Rule2 one step closer.

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker, I would believe, your reasons for trying to close the border, and support it. If not for the fact R-Calf was trying to close the border before BSE was an issue,and the way they attemped to close the Mexican border in the same-way.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Well, you look at the fact that a tariff was put on Canadian cattle and I don't think you can say their case was unfounded. Somebody in power agreed with them.

You say R-CALF is not advocating taking the cattle industry back - I submit that was an effort in that direction right there. The packers were, and are, using Canadian cattle and beef against us. I think you know that. What is ironic is that since we're the "big boy" and Canada's prices are greatly affected by ours, Canadians end up getting hurt by this in the long run. I'm sure from your background that you know that it isn't necessarily numbers as it is timing. I'll bet you also understand very well how hard it is for feeders to get current once they get backed up a bit. A good push at the right time lasts for a while.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Mike, in one of your post,you said that, the concentration in 1916 resulted in "breaking up" the system as it was .

How did they do that?

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Ben Roberts]

Sandhusker, I would believe, your reasons for trying to close the border, and support it. If not for the fact R-Calf was trying to close the border before BSE was an issue,and the way they attemped to close the Mexican border in the same-way.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Well, you look at the fact that a tariff was put on Canadian cattle and I don't think you can say their case was unfounded. Somebody in power agreed with them.

You say R-CALF is not advocating taking the cattle industry back - I submit that was an effort in that direction right there. The packers were, and are, using Canadian cattle and beef against us. I think you know that. What is ironic is that since we're the "big boy" and Canada's prices are greatly affected by ours, Canadians end up getting hurt by this in the long run. I'm sure from your background that you know that it isn't necessarily numbers as it is timing. I'll bet you also understand very well how hard it is for feeders to get current once they get backed up a bit. A good push at the right time lasts for a while.

Sandhusker, who in power agreed with them? When the tariff was deemed unfair and removed, I believe some,if not all of the money was refunded and rightfully so, the one in power,must have been just as wrong as R-Calf was.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker, I would believe, your reasons for trying to close the border, and support it. If not for the fact R-Calf was trying to close the border before BSE was an issue,and the way they attemped to close the Mexican border in the same-way.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Well, you look at the fact that a tariff was put on Canadian cattle and I don't think you can say their case was unfounded. Somebody in power agreed with them.

You say R-CALF is not advocating taking the cattle industry back - I submit that was an effort in that direction right there. The packers were, and are, using Canadian cattle and beef against us. I think you know that. What is ironic is that since we're the "big boy" and Canada's prices are greatly affected by ours, Canadians end up getting hurt by this in the long run. I'm sure from your background that you know that it isn't necessarily numbers as it is timing. I'll bet you also understand very well how hard it is for feeders to get current once they get backed up a bit. A good push at the right time lasts for a while.

Sandhusker, who in power agreed with them? When the tariff was deemed unfair and removed, I believe some,if not all of the money was refunded and rightfully so, the one in power,must have been just as wrong as R-Calf was.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

I don't know who made the call. I also don't know who reversed it and I don't know why. You look at all the BS happening in politics and I would certainly wouldn't bet a lot of money that the ruling was reversed because it was wrong.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Well, you look at the fact that a tariff was put on Canadian cattle and I don't think you can say their case was unfounded. Somebody in power agreed with them.

You say R-CALF is not advocating taking the cattle industry back - I submit that was an effort in that direction right there. The packers were, and are, using Canadian cattle and beef against us. I think you know that. What is ironic is that since we're the "big boy" and Canada's prices are greatly affected by ours, Canadians end up getting hurt by this in the long run. I'm sure from your background that you know that it isn't necessarily numbers as it is timing. I'll bet you also understand very well how hard it is for feeders to get current once they get backed up a bit. A good push at the right time lasts for a while.

Sandhusker, who in power agreed with them? When the tariff was deemed unfair and removed, I believe some,if not all of the money was refunded and rightfully so, the one in power,must have been just as wrong as R-Calf was.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

I don't know who made the call. I also don't know who reversed it and I don't know why. You look at all the BS happening in politics and I would certainly wouldn't bet a lot of money that the ruling was reversed because it was wrong.

Sandhusker where were you in'98? Highschool. :roll:

Actully the way the US system works is when R-CALF filed the suit a tariff was put on until it was proven not to to be needed so it was removed and returned. Sort of guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Sandhusker, You said,"look at all the BS happening in politics" if you know that,why is R-Calf going to STAMPEDE TO WASHINGTON?

