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

same ole ncba packer pandering bull sheist

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
House Ag Subcommittee hears livestock market issues
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 4:31 PM

by Peter Shinn

The ethanol industry may hold some lessons for livestock producers. That's one conclusion that could be drawn from a House Ag Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry hearing chaired by Leonard Boswell of Iowa on livestock market concentration Tuesday morning.

Everyone who testified, from government officials to university researchers to ag producer group leaders, agreed concentration is happening across agriculture, not just in the livestock sector. But there is one exception, and that's the ethanol industry. National Farmers Union President Tom Buis told lawmakers that, in contrast to nearly every other agricultural sector, ethanol industry consolidation has declined. 10 years ago, he said, 73% of the U.S. ethanol market was controlled by the top-four ethanol producers. Now, however, those top-four ethanol producers control just 31.5% of the market.

"It's all a result, I think, of public policy encouraging producers to get together [and] own these plants," Buis testified, adding that National Farmers Union wants a competition title in the next farm bill and also calls for implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling.

American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said his group favors greater oversight of mergers and acquisitions among meat packers, and called for several other actions to strengthen USDA's enforcement of the Packers & Stockyards Act. But he stopped short of calling for a competition title in the next farm bill. And Stallman also said greater livestock producer unity would make a big difference in their market power.

"All you have to do is get together and you have all the market power you want," Stallman explained. "The problem is producers are reluctant to get together."

Officials from two of the nation’s largest livestock producer groups, meanwhile, urged Congress to go slow before taking legislative action to address livestock market concentration issues. Joy Philippi, immediate past president of the National Pork Producers Council, pointed out pork producers have enjoyed more than three years of continuous profits. And she said taking steps against meat packers may prove counter-productive.

"Punitive actions against packers do not necessarily benefit pork producers in the long run, unless the packers are clearly in the wrong," she said in her opening statement. "And we have not seen any evidence of this."

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association President John Queen went further, suggesting Congress should keep out of the marketing relationships between cattlemen and meat packers. "When it comes to market structure and competition issues, NCBA's position is simple," Queen testified. "We ask that the government not tell us how we can or cannot market our cattle."
Philippi said more study is needed of a recent report commissioned by USDA on livestock market concentration. Queen pointed out that report showed alternative marketing arrangements beyond the cash market benefit producers, packers and consumers alike. Queen will testify at a hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee on the same subject on Wednesday.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
A new study on ag market concentration “supports what we have long known,” National Farmers Union President Tom Buis said. “In the absence of public policy intervention, consolidated and non-competitive markets flourish, while independent family farmers disappear.

“Congress must take action to restore competition in the marketplace. The 2007 Farm Bill is a perfect opportunity to make that happen,” he added.

Buis commented as a study done for NFU was released. It showed increased concentration in every part of the ag industry except ethanol production.

The four top beef packers control 83.5 percent of the market, four pork packers have 66 percent of the market, and the four top poultry companies process 58.5 percent of the broilers in the U.S. Tyson Foods is listed in the top four of each of these categories.

The retailing industry is also increasing its degree of concentration, with the top five companies controlling 48 percent of food retailing, compared to 24 percent ten years ago.

Ethanol is the one exception to growing concentration, the study shows. Today, the top four companies control 31.5 percent of the marketplace. In 1987, those four companies owned 73 percent. Farmer-owned ethanol plants account for 39 percent of total capacity.

Buis will testify today before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, where the subject will be market concentration.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"When it comes to market structure and competition issues, NCBA's position is simple," Queen testified. "We ask that the government not tell us how we can or cannot market our cattle."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't NCBA behind the USDA telling Creekstone how they could and could not market?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Who is surprised that NFU comes up with different take and that they and others who want ever more regulation and control disagree with USDA numbers? No surprise that they would find number crunchers to skew things to support their position.

Sandhusker, the Creekstone issue is not one of telling them how they could or could not market, but that BSE tests are not approved for their purposes, nor for administration by non-government people. I believe NCBA is correct is asking that Creekstone not be allowed to use a test that implies a result which it cannot provide: showing whether young cattle do or do not carry BSE, and that tested beef is safer than non-tested beef.

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Who is surprised that NFU comes up with different take and that they and others who want ever more regulation and control disagree with USDA numbers? No surprise that they would find number crunchers to skew things to support their position.

Sandhusker, the Creekstone issue is not one of telling them how they could or could not market, but that BSE tests are not approved for their purposes, nor for administration by non-government people. I believe NCBA is correct is asking that Creekstone not be allowed to use a test that implies a result which it cannot provide: showing whether young cattle do or do not carry BSE, and that tested beef is safer than non-tested beef.

MRJ

But NCBA has no problem with the implications of safety that hormone free presents and no problem with the implications that Certified Angus makes..... :roll: Is this hypocracy part of that great service they're doing for the industry?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
MRJ said:
Who is surprised that NFU comes up with different take and that they and others who want ever more regulation and control disagree with USDA numbers? No surprise that they would find number crunchers to skew things to support their position.

Sandhusker, the Creekstone issue is not one of telling them how they could or could not market, but that BSE tests are not approved for their purposes, nor for administration by non-government people. I believe NCBA is correct is asking that Creekstone not be allowed to use a test that implies a result which it cannot provide: showing whether young cattle do or do not carry BSE, and that tested beef is safer than non-tested beef.

MRJ

But NCBA has no problem with the implications of safety that hormone free presents..... :roll:

Please show us the policy or NCBA resolution that is the basis for that claim. I don't know what you reference.

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
MRJ said:
Who is surprised that NFU comes up with different take and that they and others who want ever more regulation and control disagree with USDA numbers? No surprise that they would find number crunchers to skew things to support their position.

