Rule2 one step closer.

[Sandhusker]

Funny how you get an image of somebody and then when you see what they actually look like, you see how your image was different. I always had SH pictured with a longer nose, beadier eyes closer together, and with lots of foam dripping off his jowls.

 

[RobertMac]

RM:"Could it be the lack of supply of feeder calves?"

Do you want to make the argument that packer concentration is only a factor when we have excessive supplies of feeder cattle? Interesting!

The fact is, 2005 feeder calf prices were driven by beef demand which doesn't have a damn thing to do with packer concentration.

"Could it be the lack of supply of feeder calves [with respect to beef demand]?" I apologize for being so vague...with an excess of feeder calves, would the same beef demand have had the same effect on feeder prices...supply AND demand!

The transition from carcasses to boxed beef took place in the 1960s, and high slaughter levels kept plenty of independents in business until the late 1970s, when slaughter numbers dropped. Since then, the pendulum has swung back toward consolidation, with a few companies operating very large plants.

"Interesting how [beef's] market share lose [in the protein market] has paralleled processing concentration????"

Were the 'independents' run out of business because of lack of efficiency or because of the ~40% lose in beef's market share since the 1970s?

The lose of market share is the beef industry's problem...not all this other grap!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "Ummmm, so why did you bring up packer concentration?"

Because packer blamers like you think packer concentration leads to lower cattle prices but you cannot begin to back that claim.

Fact is, packer concentration has never been higher yet we had the highest feeder cattle prices ever recorded once again proving what a packer blaming idiot you are.

Sandcheska: "If Mike's information is accurate, it appears I'm correct; "Over the following 40 years, single-species slaughter plants gradually were located in livestock production areas and the proportion of cattle slaughter by the four largest packing firms fell to about 30 percent by 1956."

30% in 1956 to 80% today. Nope, no increase... SH has proven me a liar once again!"

You don't know whether Mike's information is accurate or not. It's what you want to believe so you believe it like the lemming you are. When are you ever going to do your own research? Why do you always rely on someone else?

How do you explain 2005 feeder cattle prices at a time when packer concentration was at over 80% for the 5 largest packing companies. How do you explain that if packer concentration leads to lower cattle prices? You can't! Nobody can! The claim that packer concentration leads to lower cattle prices is just more packer blaming bullsh*t.

Fact remains, in 1916 the big five controlled as much of the industry as they do today.

Fact remains, packer concentration doesn't have a damn thing to do with lower cattle prices.

RM: ""Could it be the lack of supply of feeder calves [with respect to beef demand]?" I apologize for being so vague...with an excess of feeder calves, would the same beef demand have had the same effect on feeder prices...supply AND demand!"

You haven't proven that we had a lack of feeder calves available in 2005 compared to 2004.

RM: "Were the 'independents' run out of business because of lack of efficiency or because of the ~40% lose in beef's market share since the 1970s?"

Beef's market share affects the retail price of beef not packer profitability. If retail beef prices drop, so does fat cattle prices.

The independents could not compete with the larger more efficient companies just as they can't in most businesses unless they have a niche market of some sort. They certainly can't slaughter cattle for less than $10 - $15 per head.

RM: "The lose of market share is the beef industry's problem...not all this other grap!"

The loss of market share is OUR problem because retail beef prices reflect on cattle prices.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "You don't know whether Mike's information is accurate or not. It's what you want to believe so you believe it like the lemming you are....."

Do you know that it's inaccurate? If so, post away. Perhaps you discount it because it isn't what you want to believe?

SH, "How do you explain 2005 feeder cattle prices at a time when packer concentration was at over 80% for the 5 largest packing companies. How do you explain that if packer concentration leads to lower cattle prices? You can't! Nobody can! The claim that packer concentration leads to lower cattle prices is just more packer blaming bullsh*t."

How many factors are there that effect cattle prices, SH?

SH, "Fact remains, in 1916 the big five controlled as much of the industry as they do today."