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker, You said,"look at all the BS happening in politics" if you know that,why is R-Calf going to STAMPEDE TO WASHINGTON?

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

To try go get something done that will benefit producers.

 

[Bill]

Thanks for the input Ben and your points are correct. It is always refreshing when Americans who actually understand the situation post although it sure does frustrate the R-Klowns and they do their best to chase folks like you away. I am sure you also noticed how quickly they divert the discussion to something else anti-Canadian as Oldtimer did.

Regards

Bill

You want to bring some proof on that, Bill?

The Klowns are the ones at USDA who wrote rule. If my sources are correct, the USDA screwed up badly in writing the rule. The way the rule is written it allows OTM cattle but not OTM beef. Ha! Where's the science in that. It looks like their proofreading is as bad as their science.

USDA press conference notwithstanding (although there were some comments that would indicate that they knew about the screw up by then).

 

[Bill]

The Klowns are the ones at USDA who wrote rule. If my sources are correct, the USDA screwed up badly in writing the rule. The way the rule is written it allows OTM cattle but not OTM beef. Ha! Where's the science in that. It looks like their proofreading is as bad as their science.

USDA press conference notwithstanding (although there were some comments that would indicate that they knew about the screw up by then).

ocm:

If my sources are correct,

You really shouldn't rely too much on what Sandhusker and Oldtimer PM to you as we all know they are extremely prone to twisting things and trying to put words in other peoples mouths. :roll:

Let's see what news comes out this week.

What's the update from your "sources"?

 

[ocm]

ocm:

You really shouldn't rely too much on what Sandhusker and Oldtimer PM to you as we all know they are extremely prone to twisting things and trying to put words in other peoples mouths. :roll:

Let's see what news comes out this week.

What's the update from your "sources"?

It;s not going to be made public as soon as I thought, but here is some evidence of what I said from the USDA. Press release.

The proposal expands upon a rule published by APHIS in January 2005 that allowed the importation of certain live ruminants and ruminant products, including cattle under 30 months of age for delivery to a slaughterhouse or feedlot, from countries recognized as minimal-risk. In the rule announced today, APHIS is proposing to allow the importation of:

* Live cattle and other bovines for any use born on or after, March 1, 1999, the date determined by APHIS to be the date of effective enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada;
* Blood and blood products derived from bovines, collected under certain conditions; and
* Casings and part of the small intestine derived from bovines.

Meat and meat products from animals of any age, with specified risk materials removed, were addressed in the January 2005 final rule. In March 2005, APHIS published a notice of a delay of applicability of certain provisions of that rule. This delay affected only meat and meat products from animals 30 months of age or older. If the proposed rule announced today is made final, it would be consistent to lift the delay and also allow the importation of these products.

Note the admission that OTM meat is not specifically included in this new rule. They're depending on its inclusion in the previous rule. However it was removed from the previous rule (with an "indefinite delay") And that previous rule still has pending litigation. "Re-adding" it to the previous rule makes R-CALF's case on the previous rule much stronger.

 

[Bill]

Let's see what news comes out this week.

What's the update from your "sources"?

It;s not going to be made public as soon as I thought, but here is some evidence of what I said from the USDA. Press release.

The proposal expands upon a rule published by APHIS in January 2005 that allowed the importation of certain live ruminants and ruminant products, including cattle under 30 months of age for delivery to a slaughterhouse or feedlot, from countries recognized as minimal-risk. In the rule announced today, APHIS is proposing to allow the importation of:

* Live cattle and other bovines for any use born on or after, March 1, 1999, the date determined by APHIS to be the date of effective enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada;
* Blood and blood products derived from bovines, collected under certain conditions; and
* Casings and part of the small intestine derived from bovines.

Meat and meat products from animals of any age, with specified risk materials removed, were addressed in the January 2005 final rule. In March 2005, APHIS published a notice of a delay of applicability of certain provisions of that rule. This delay affected only meat and meat products from animals 30 months of age or older. If the proposed rule announced today is made final, it would be consistent to lift the delay and also allow the importation of these products.

Note the admission that OTM meat is not specifically included in this new rule. They're depending on its inclusion in the previous rule. However it was removed from the previous rule (with an "indefinite delay") And that previous rule still has pending litigation. "Re-adding" it to the previous rule makes R-CALF's case on the previous rule much stronger.