Sandhusker, the Creekstone issue is not one of telling them how they could or could not market, but that BSE tests are not approved for their purposes, nor for administration by non-government people. I believe NCBA is correct is asking that Creekstone not be allowed to use a test that implies a result which it cannot provide: showing whether young cattle do or do not carry BSE, and that tested beef is safer than non-tested beef.

MRJ

But NCBA has no problem with the implications of safety that hormone free presents..... :roll:

Please show us the policy or NCBA resolution that is the basis for that claim. I don't know what you reference.

MRJ

Yeah, you do.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
MRJ said:
No surprise that they would find number crunchers to skew things to support their position.

And NCBA doesn't??????????????????????????

And AMI doesn't????????????????????????????

GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ, the packer lead NCBA holds the position that no one should tell producers how to market their cattle and yet they support the USDA doing just that.

Robert Mac has posted what information the NCBA has on grass fed cattle, which goes against the packer commodity beef programs. Why hasn't the NCBA supported this type of production system for producers? Instead, it is always the packer line. No support for producers unless they are towing the packer line.

Creekstone is another example, as they were not in the packer club.

You continually take up for packers, again, and again, at the expense of producers. You use arguments backwards and sideways to justify your positions, continually twisting for the packer line.

When farm organizations see what is happening to the producers in the country and provide that information, what do you do????---Dismiss it because it doesn't fit the packer line; just because they support the producers.

Van Dyke, GIPSA OIG report, Creekstone testing, gas packaging, bse testing, food safety issues, imported trim, etc......

Again and again, you support the packers over producers and consumers every time.

What was it?--a small little award from the NCBA that has gained you their allegiance ? You are bought so cheaply.

No, I don't have to be omniscient to see who you support, time and time again. When you see someone walking the city corners, taking money from Johns, and getting in the car, the picture is pretty obvious.

With "friends" like you, producers don't need enemies. The packers need only pull your strings to do their bidding.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 17, 2007 – Competitive livestock markets and a transparent agricultural marketplace are vital to sustaining the livelihoods of U.S. farmers and ranchers, the American Farm Bureau Federation told Congress today.

“Consolidation and concentration within the agricultural sector could have adverse economic impacts on U.S. farmers and ranchers,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman in testimony presented to a subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee. “It is important that markets be accessible to all producers and that they offer competitive prices.”

The landscape has changed tremendously for crop and livestock producers in recent decades, both in terms of input costs and in how they market their finished livestock, grain and fiber, according to AFBF.

Stallman cited trends that illustrate this, including the share of steer and heifer slaughter for the four largest beef packers increasing from 36 percent to 80 percent from 1980 to 2004 and the share of hog slaughter for the four largest packers increasing from 32 percent to 64 percent from 1985 to 2004. He also noted that four companies currently control 50 percent of the market for broilers, while the three largest soybean processors control more than 70 percent of that market.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The concentration number cited in the broiler industry is a little misleading.

In over 90% of the complexes, there is a geographical monopsony. This means that there is only one buyer for the producer. In many, many cases, where there is an overlap in complexes, there is implicit collusion between the companies who have that overlap so that one farmer who quits one company can not go to the other. Therefore, there is no competition of processors for producers. It is competition all one way only to the benefit of integrators.

Thus, the poultry industry has many, many more times the exertion of market power on the producer side than any of the other meats.

This is the reason poultry producers are getting the shaft---that and the fact that GIPSA will not even investigate Section 202 PSA claims.

What does this do for the beef industry? It makes poultry cheaper relatively and therefore gives that industry a comparative advantage.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association President John Queen went further, suggesting Congress should keep out of the marketing relationships between cattlemen and meat packers. "When it comes to market structure and competition issues, NCBA's position is simple," Queen testified. "We ask that the government not tell us how we can or cannot market our cattle."

The PSA does not limit cattle producers in how they market cattle. It does limit packers in their ability to use methods of procurement that cheats the market.

The NCBA again takes the packer line on this, hiding behind producers to get packer benefits that abuse producers.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
But NCBA has no problem with the implications of safety that hormone free presents..... :roll:

Please show us the policy or NCBA resolution that is the basis for that claim. I don't know what you reference.

MRJ

Yeah, you do.

Sandhusker, exactly how do you know that I know what you claim? How is it you can know what is in my mind when I can't recall the policy to which you refer? Maybe I could look it up, but am in a hurry. I ony have about a day and a half's worth of work to do cleaning winters debris out of my porch......before I go to bed tonight! If it is something I've stated previously, please refresh my memory, as it isn't coming up for me.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Maxine
Sandhusker, exactly how do you know that I know what you claim? How is it you can know what is in my mind when I can't recall the policy to which you refer? Maybe I could look it up, but am in a hurry. I ony have about a day and a half's worth of work to do cleaning winters debris out of my porch......before I go to bed tonight! If it is something I've stated previously, please refresh my memory, as it isn't coming up for me.

MRJ

Again the excuse of ignorance because I dont't have the time, or the reference material readily available, or the knowledge or whatever --- but you do seem to always have the time to make posts telling everyone else that they are wrong- altho the only reason you know they are wrong is because your NCBA handlers have told you that.... :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Con-woman, stop telling us all the little things you need to do around your house so you can just be dumb.

You don't need an excuse. You are what you are.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Boys, you should play nicely in your little sandbox!

On the issue of time, I'm self-employed, no staff, no employees to do the work while I play on the computer.

Posts since Feb. 2005:

RobertMac...........997
MRJ...................1959
Sandhusker........6482
Econ..................6867
OT.....................7793

Pretty easy to see who spends all the time making posts telling others what they should be thinking!

The gospel cattle/beef industry 'gospel' according to the 'big three'......may God forbid!!!!!

MRJ
 
Top