Schroeder Testifies For Cattlemen?

[Beefman]

We have the latter today. Either do what the top 5 do better, or hit 'em where they ain't.

Creekstone tried that- but the big money guaranteed the top 5 get it the way they want it- so much for your free enterprise :roll: ......

Creekstone has never offered an ounce of proof that with testing, they would've been able to ship anything. Besides, assuming they did get testing approval, the dominos would not have stopped falling until the entire industry is testing. With today's mounting losses on fed cattle, you want to throw another $25-$30 on top?

 

[blackjack]

...seems to me up here in canada... tyson and cargill are kinda like the yanks and the bosoxs...go bluejays...

 

[Sandhusker]

We have the latter today. Either do what the top 5 do better, or hit 'em where they ain't.

Creekstone tried that- but the big money guaranteed the top 5 get it the way they want it- so much for your free enterprise :roll: ......

Creekstone has never offered an ounce of proof that with testing, they would've been able to ship anything. Besides, assuming they did get testing approval, the dominos would not have stopped falling until the entire industry is testing. With today's mounting losses on fed cattle, you want to throw another $25-$30 on top?

Beefman, we KNOW the Japanese were asking the USDA for tested beef. We KNOW Creekstone was negotiating with Japanese importers. We KNOW Creekstone felt sure enough about the deal that they invested a couple million in a testing facility. The dots are pretty close if you want to connect them.

I don't think the entire industry would be testing. Tested beef would be an "extra", just like organic. Tested beef would cost more than non tested beef, just as organic costs more. Thus, organic didn't get the dominos falling, why would tested beef be any different?

 

[Econ101]

We have the latter today. Either do what the top 5 do better, or hit 'em where they ain't.

Creekstone tried that- but the big money guaranteed the top 5 get it the way they want it- so much for your free enterprise :roll: ......

Creekstone has never offered an ounce of proof that with testing, they would've been able to ship anything. Besides, assuming they did get testing approval, the dominos would not have stopped falling until the entire industry is testing. With today's mounting losses on fed cattle, you want to throw another $25-$30 on top?

The fact is the opportunity was taken away from the before it could materialize.

To say the opportunity would never have materialized and that others have to prove that it would have materialized after the opportunity is taken away is going a little far, Beefman.

You are starting to swim in the delusional world of SH.

You should know better, beefman.

 

[Econ101]

Not really RM...the LAW assesses the right and obligation to the PRESIDING judge to overrule a jury verdict if the verdict is NOT consistent with testimony rendered. Unfortunately that was the case with the Pickett jury. I cited numerous instances of the verdict being contrary to testimony and neither you or anyone else has demonstrated anything from the testimony to refute what I posted. You do want the law to be followed don't you? Don't try an Econ, you are way to smart to engage in that nonsense.

Are you saying that if the judge upheld the verdict and the Appellate Court ruled as they did you would be on this forum saying Pickett was wrong? Come on RM, you would just find another reason to complain. Have a cool one.

Agman, have I been here arguing the verdict? No, I haven't!!! I've argued the process. If due process followed the line I thought it should, would I agree with the verdict? No, I wouldn't....but I STILL wouldn't be here arguing the verdict. Court rulings are what they are...except them and move on to the next battle. I don't think we can sue fairness into the market place...R-CALF should concentrate on forcing the bureaucrats to enforce the laws that are in place (and this should also be the goal of NCBA). And it seems obvious, laws aren't being enforced.

My problem is with 5 companies being close to 90% of the market. Is there competition...well, yes, but look at it this way...
If you were in a race with 5 other cars, the worst you could finish is 6th.
If you were in a race with 43 cars, the worst you could finish is 43rd.
In which race would you have more competition?
In which race would the fans(consumers) have a better chance of getting their money's worth?
If the rules were skewed/interpreted to favor the deep pocket, multi-team companies, what would be your chance of being competitive?

The governing bodies of the market place have to decide which kind of capitalism there should be...corporate capitalism with a handful of companies servicing the majority of the market or free enterprise capitalism where many companies have an equal, competitive chance at satisfying the consumer.