:lol: :lol: :lol: And I wonder why that would that be? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) So Ben you support reducing freedoms and legislating who can and can't own cattle?

2) How do the packers have an advantage by owning cattle? Don't their cattle eat feed as well?

1) I'm not Ben, but hell yes. Packers should not own their own cattle.

2) :roll: Packers owning their own cattle gives them an unfair advantage in the marketplace given that they don't need to report how many head they own, nor when they expect those head to be slaughtered. For those trying to bring in cattle on certain dates, or planning shipping, it becomes an unknown that can influence cattle prices a great deal. Its an unacceptable advantage, and to even the playing the field, they either need to stop ownership or be forced to report how many they own and when they expect to slaughter those animals.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Rod,

As soon as packers are legislated that they can't own cattle, what does that do to producer owned ventures?

How about big ranches? Maybe we should put a limit of 500 cows in place?

It opens a whole can of worms for laws that interfere with business.

As for not knowing when their cattle are ready, drive past their lots. That's the best way to see what any feedlot has in the pens.

The packer owned cattle are inventoried by canfax the same as any other feedlot. They call each lot and the guy that answers the phone gives a bs answer about how many head they have on feed.

The packers can't magically produce slaughter ready cattle anytime the market is picking up. Explain why they are out in Southern Alberta now agressivly trying to lock in 96 cent fats for April? The feeders that expect to have cattle ready for April are excited by this.

Why aren't they just pushing their own cattle to get past that April time frame and buy the other cattle cheaper in May?

No one has to report how many cattle they have on feed. But it is always apperant that the size of the cowherd is a good starting point.

For Ben, the packers owning cattle still makes them a middle man. They still need to buy from producers and sell to retailers.

If the packing portion of this industry is so lucrative, every rancher should go out and buy into packing companies and quit whining.

Robert Mac, your market share is based on some wild theory that chicken can be used as a market ploy to reduce beef sales. You can't force consumers to buy 1 protien over another. Cheaper products will gain strength in a weak economy. Producing products that add value is the best way to retain market share in the protien complex.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) As soon as packers are legislated that they can't own cattle, what does that do to producer owned ventures?

2) How about big ranches? Maybe we should put a limit of 500 cows in place?

3) It opens a whole can of worms for laws that interfere with business.

4) As for not knowing when their cattle are ready, drive past their lots. That's the best way to see what any feedlot has in the pens.

5) The packer owned cattle are inventoried by canfax the same as any other feedlot. They call each lot and the guy that answers the phone gives a bs answer about how many head they have on feed.

1) This is an issue that needs to be worked around, but quite frankly I don't really give a damn if its 'unfair' to packers. Right now, they own the cards and producers are simply picking up the crumbs they dish out.

2) :roll: Scare tactics. C'mon packer ownership and cattle ranch size are two completely different issues.

3) Horseshit. Packer owned cattle are anti-competitive, and existing anti-competition laws should apply.

4) Ah, so we all have access to all the feedlots in Western Canada? And if you do drive past, the packer owned stock has some kind of sign on it? You miss my point. The packers know within a few days when they will be taking delivery of how many fats and will adjust their bids accordingly. Feedlots that do not have any packer owned stock will need to guess when those animals will hit the market, and adjust their own bids on backgrounded animals. They'll need to play it safe, since they've already had several bad years, and it'll further depress prices.

5) Ah, except the packer owned cattle being fed by individual ranchers aren't inventoried by Canfax. In any given year, the Mennonites in my area will have between 15,000 and 30,000 head on custom feed that are packer owned. I repeat, if the packers want to own cattle, they need to be forced to report how many and when they expect those animals to hit the market. Packers are the price setters in our market, and have to play by different rules than the price getters.

Rod

 

[Jason]

1) As soon as packers are legislated that they can't own cattle, what does that do to producer owned ventures?

2) How about big ranches? Maybe we should put a limit of 500 cows in place?

3) It opens a whole can of worms for laws that interfere with business.

4) As for not knowing when their cattle are ready, drive past their lots. That's the best way to see what any feedlot has in the pens.

5) The packer owned cattle are inventoried by canfax the same as any other feedlot. They call each lot and the guy that answers the phone gives a bs answer about how many head they have on feed.