Who's disputing that? You like argueing so much, you'll argue with yourself! :roll: :lol: I said packers have become more concentrated in the last 40, 30, 20 years. Prove me wrong or shut up.

 

[Anonymous]

Fact remains, in 1916 the big five controlled as much of the industry as they do today.

Fact remains, packer concentration doesn't have a damn thing to do with lower cattle prices.


~SH~

Isn't this Packer monoply what brought the formation of the National Cattlemans Association (NCBA)- which in 1921 got the Packers and Stockyards Act passed to regulate the "Beef Trust" or the "Big Five Packers," who were proven to be engaged in monopoly and anti-trust violations. :???:


Sounds like we are in a very similar situation today- but the NCA is no longer around to take up the banner......Luckily we have R-CALF...

 

[ocm]

Fact remains, in 1916 the big five controlled as much of the industry as they do today.

Fact remains, packer concentration doesn't have a damn thing to do with lower cattle prices.


~SH~

Isn't this Packer monoply what brought the formation of the National Cattlemans Association (NCBA)- which in 1921 got the Packers and Stockyards Act passed to regulate the "Beef Trust" or the "Big Five Packers," who were proven to be engaged in monopoly and anti-trust violations. :???:


Sounds like we are in a very similar situation today- but the NCA is no longer around to take up the banner......Luckily we have R-CALF...

Yes, the President of the NCBA (then called the ANLSA) was a Senator.
From the NCBA website on J.B. Kendrick:

After driving a herd of cattle from Texas to Wyoming , he met a rancher's daughter, married her, and stayed to become Governor of Wyoming, then United States Senator. While serving in the Senate, he was elected President of ANLSA; reportedly solving the Association's lobbying needs for a while. During that time, Kendrick wrote and pushed through the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The West is yet to produce his equal, writes one historian.

Certainly the NCBA has yet to produce his equal.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "How many factors are there that effect cattle prices, SH?"

WHERE IS THAT ARGUMENT WHEN YOUR FELLOW R-CULTERS ARE BLAMING PACKER CONCENTRATION OR CANADIAN IMPORTS FOR LOWER CATTLE PRICES YOU HYPOCRITE?????

WHY DON'T YOU ASK YOUR FELLOW R-CULTERS HOW MANY FACTORS AFFECT CATTLE PRICES????

You are so completely pathetic when you pick and choose when your arguments will apply. Factually void!

Sandcheska: "I said packers have become more concentrated in the last 40, 30, 20 years. Prove me wrong or shut up."

Why don't you ever back your own statements for once instead of challenging others to disprove them?

OT: "Isn't this Packer monoply what brought the formation of the National Cattlemans Association (NCBA)- which in 1921 got the Packers and Stockyards Act passed to regulate the "Beef Trust" or the "Big Five Packers," who were proven to be engaged in monopoly and anti-trust violations."

Back then, there was proof of "COLLUSION" which initiated the PSA. Packers were getting their heads together which affected competition. Now, we just have baseless allegations of such practices which were proven false in a court of law. You packer blamers lost because you didn't have any evidence to back your claims. What you did is waste a bunch of precious time and money chasing baseless allegations. PRESUMPTION OF GUILT!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
Sandcheska: "How many factors are there that effect cattle prices, SH?"


SH, "WHERE IS THAT ARGUMENT WHEN YOUR FELLOW R-CULTERS ARE BLAMING PACKER CONCENTRATION OR CANADIAN IMPORTS FOR LOWER CATTLE PRICES YOU HYPOCRITE????? WHY DON'T YOU ASK YOUR FELLOW R-CULTERS HOW MANY FACTORS AFFECT CATTLE PRICES???? "

So you condemn others who may of not considered the many factors that contribute to cattle prices, but then you do the exact same. I would call that the actions of a hypocrite. Why did you do that, SH?