RM, I know you asked Agman for a response, and his will be better than mine. Plus, he's got car racing in his blood. However, if I may, here's my two bits worth.

Beef and car racing. Two great past times. We can make a nice analogy here. Car racing is competitive from your local dirt track up to the Nextel Cup. Give me a local 3/8 or ½ mile dirt track and the World of Outlaws racing sprint cars anytime. Preferably in Belleville, KS home of the world's fastest ½ mile dirt track.

RM: If you were in a race with 5 other cars, the worst you could finish is 6th. If you were in a race with 43 cars, the worst you could finish is 43rd. In which race would you have more competition?

The number of cars you need for a competitive race is 2. They right set of 6 racers can make a hell of a race. Finishing 4th in a tight race of 6 is more meaningful than finishing 42 in a field of 43. The only thing you have in a field of 43 is more cars. The number of cars does not dictate whether or not a race is competitive.

Likewise, if 5 companies have 90% of the beef market, having (say) 20 companies bidding on cattle / marketing beef doesn't mean the market is any more / less competitive. I could go buy an old 76 Camaro, pull the body off, and mount it on a racing frame. Just because I can't race side by side against Jimmy Johnson doesn't mean I can't be competitive as some level. There is a level somewhere I CAN compete, just as there's an entry level somewhere for entry into the beef biz. It's my job ( producers) to find out where I'm most competitive.

RM: In which race would the fans(consumers) have a better chance of getting their money's worth?

Have you ever attended a major NASCAR event with (close to) 43 cars? See all those people in the stands with radio headsets on, listening to the conversations involving their favorite driver? Wanna bet that most of those fans are tuned in to the conversations of the same 5 or 6 drivers? They're watching their favorite(s), and ignoring the others. Now go into the parking lot….see all the tailgaters, flags, grills, etc. Ever wonder why 80% of the fans display flags, tents, etc for Dale Jr? Does Dale's team have more cash to spend than the others? Probably so. His team promotes how they see fit. That's marketing. Doesn't mean racing is any more / less competitive. NASCAR does a great job of marketing. That's why most of their major events are sold out, and the face value of tickets is close to $200.

Likewise, we're handed a report card in the beef industry every time consumers buy our product. They have more choices than ever before. The pork and poultry people aren't standing still, and neither can we.

RM: If the rules were skewed/interpreted to favor the deep pocket, multi-team companies, what would be your chance of being competitive?

You've just described professional baseball, not racing, and not the beef industry.


Bottom line, there's competition, and entry points in all facets of beef production, as there is in car racing. Can you and I buy a packing plant today and compete in the marketplace tomorrow against Tyson, Cargil, etc? If we get our heads handed to us in three weeks, whose fault is that? We either hit 'em where they ain't, or do what they do better. We can figure out ways to value add, make a little money and survive. The recent edition of Drovers Journal listed 53 different alliances for marketing value added beef. Several of these avenues are someone other than the top 5. Someone figured out how to hit 'em where they ain't or do what they do better. The beef industry has several entry points for opportunity, as does car racing. In 20 years from now, the survivors will be the ones that followed this strategy. The complainers in 20 years will likely be the descendants of the complainers we have today. Funny how genetics work. As you stated, we won't sue fairness into the marketplace. Fear can be a powerful motivator. You have two options, get PO'd and complain, or, hit 'em where they ain't or do what they do better. There's lots of opportunity in the beef industry today.


RM: The governing bodies of the market place have to decide which kind of capitalism there should be...corporate capitalism with a handful of companies servicing the majority of the market or free enterprise capitalism where many companies have an equal, competitive chance at satisfying the consumer.

We have the latter today. Either do what the top 5 do better, or hit 'em where they ain't.

The problem with your scenario, Beefman, is that like Creekstone not being allowed to test for bse, the opportunities for those "entry" ports are closed being instead of allowing additional competition. Competition between the top 5 might be good for the top 5, but it is not good for everyone else, especially the spectators (producers).

I still agree with Robert Mac, I don't want to see a race with only the top 5. I would rather see a fair race with a lot of competitors that don't break or bend the rules to keep the status quo of the top 5 in thier positions, even if they are "competing" with the other top 4 racers.