1) This is an issue that needs to be worked around, but quite frankly I don't really give a damn if its 'unfair' to packers. Right now, they own the cards and producers are simply picking up the crumbs they dish out.

2) :roll: Scare tactics. C'mon packer ownership and cattle ranch size are two completely different issues.

3) Horseshit. Packer owned cattle are anti-competitive, and existing anti-competition laws should apply.

4) Ah, so we all have access to all the feedlots in Western Canada? And if you do drive past, the packer owned stock has some kind of sign on it? You miss my point. The packers know within a few days when they will be taking delivery of how many fats and will adjust their bids accordingly. Feedlots that do not have any packer owned stock will need to guess when those animals will hit the market, and adjust their own bids on backgrounded animals. They'll need to play it safe, since they've already had several bad years, and it'll further depress prices.

5) Ah, except the packer owned cattle being fed by individual ranchers aren't inventoried by Canfax. In any given year, the Mennonites in my area will have between 15,000 and 30,000 head on custom feed that are packer owned. I repeat, if the packers want to own cattle, they need to be forced to report how many and when they expect those animals to hit the market. Packers are the price setters in our market, and have to play by different rules than the price getters.

Rod

1) Ok so we work around producer owned ventures. What makes a producer owned venure? How many head before they become in the same class as other packers. What if the big packers just set up another company that owns the cattle so they aren't in direct violation?

2)Scare tactics? As soon as you open up the ability to legislate any sector out of a certian business you open the whole industry to troubles. Maybe we should legislate ranchers can't grow their own hay or farm any land? After all it makes it so they don't have to buy it from hay farms or grains farms.

3) See above. Look at any gov't law. It always has unintended consequences.

4) Now packers adjusting their bids based on how full they are and market signals should be outlawed too? The contracts feedlots are signing for 96 cent fats, you want to open them up to maybe getting the space or maybe not after they have adjusted feed rations to slow some extra steers up or push some faster?

Can you read a canfax report? Can you find weekly boxed beef prices? Can you find the Chicago numbers the entire industry bases decisions on? Feedlots aren't at the mercy of packers anymore than producers are at the mercy of feedlots. If you don't like a bid on your calves you have the ability to refuse it. Feedlots have a smaler time frame to do it, but they also look at more information than 95% of primary producers.

5) Those packer owned feeder are inventoried exactly the same as any other feedlots. If the Mennonites choose to lie about what they are feeding ... so be it. You seem to have a handle on how many are there, don't other feeders have the same knowledge?

How do packers set their bids? Do you know?

They are price takers in the form of boxed beef prices. They can't force retailers to pay more for beef if demand is sluggish. If they have contracts on 50,000 head for a set period but the retailers only want the beef from 45,000 who eats the loss? It is certianly cheaper to offer the other product at a discount than lose any income from all of it.

Do you believe packers ever lose money? That is the real issue. If they don't it is a garanteed investment and we all should put as much money into packers as we can. If they are always profitable, they would never go broke, they would only be bought up at huge premiums, and more new ventures would be starting everyday.

Do you believe feedlots ever lose money? If they do why do packers not lose money on the feeding portion of their operations? Just because they can kill their own cattle first? True they can, but what about times they can buy cattle cheaper than they could kill their own? What happens to their own cattle? They just keep dumping feed into them?

 

[Sandhusker]

Inside information isn't market information, Jason. Markets that rely on their reputation for fairness have outlawed using inside information to take positions. The big packers are using inside information.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Ok so we work around producer owned ventures. What makes a producer owned venure? How many head before they become in the same class as other packers. What if the big packers just set up another company that owns the cattle so they aren't in direct violation?

2)Scare tactics? As soon as you open up the ability to legislate any sector out of a certian business you open the whole industry to troubles. Maybe we should legislate ranchers can't grow their own hay or farm any land? After all it makes it so they don't have to buy it from hay farms or grains farms.

3) Now packers adjusting their bids based on how full they are and market signals should be outlawed too? The contracts feedlots are signing for 96 cent fats, you want to open them up to maybe getting the space or maybe not after they have adjusted feed rations to slow some extra steers up or push some faster?

4) Those packer owned feeder are inventoried exactly the same as any other feedlots. If the Mennonites choose to lie about what they are feeding ... so be it. You seem to have a handle on how many are there, don't other feeders have the same knowledge? As far as my knowledge goes, its post-shipping knowledge. Once the Mennonites ship, I know how many animals have went. Its too late for me.

