose billions, and packers profit millions due to this BSE debacle.

If this all makes me a simple minded packer blamer in your eyes SH, that's life. I will ignore your common sense remarks as well and call you a Packer Suck Hole, until some one backs down and sees that some of what we talk is from the same book.


randy, you lose out on any good points you make when you degenerate to rude, crude name calling, IMO.

Someone has stated on this site in the past that Canadian cattle producers have greatly increased production, while processing capacity did not increase. Was that the packers fault? Yes, circumstances re. BSE, and even foolish mistakes in USDA closing the border causing loss of processing Canadian cattle in the USA have contributed to your low cattle prices. Was the packer to blame? Yes, US producers have enjoyed some good cattle prices while yours tanked. Was this really the packers fault? My point is that many and varied circumstances have coincided to cause your problems. Do you really believe the packers have manipulated or somehow caused all these circumstances to bring your cattle industry down? It just doesn't compute, IMO. Any name-calling is boring. Some is disgusting. And some is descriptive of the actions/words of the person given the name.

MRJ
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
MRJ
Any name-calling is boring. Some is disgusting. And some is descriptive of the actions/words of the person given the name.

Are you saying that SH is really a blamer MRJ?

You guys can go on calling me a packer blamer forever. I've said that what has happened was legal. I've said that I have taken advantage of the lucrative retail prices as much as the packers. However as soon as I talk of the reality of the Canadian situation, it's blamer, blamer, blamer. According to your above quote MRJ, maybe you are a blamer too.

SH says
You want to know why I invested in a packing venture? Because I knew that this industry could move forward if more producers had a vested financial interest in their beef products as opposed to sitting around sale barn cafes and bitching about an industry they know nothing about. I was never under the impression that it would be a big money making deal, I was just under the impression that the industry couldn't get any better than producers owning and controlling their financial destiny rather than suing the other segments of the industry.

Guess what SH, I did it for mostly the same reasons. And then came BSE. And then came a loophole in reality that gave the packers a distinct advantage. An advantage that they simply took without consideration for the rest of the industry. Do I blame them for that - HELL NO. Did it happen HELL YES.

Myself and my group tried to use this event to prompt producers to do what we had done, only in a very large way. Don't worry SH, it ain't working anyway. I'm about as sick of trying to herd cats as you are hearing producers blame packers.

Do I beleive that packers are innocent bystanders in this dog eat dog industry, HELL NO.

Will I go back to being a capitalist with no interest in trying to assist the producers of this country other than those I can bring in to my own little vertically integrated market - Very Very Likely.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
randy,

At least you were willing to step up to the plate and try to do something about it. From that standpoint you have my respect. On the other hand if you thought it was going to become a big profit center for producers you were badly mistaken. What it would do is take your focus of the packers and on to your consumers.

I know the frustration of herding cats or as one man described it, "pulling a flatbed full of jackrabbits". When we we doing our NPPB equity drive, the same ones who were whining about packers making huge profits were going around saying that ibp would squish us like a bug because they could pay more for cattle than we could. Stupid argument since the producers were going to be processing their own cattle. The Livestock Marketing Police would say and do anything to keep their comission dollars rolling in.

Perhaps now you know where my frustration comes from.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top