The question isn't whether or not the top 4 or 5 are competing, it is whether or not they are competing fairly.

 

[Beefman]

Creekstone tried that- but the big money guaranteed the top 5 get it the way they want it- so much for your free enterprise :roll: ......

Creekstone has never offered an ounce of proof that with testing, they would've been able to ship anything. Besides, assuming they did get testing approval, the dominos would not have stopped falling until the entire industry is testing. With today's mounting losses on fed cattle, you want to throw another $25-$30 on top?

Beefman, we KNOW the Japanese were asking the USDA for tested beef. We KNOW Creekstone was negotiating with Japanese importers. We KNOW Creekstone felt sure enough about the deal that they invested a couple million in a testing facility. The dots are pretty close if you want to connect them.

I don't think the entire industry would be testing. Tested beef would be an "extra", just like organic. Tested beef would cost more than non tested beef, just as organic costs more. Thus, organic didn't get the dominos falling, why would tested beef be any different?

We also know the Japanese recently stated (w/i the past month) they had not agreed to take tested beef.

This subject has been argued for two years on this site. You and I will probably never agree. It's like you're going to wear red on game day, and I'm in purple. Hear me out anyway.

The Japanese are not unlike us. Their consumers are fickle, and they're tough negotiators. Their bse situation is different from ours. Clearly, the Japanese gov't is frying in their own grease over this, as MBM bans were ignored up until the day of their first case. THis will be a protracted situation. BSE testing means one more sort in the meat cooler, and there's nothing to indicated they'll pay more for it. Of course they'll ask for tested beef, as they'd also like hormone free beef. They won't, however, pay any more for it. The cost will be ours.

Assume we do test for Japan. THe domino effect is a real risk. All those anti beef groups that gladly climbed inside R CAlf's trogan horse.......if we started testing for bse for Japan, they'd be salivating profusely. How will the industry respond to the question "why are you testing for Japan, but not the US"?

BSE testing is a signifantly different marketing situation than an organic message. Metropolitian grocery stores are full of organic / natural juice, lettuce, milk, etc. There's a story attached to natural / organic that some find appealing. Beef is catching up. It's a niche market that's gaining traction in the larger retail stores. Tieing a marketing message to a disease entity.....which we know doesn't exist in the product......is dangerous. When consumers push their cart to the meat counter, they have lots of choices. It's always a real education to listen to the conversations between the counter help, and the consumer. Last week, I heard a consumer ask about "smart chicken". THe package details processing, rinse and chill methods yielding a fresher, better tasting bird. THe counter help said "it's all my wife will let me bring home". Sold. Two birds in the cart, at 3x the price. How is the industry / beef councils going to train the counter help to detail bse tested vs non tested beef? The customer is going to say....heck with this, give the the pork chops instead.

 

[Mike]

We have the latter today. Either do what the top 5 do better, or hit 'em where they ain't.

Creekstone tried that- but the big money guaranteed the top 5 get it the way they want it- so much for your free enterprise :roll: ......

Creekstone has never offered an ounce of proof that with testing, they would've been able to ship anything. Besides, assuming they did get testing approval, the dominos would not have stopped falling until the entire industry is testing. With today's mounting losses on fed cattle, you want to throw another $25-$30 on top?

Beefman, U.S. Premium Beef just recently quit paying the $25 premium for source verified beef for export shipment. There goes your $25-$30 thrown in. :???: :???: :???: :???: :???: :???:

 

[agman]

Creekstone tried that- but the big money guaranteed the top 5 get it the way they want it- so much for your free enterprise :roll: ......

Creekstone has never offered an ounce of proof that with testing, they would've been able to ship anything. Besides, assuming they did get testing approval, the dominos would not have stopped falling until the entire industry is testing. With today's mounting losses on fed cattle, you want to throw another $25-$30 on top?

Beefman, U.S. Premium Beef just recently quit paying the $25 premium for source verified beef for export shipment. There goes your $25-$30 thrown in. :???: :???: :???: :???: :???: :???:

If there are no exports why would or should they they continue to pay that premium?