SH, "You are so completely pathetic when you pick and choose when your arguments will apply. Factually void! "

Since that is exactly what you just tried to do, doesn't that make you "factually void" as well?


Quote:
Sandcheska: "I said packers have become more concentrated in the last 40, 30, 20 years. Prove me wrong or shut up."

SH, "Why don't you ever back your own statements for once instead of challenging others to disprove them?"

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.

I repeat, prove me wrong or shut up. So far, you've done neither.

 

[ocm]

Sandcheska: "How many factors are there that effect cattle prices, SH?"

WHERE IS THAT ARGUMENT WHEN YOUR FELLOW R-CULTERS ARE BLAMING PACKER CONCENTRATION OR CANADIAN IMPORTS FOR LOWER CATTLE PRICES YOU HYPOCRITE?????

WHY DON'T YOU ASK YOUR FELLOW R-CULTERS HOW MANY FACTORS AFFECT CATTLE PRICES????

You are so completely pathetic when you pick and choose when your arguments will apply. Factually void!

Sandcheska: "I said packers have become more concentrated in the last 40, 30, 20 years. Prove me wrong or shut up."

Why don't you ever back your own statements for once instead of challenging others to disprove them?

OT: "Isn't this Packer monoply what brought the formation of the National Cattlemans Association (NCBA)- which in 1921 got the Packers and Stockyards Act passed to regulate the "Beef Trust" or the "Big Five Packers," who were proven to be engaged in monopoly and anti-trust violations."

Back then, there was proof of "COLLUSION" which initiated the PSA. Packers were getting their heads together which affected competition. Now, we just have baseless allegations of such practices which were proven false in a court of law. You packer blamers lost because you didn't have any evidence to back your claims. What you did is waste a bunch of precious time and money chasing baseless allegations. PRESUMPTION OF GUILT!


~SH~

You need to check with your lawyer. Collusion was already illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Even today collusion violations are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, not PSA, even for packers. PSA was not designed to stop collusion but added to the already existing antitrust laws. PSA goes far beyond the collusion problem.

A good case for collusion could be made for all packers cutting back on their kill at the same time because of poor margins. In a competitive market when one packer cuts back another increases to gain market share. When they all cut back, despite cattle supply, then there is collusion. This is called tacit collusion. There is no business justification for it. DOJ has jurisdiction, not PSA. It's falls under Sherman, not PSA.

In a competitive market the packer with the best margin would survive. With collusion they all take identical, non competitive actions to improve margin. It really is a pretty easy case to prove. No proof of meetings necessary.

Your explanation is factually void!!

 

[RobertMac]

You haven't proven that we had a lack of feeder calves available in 2005 compared to 2004.

That's irrelevant concerning price of feeder calves in 2005...what is relevant is beef demand in 2005 with respect to feeder calf supply in 2005! :???: :???: :???: :???: :???: :???: But to prove you wrong anyway, wasn't the industry starting herd rebuilding????and what happens during herd rebuilding?????heifers and cows DON'T GO TO SLAUGHTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beef's market share affects the retail price of beef not packer profitability.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said, but the little bit of truth in it is the problem with packer concentration. Large packers don't care about the size of beef's market share, if they are selling all they process at a profitable margin. Producers are the big losers from reduced market share...less cattle are needed to supply a smaller market share and imported cattle have a larger impact on the price of USA cattle!

 

[Jason]

SH wrote:
Beef's market share affects the retail price of beef not packer profitability.


RM Wrote:
This has got to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said, but the little bit of truth in it is the problem with packer concentration. Large packers don't care about the size of beef's market share, if they are selling all they process at a profitable margin. Producers are the big losers from reduced market share...less cattle are needed to supply a smaller market share and imported cattle have a larger impact on the price of USA cattle!

Robert, look what you just said. You call Scott dumb but then agree with his statement.

Large packers want to make a profit. As do small packers and everyone in a free market economy.

How do you make more profit in a tight industry? You increase market share.

