Sandcheska: "So you condemn others who may of not considered the many factors that contribute to cattle prices, but then you do the exact same."
When packer blamers blamed packer concentration on lower cattle prices did you ask them if they have considered all the other factors that affect cattle prices? HELL NO YOU DIDN'T YOU DAMN HYPOCRITE!
You nod your head like the packer blaming lemming you are but when I point out the fact that we had the highest feeder cattle prices recorded during an era of 80% concentration by the 5 major packing companies which proves that concentration is obviously not enough of an issue to be able to hold markets down by itself, then and only then do you POINT OUT THAT THERE IS OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING THE MARKETS.
HYPOCRISY AT IT'S FINEST!
Unlike you Sandcheska, I'm well aware of the numerous factors affecting cattle prices and I point them out to blamers like you on a daily basis such as how $1.00 per bushel of corn affects feeder cattle prices to the tune of $20/ cwt while you import blamers are busy blaming Canadian imports for lower cattle prices like always. You are in the camp of eternal ignorance when it comes to market factors, not me.
So if you are NOW going to make the argument that packer concentration only has a negative impact on our cattle markets at certain times,
explain when packer concentration has a negative affect on the cattle markets. Let's hear it! You won't because you never back your positions. You'll duck and run just like you always do. Little chickensh*t Sandcheska!
Packer concentration has had a far more positive affect on cattle markets than negative. That's easily proven. The smaller less efficient packing companies were replaced because they could not pay up for fat cattle and compete with the slaughtering efficiency of the larger packer. That's a damn fact! Future Beef's demise was due in large part to the fact that they overpaid on yearlings thinking the retail beef sales would carry them through. WRONG!
COMPETITION LEADS TO CONSOLIDATION!
You won't begin to refute that fact.
Dumbasses like you would break up the larger more efficient packers and replace them with less efficient packers that would pay less for cattle. That's how smart you packer blamers are. All based on your stupid conspiracy theories about market manipulation which you couldn't prove in Pickett vs. ibp.
Resentment? YOU BET! You packer blamers in your eternal ignorance are pushing an agenda that leads to lower cattle markets, not higher. Blamers like you are the biggest threat to this industry, not the conspiracy theories that you can't prove.
Sandcheska: "You said, "The burden of proof lies on the accuser". Why not practice what you preach, or do we have to prove to you what you said yet again? Anyway, I try not to make statements that can be disproved."
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
YOU TRY NOT TO MAKE STATEMENTS THAT CAN BE DISPROVED????
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
You mean like paying $1.86 for 70/30 ground beef???
I doubt you have ever made a statement regarding cattle issues that CAN BE PROVEN. Your entire MO is speculation. I don't care whether it's market manipulation conspiracy theories, packer concentration, paying $1.86 for 70/30 ground beef or any other issue. You don't ever have a clue what you are talking about, EVER!
Sandcheska: "I repeat, prove me wrong or shut up. So far, you've done neither."
On what issue?
Why don't you try backing your views for once instead of insisting that others disprove every lame brain conspiracy theory you come up with.
Speaking of conspiracy theories.........
Rod: "1) I'm not Ben, but hell yes. Packers should not own their own cattle."
HAIL HITLER!!!!
I'll bet if a packer was bidding on your feeder calves you would stand right up and say, "BY GAWD I DON'T WANT NO PACKER BIDDING ON MY CALVES" "I'LL TAKE THE SECOND HIGHEST BID". Hahaha! You bet Rod!
Obviously the packers were the high bid or they wouldn't own any cattle would they Rod?
The day the government picks and chooses who can and who cannot own cattle in the US is the day we give up the freedoms that men have fought and died for.
Rod: "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."
Bullsh*t!
Packers usually buy cattle to finish during times of year when there is less fat cattle available to maintain their plant efficiency but they can't predict EXACTLY when those cattle will finish. If they pull them early, they won't grade. If they feed them too long, they'll end up with Y4s.
There is no way in hell packers can predict what direction the market will be going when those cattle finish to determine whether they would have been better off buying those same cattle in the cash fat cattle market. They buy feeder calves to maintain a higher degree of plant efficiency during seasonal lulls.
The obvious is that they outbid someone else to get them bought which was an obvious benefit to the seller. You'd restrict the free market based on some crazy market manipulation conspiracy theory that you cannot begin to prove.
Another fact that absolutely blows this conspiracy right out of the water is the fact that if Tyson has a higher percentage of packer owned cattle during a certain week, SWIFT, EXCEL, AND USPB ARE PROBABLY NEEDING CATTLE. The only way packer owned cattle can negatively impact "THE MARKET" would be if all 5 major packers had packer owned cattle finishing at the same time. WHAT'S THE CHANCES OF THAT ROD??
This packer owned cattle conspiracy theory is nothing more than packer blaming bullsh*t unsubstantiated by fact.
Rod: "3) Horseshit. Packer owned cattle are anti-competitive, and existing anti-competition laws should apply."
Horsesh*t is right!
How can packer owned cattle be anti-competitive when packers obviously outbid someone else to buy those cattle and there is no way they can predict what direction the market will be going when those cattle finish???
Horsesh*t is right!
Rod: "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."
Packers have absolutely no idea what direction the beef market will be moving when those cattle finish. One packer's owned cattle doesn't have a damn thing to do with another packer's needs. If one packer has packer owned cattle finishing then there is obviously less cattle available for the other packers to buy.
This stupid conspiracy theory of yours depends on all packers having the same exact needs for cattle at all times. Do you honestly believe that???
Do you honestly believe that Swift, Excel, USPB, Tyson, Greater Omaha, and Smithfield are not in competition with eachother for the same cattle?
Rod: "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."
How's that Rod? Do you have to report how many cattle you have on feed and when you expect those cattle to finish?
I can't believe what a "socialist" you are.
Rod: " Whenever you have so few players in the market, they are price makers, not takers."
If Tyson and Excel can dictate the price, WHY DO PRICES MOVE??
Do packers have periods of generosity where they allow producers to make some money and periods of greed where they screw producers?
Is that what you believe? If not, how do you explain the fact that prices fluctuate in a market that is supposedly controlled? That defies all logic Rod.
Rod: "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."
Good grief Rod! Listen to yourself! BEEF IS A PERISHABLE PRODUCT! If the packers don't sell it, THEY SMELL IT! It's that damn simple. There is a lag time between what packers receive for beef and what they are willing to pay for cattle. What packers receive for beef from the retailer, which is based on what consumers are willing to pay for beef, determines what packers will pay for cattle. That is why you have periods of packer profitability and periods of packer losses. If packers pay according to a $15 per head profit and the retail beef prices drop, they lose money. If retail beef prices remain steady, they make money. If retail beef prices rise, they make money but cattle prices will soon follow because their competition also needs cattle.
Look at the Pickett vs. IBP era of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation. What did ibp/Tyson have to show for it??? A WHOPPING $26 PER HEAD AVERAGE PER HEAD PROFIT. YOU CALL THAT MARKET MANIPULATION????
$26 per head is less than your local locker plant is probably paying per head to have the damn ofal hauled away.
You guys are so lost. You think you know so damn much about the packing industry and how they make their money yet you refuse to invest your money where your packer blaming mouth is. You don't have a clue Rod. You sit here and tell us all about how packers manipulate markets all based on theory without a stitch of proof to back any of it. Amazing!
Packer blamers make me nauseous!
~SH~