 

[Econ101]

Beefman:

1. Assume we do test for Japan. THe domino effect is a real risk. All those anti beef groups that gladly climbed inside R CAlf's trogan horse.......if we started testing for bse for Japan, they'd be salivating profusely. How will the industry respond to the question "why are you testing for Japan, but not the US"?

2.BSE testing is a signifantly different marketing situation than an organic message. Metropolitian grocery stores are full of organic / natural juice, lettuce, milk, etc. There's a story attached to natural / organic that some find appealing. Beef is catching up. It's a niche market that's gaining traction in the larger retail stores. Tieing a marketing message to a disease entity.....which we know doesn't exist in the product......is dangerous. When consumers push their cart to the meat counter, they have lots of choices. It's always a real education to listen to the conversations between the counter help, and the consumer. Last week, I heard a consumer ask about "smart chicken". THe package details processing, rinse and chill methods yielding a fresher, better tasting bird. THe counter help said "it's all my wife will let me bring home". Sold. Two birds in the cart, at 3x the price. How is the industry / beef councils going to train the counter help to detail bse tested vs non tested beef? The customer is going to say....heck with this, give the the pork chops instead

1. Beefman, so what if consumers ask for tested beef? Then we might be able to provide the assurance of food safety that the USDA has been unwilling and unable to accomplish, even though it is their federal mandate and the one of the main reasons for their existence. They have been building a bureaucracy of education (it is hard to imagine they are qualified for that one), price supports, regulatory agencies that do not preform, and all sorts of federal involvement in the industry that has WASTED taxpayer dollars and benefited a small minority. Maybe they could ask chicken to test for arsenic, antibiotics, and drug resistent bactieria while they are at it. Pork could be safer as well. Then a test for the abuse of market power and its exertion against producers might be in order. Their little rigged economic studies are just not cutting it.

When the USDA gets a little more credibility with diseases like bse instead of the political games, maybe Japan will not ask for full testing. Maybe they will not need to.

This deal has been so mishandled by the USDA that it will probably take a lot to get the Japanese customer back. That is what happens when you try to hoodwink your customers. Australia stepped in with a plan to counter all of these problems and you denigrate the post where I show how they did it. The additional $30.00 per head amounts to 3.5 cents per lb. on an 882 lb. hanging weight. I don't think that is going to prevent the Japanese customer from buying U.S. beef, the safety issue will and is, however.

The trojan horse here is not rcalf. It is a USDA that is looking after the few industry leaders at the expense of the rest of the industry (producers).

2. Maybe the market should be allowed to educate the consumer. Did you ever think about that? Johanns prevented that from happening with bse testing. These things usually come from the bottom up, not the top down. The USDA prevented this from happening based on the fear that the bse testing program may have been a fraud all along. Diseases should not be hidden. They should be looked for and properly managed. To hide them because it might cost you more money might cost you more money in the long run. We are already finding that out with the most lucrative market for exported beef in the world---Japan. Why repeat the same mistakes?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Assume we do test for Japan. THe domino effect is a real risk. All those anti beef groups that gladly climbed inside R CAlf's trogan horse.......if we started testing for bse for Japan, they'd be salivating profusely. How will the industry respond to the question "why are you testing for Japan, but not the US"?

Good question. Why aren't we testing EVERY SINGLE over 24 month animal that hits consumer shelves in North America? We can guarantee the population that we are doing EVERYTHING possible to ensure the safety of the product, and as the BSE tests become more refined and are able to detect BSE in younger animals, we reduce the age limit down. If it turns out that BSE simply doesn't exist in the younger animals, at least not in a form that could even be remotely transmitted to humans, then we've covered all bases.

Rod

 

[Mike]

Creekstone has never offered an ounce of proof that with testing, they would've been able to ship anything. Besides, assuming they did get testing approval, the dominos would not have stopped falling until the entire industry is testing. With today's mounting losses on fed cattle, you want to throw another $25-$30 on top?

Beefman, U.S. Premium Beef just recently quit paying the $25 premium for source verified beef for export shipment. There goes your $25-$30 thrown in. :???: :???: :???: :???: :???: :???:

If there are no exports why would or should they they continue to pay that premium?