You are bang on when you said

Producers are the big losers from reduced market share

You just agreed and confirmed his point.

How many times has it been said producers are the ones that have the most to gain/lose based on retail price and market share? That is Scotts main message, and you are attacking him for agreeing with you!

The packers are just middle men, they want as much as they can get, but competition keeps it from being huge dollars per head, so they try to process more heads! They can't process more cattle if they can't sell them at a profit.

When you guys are so intent on tripping Scott up in word play, you miss the real import of what he says. The biggest picture here is demand. Supply responds to the demand, but in the cattle business, it is slower because of production times. Producers should know by now that high prices are not the true signal to increase production, demand is the only way that increased production will be absorbed without a price decline, but too many just see a price and they can't tell why it is that way, or which way it is headed. It's easier to blame the boogeyman aka the packers.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Jason, when the packers,started feeding cattle and owning feedlots, they ceased to be the middle-man.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Jason]

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

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

The claim is that packers can choose to kill their own cattle when prices are high. Well as long as they have cattle ready.

But to allow that claim, they also have to kill their own cattle when ready when the price would be cheaper to buy them from other feeders.

The packers owned the same percentage of cattle during the highest fat cattle prices in history. How has their owning cattle affected producers?

Producers for the most part sell their cattle to feedlots. If the packers are feeding as well, doesn't that add MORE customers to the deal?

How exactly can packers use feeding only to their advantage?

 

[Ben Roberts]

Jason,I believe you know me well enough,to know that,I have never advocated more legislation or the loss of our freedoms.

I, only commented on your statement as to packers being Middle-men.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[RobertMac]

Ben, the large packers only want to be the 'middle-man'...between the cow/calf producer and the consumer.

Jason, could you define what you think I mean by 'market share'? I obviously have a communication problem!

 

[Ben Roberts]

Ben, "I advocate taking back control of our cattle industry. "

Then why do you attempt to discredit the only National Cattleman's org. in this country that is saying the same thing?

Sandhusker, What National Cattlemens Organization are you referring to.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

R-CALF, my good man. We are fully aware of the packer's power being used against producers. The other guys aren't bothered by it all.

Sandhusker, R-Calf has never advocated taking back the control of our cattle industry, What R-Calf advocates and does,is DEMAND that the government legislate rules to protect them. Not only from the packers but from the Canadians and Mexicans as well. I believe R-Calf is getting ready for another (STAMPEDE TO WASHINGTON) are they not.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker, What National Cattlemens Organization are you referring to.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

R-CALF, my good man. We are fully aware of the packer's power being used against producers. The other guys aren't bothered by it all.

Sandhusker, R-Calf has never advocated taking back the control of our cattle industry, What R-Calf advocates and does,is DEMAND that the government legislate rules to protect them. Not only from the packers but from the Canadians and Mexicans as well. I believe R-Calf is getting ready for another (STAMPEDE TO WASHINGTON) are they not.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

If you don't think R-CALF has advocated taking back control of the cattle industry, you really need to do some research, Ben.

We're not demanding anything from the government other than to keep everything fair and honest. We want the rules already on the books to be enforced (PSA). We want the agencies that we're paying taxes to run to fulfill their mandate. Is that so much to ask?

We want the border with Canada closed until we get some answers - answers we don't think are there. When the USDA decided to formulate a plan on BSE, they set up a zero tolerance policy on BSE positive countries. This policy was supposedly based on the best science on the disease and we were told was necessary to protect consumer and herd health. Since the science has not changed, why has the policy? If the policy was needed to protect us, doesn't it stand to reason that reversing it puts us at risk? We're out of line and "protectionist" for hollering "foul"? I think it is the only responsible thing to do.

Yes, we are gearing for another stampede. Unless you can fund a PAC or "contribute" like the other guys do, that's how you effectively communicate in Washinton - you go and sit in front of them and have a conversation.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Ben Roberts: "Yes, I recognize the power of the multi-national packers and that power is devastating, farmers and ranchers world-wide."