5) They are price takers in the form of boxed beef prices. They can't force retailers to pay more for beef if demand is sluggish.

1) If the packers set up a completely separate entity, governed by existing laws that prevent exchange of information that constitutes insider trading, I don't have an issue with it.

2) We already have that legislation in the form of anti-competition laws, unfortunately our governments have decided to abandon it.

3) :roll: Come on, I said nothing of the sort, nor has anyone else. All I'm against is the packers have prior knowledge of how many cattle they can expect in a given time frame. It takes some of the uncertainty away from them, and hands it to producers and feedlots who have to choose what date to target their fed and backgrounded stock.

4) So what you're saying is that Canfax calls up the 10 individuals feeding livestock for the packers and gets those numbers? No way man. No more than Canfax calls me and asks how many cattle I have on feed.

5) Whenever you have so few players in the market, they are price makers, not takers. We have 2 major packers in Canada and if Safeway calls and offers them $X, do you not believe they'll refuse if that price is too far below costs? Or if it doesn't make them enough money. Then what does safeway do? They need 10s of thousands of tons of product, and they likely won't be able to get what they need by picking up a little here and a little there. Since you say producers have the ability to say no to a certain bid, what makes you think that packers don't have this ability? If you think they don't, you're kidding yourself.

Rod

 

[Jason]

I think we need a definition of what constitiutes insider trading.

A packer has bought steers from feedlot 'A' for 3 years. They have graded well and have few outliers.

Is it inside information that allows that packer to bid 2 cents more than their competition? Yes it is. That information isn't public, however I doubt that constitutes insider trading.

Packer 'X' gathers showlists from 25 feedlots. They place bids on 80% of the cattle on those lists and wind up owning 60%. They know packer 'Y' also bid on some of the same cattle because a couple feedlot managers mentioned they had talked with 'Bob' (packer 'Y's head buyer).

The next week they gather showlists from the same feedlots and 10% of the cattle listed are heavier than last week. They also have the same description. The fats from that lot the previous week pushed the hot carcass weight pretty close, with the extra week's feed chance are that some will exceed the target. The packer drops their bid on those cattle 1 cent. It is inside information again is it fair?

The feedlot holds out another week because they didn't like the 1 cent drop offered. They have called packer 'Y' 3 times so packer 'Y' is wondering what is going on because they have never been able to buy those cattle before. Packer 'X' knows the feedlot is desperate now, but they are full because the steers they own are ready and will push the top of the target.

If packer 'X' offers 5 cents low and is the only bid. Did they do anything illegal causing damage to the feedlot? Whos fault is it that the cattle get discounted? Inside information was used, but who provided the information?

This is a very simplistic scenario because it doesn't consider the other end of the equation of what are boxed beef prices doing.

If the boxed beef price is falling at the same time as this scenario is playing out, is the packer more or less likely to pull bids on questionable lots of cattle?

Whose fault is it if the feedlot doesn't check the boxed beef trends to know if they have the upper hand or if the packer is under pressure to drop prices?

If you don't think boxed beef prices have anything to do with packer bids, you are mistaken and need to learn how beef is priced.

 

[Sandhusker]

Jason, " I think we need a definition of what constitiutes insider trading."

It is trading while in the possession of material, nonpublic information.

Quick and dirty example; Tyson controls more than 30% of the fat market. If a third of the cattle they use is via forward contracts, that means they are the only ones in the country who know when 10% of the entire fat market will be traded and at what price. I'd say that is material.

Common sense tells you the aggressiveness of their bidding will depend on the difference of what they need (another number only they know) and what they have contracted. The guy on the other side of the fence has no knowledge of either. Advantage Tyson.

 

[Jason]

The lots that contracted those cattle know the delivery time and the price.

The competition knows how many cattle Tyson usually buys, feedlots also know how many bids they usually receive any given week. If suddenly Tyson isn't bidding cattle, feedlots would know first (they don't get any bids) and the competitors would know shortly thereafter, as they would own all the cattle they bid on.

Using information a company is given willingly by its suppliers isn't insider trading.

Insider trading is using things like a proposed launch of a new product that will advance an industry to buy up shares in a company before the information becomes common knowledge.

Using contracts that are based on public knowledge of public information like published boxed beef prices and cattle inventories is not in the same universe as insider trading.