I'm not saying they should continue the premiums. But Beefman mentioned losing $25-$30 bucks per head if testing were to happen. I just threw this in to show that we are losing this amount without testing too.

It's like the chicken and egg story.

 

[Anonymous]

And Beefman- According to the NCBA President, producers are losing $175 per head on every animal slaughtered while the Asian market is closed....

And we know that NCBA folk are never wrong :wink:

 

[Beefman]

Beefman:

1. Assume we do test for Japan. THe domino effect is a real risk. All those anti beef groups that gladly climbed inside R CAlf's trogan horse.......if we started testing for bse for Japan, they'd be salivating profusely. How will the industry respond to the question "why are you testing for Japan, but not the US"?

2.BSE testing is a signifantly different marketing situation than an organic message. Metropolitian grocery stores are full of organic / natural juice, lettuce, milk, etc. There's a story attached to natural / organic that some find appealing. Beef is catching up. It's a niche market that's gaining traction in the larger retail stores. Tieing a marketing message to a disease entity.....which we know doesn't exist in the product......is dangerous. When consumers push their cart to the meat counter, they have lots of choices. It's always a real education to listen to the conversations between the counter help, and the consumer. Last week, I heard a consumer ask about "smart chicken". THe package details processing, rinse and chill methods yielding a fresher, better tasting bird. THe counter help said "it's all my wife will let me bring home". Sold. Two birds in the cart, at 3x the price. How is the industry / beef councils going to train the counter help to detail bse tested vs non tested beef? The customer is going to say....heck with this, give the the pork chops instead

1. Beefman, so what if consumers ask for tested beef? Then we might be able to provide the assurance of food safety that the USDA has been unwilling and unable to accomplish, even though it is their federal mandate and the one of the main reasons for their existence. They have been building a bureaucracy of education (it is hard to imagine they are qualified for that one), price supports, regulatory agencies that do not preform, and all sorts of federal involvement in the industry that has WASTED taxpayer dollars and benefited a small minority. Maybe they could ask chicken to test for arsenic, antibiotics, and drug resistent bactieria while they are at it. Pork could be safer as well. Then a test for the abuse of market power and its exertion against producers might be in order. Their little rigged economic studies are just not cutting it.

When the USDA gets a little more credibility with diseases like bse instead of the political games, maybe Japan will not ask for full testing. Maybe they will not need to.

This deal has been so mishandled by the USDA that it will probably take a lot to get the Japanese customer back. That is what happens when you try to hoodwink your customers. Australia stepped in with a plan to counter all of these problems and you denigrate the post where I show how they did it. The additional $30.00 per head amounts to 3.5 cents per lb. on an 882 lb. hanging weight. I don't think that is going to prevent the Japanese customer from buying U.S. beef, the safety issue will and is, however.

The trojan horse here is not rcalf. It is a USDA that is looking after the few industry leaders at the expense of the rest of the industry (producers).

2. Maybe the market should be allowed to educate the consumer. Did you ever think about that? Johanns prevented that from happening with bse testing. These things usually come from the bottom up, not the top down. The USDA prevented this from happening based on the fear that the bse testing program may have been a fraud all along. Diseases should not be hidden. They should be looked for and properly managed. To hide them because it might cost you more money might cost you more money in the long run. We are already finding that out with the most lucrative market for exported beef in the world---Japan. Why repeat the same mistakes?

I have attended meetings where DVM's and statisticians from the USDA and the various state vet diagnostic labs have detailed the current level of bse testing in 12-18 month old animals. At the 99% confidence level, if 5 cases of bse exist in our entire cattle population, current testing levels indicate we should be able to find it. I'll trust their expertise to your fear mongering anyday.

You ever read Ace Reid's "Cowpokes" cartoons? Several years back, he created the "OSHA Cowboy", where the cowboy was in full body armour, sitting on a horse with a roll cage. All kinds of alarms and whistles were attached in case of accident. In typical Ace Reid fashion, it was a very funny depiction.

Looks like Ace needs to creat the "Econ Begone" burger in your honor. And we can feed it to the 4 or 5 people nationally that're asking for bse tested meat.