Scott said-How do you explain this "devastating power" in light of the fact that 2005 showed us the highest feeder cattle prices ever recorded?

Along with the highest taxes,insurance,cost of equipment,fuel ect.ect. ever recorded.

Scott said-Did Tyson, Swift, Excel, and USPB reduce their market shares in 2005 for these high feeder cattle prices to occur?

No!

Scott said-Do you prefer we go back to inefficient mom and pop packing plants that require $40 per head net profit margins and have to pay someone to haul their ofal off as opposed to Tyson slaughtering cattle for $26 per head net profit margins (Tyson vs ibp tesimony) in their most profitable years and selling everything from tongue to the rectum? A 10 year average per head net profit margin for the 5 major packers would be far less than $26 per head.

No!

Scott said-If you want to make a case for large packers not being as innovate in selling beef and beef by products as some small packers, I think you can make that argument successfully Ben.

Scott, the large meat packers create tons and tons of product that the small packers,just have to throw-away. They also have the resources to hire scientist and develop new products.

Scott said-Big ships are hard to turn. If you want to make the argument that we would be paid better by smaller less efficient packing plants, you're going to have a hard time selling that argument considering the fact that efficiency leads to consolidation. Hell Ben, look around you. What industry isn't dominated by 3 - 5 major companies. Is concentration some new concept specific to the packing industry? Tell that to the beverage industry, the cell phone industry, the fast food industry, the automobile industry, and just about every other major industry.

Scott,I have looked around. I don't like what I see. Dakota County Nebraska has had to hire five additional prosecuting attorneys to handle the extra case load,that was created by the Tyson/ IBP plant there. They pay joining counties, to house the inmates,They don't have space for at a huge cost to Dakota County. Concentration is not a new concept Scott, but at what cost,to the residence of our communities(ie. cattle producers).

Scott said-I have read your book. I read the facts with interest and question your conclusions as I did when we visited in Kadoka.

This is why cattle producers need to join together,ideas spark ideas.

Scott said-Ranchers taking back control of our industry? Where have we lost control of our industry Ben? I see ranchers reaping the benefits of their investments in USPB. Where is this loss of control occuring?

The producers gave-up control of the cattle industry when they allowed middle-men,to take control. Not all producers are invested in USPB.

Scott said-I think the biggest challenge facing this industry is for producers to get the facts on many of the issues we face so they can see how R-CULT is leading them down the primrose path with their lies regarding how certain factors affect cattle prices. I can't think of anything that has been more destructive to our industry than the R-CULT "blame everything and everyone" agenda.

I agree! It's only,fear and suppression of knowledge that some organizations exist today.

R-CULT is being led by certain LMA reps who are trying to save their own collective butts from an industry headed towards owning and controlling their financial destiny which is contrary to the LMA's goals of socialized cattle marketing and keeping those commission dollars rolling in.

You are right, R-CULT does talk out of both sides of their mouth. ("Don't consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from"...."Don't burden me with traceback" ......."USDA doesn't care about food safety" ......"we have the safest beef in the world due to our bse precautionary measures").

Unless you can explain how we are losing control of our industry with specific examples, you're opinions are subject to the same criticism.

BTW Ben, in regards to concentration in the packing industry, tell us what market share Swift, Wilson, Cudahey, Morris and Armour had when they were the "BIG FIVE". You've done that research haven't you?


Rod,

Excellent post!



~SH~

Scott Huber
Kadoka, SD

 

[Sandhusker]

SH on Jan. 9 "BTW Ben, in regards to concentration in the packing industry, tell us what market share Swift, Wilson, Cudahey, Morris and Armour had when they were the "BIG FIVE". You've done that research haven't you?"

SH on Jan. 10 "When are you ever going to do your own research? Why do you always rely on someone else?"

Sorry, guys, I just had to bring this up. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Now I'm CERTAIN that the "H" in "SH" is for hypocrite. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[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