 

[Econ101]

Beefman:

1. Assume we do test for Japan. THe domino effect is a real risk. All those anti beef groups that gladly climbed inside R CAlf's trogan horse.......if we started testing for bse for Japan, they'd be salivating profusely. How will the industry respond to the question "why are you testing for Japan, but not the US"?

2.BSE testing is a signifantly different marketing situation than an organic message. Metropolitian grocery stores are full of organic / natural juice, lettuce, milk, etc. There's a story attached to natural / organic that some find appealing. Beef is catching up. It's a niche market that's gaining traction in the larger retail stores. Tieing a marketing message to a disease entity.....which we know doesn't exist in the product......is dangerous. When consumers push their cart to the meat counter, they have lots of choices. It's always a real education to listen to the conversations between the counter help, and the consumer. Last week, I heard a consumer ask about "smart chicken". THe package details processing, rinse and chill methods yielding a fresher, better tasting bird. THe counter help said "it's all my wife will let me bring home". Sold. Two birds in the cart, at 3x the price. How is the industry / beef councils going to train the counter help to detail bse tested vs non tested beef? The customer is going to say....heck with this, give the the pork chops instead

1. Beefman, so what if consumers ask for tested beef? Then we might be able to provide the assurance of food safety that the USDA has been unwilling and unable to accomplish, even though it is their federal mandate and the one of the main reasons for their existence. They have been building a bureaucracy of education (it is hard to imagine they are qualified for that one), price supports, regulatory agencies that do not preform, and all sorts of federal involvement in the industry that has WASTED taxpayer dollars and benefited a small minority. Maybe they could ask chicken to test for arsenic, antibiotics, and drug resistent bactieria while they are at it. Pork could be safer as well. Then a test for the abuse of market power and its exertion against producers might be in order. Their little rigged economic studies are just not cutting it.

When the USDA gets a little more credibility with diseases like bse instead of the political games, maybe Japan will not ask for full testing. Maybe they will not need to.

This deal has been so mishandled by the USDA that it will probably take a lot to get the Japanese customer back. That is what happens when you try to hoodwink your customers. Australia stepped in with a plan to counter all of these problems and you denigrate the post where I show how they did it. The additional $30.00 per head amounts to 3.5 cents per lb. on an 882 lb. hanging weight. I don't think that is going to prevent the Japanese customer from buying U.S. beef, the safety issue will and is, however.

The trojan horse here is not rcalf. It is a USDA that is looking after the few industry leaders at the expense of the rest of the industry (producers).

2. Maybe the market should be allowed to educate the consumer. Did you ever think about that? Johanns prevented that from happening with bse testing. These things usually come from the bottom up, not the top down. The USDA prevented this from happening based on the fear that the bse testing program may have been a fraud all along. Diseases should not be hidden. They should be looked for and properly managed. To hide them because it might cost you more money might cost you more money in the long run. We are already finding that out with the most lucrative market for exported beef in the world---Japan. Why repeat the same mistakes?

I have attended meetings where DVM's and statisticians from the USDA and the various state vet diagnostic labs have detailed the current level of bse testing in 12-18 month old animals. At the 99% confidence level, if 5 cases of bse exist in our entire cattle population, current testing levels indicate we should be able to find it. I'll trust their expertise to your fear mongering anyday.

You ever read Ace Reid's "Cowpokes" cartoons? Several years back, he created the "OSHA Cowboy", where the cowboy was in full body armour, sitting on a horse with a roll cage. All kinds of alarms and whistles were attached in case of accident. In typical Ace Reid fashion, it was a very funny depiction.

Looks like Ace needs to creat the "Econ Begone" burger in your honor. And we can feed it to the 4 or 5 people nationally that're asking for bse tested meat.

It looks like there are just too many excuses coming out of the USDA, beefman. Maybe you could name one an "Excuse Burger" for the USDA and your little packer buddies. The damage of handing out more excuses than results is adding up for the producers. I know it doesn't really matter to the "margin makers", they want a little more supply than demand so they can push the market down again or let GIPSA to remain in name only so Tyson can run the poultry production prices down and then tell the beef people they have to compete with lower priced chicken.

I think we are all tired of eating the "Excuse Burger", beefman. We all want to know "where's the beef"!