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

Senators Support USDA's new GIPSA Rules

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker: "Why wouldn't NCBA show up, SH? It's one thing to issue written talking points, it's another to stand up and defend/debate them against a foe in front of a live audience."

I'm quite sure NCBA representatives have better things to do with their time than to accept R-CALF's school yard challenge to debate Bill Bullard in Gordon, NE. Good grief!

Personally, I think their time would be better spent gathering facts and issuing position statements to stop this arrogant "SAVE THE FEEDING INDUSTRY FROM THEMSELVES" legislation.

I only wish the same rules applies to the sale of feeder calves so the R-CALFERS could reap the benefits of the socialized marketing agenda they advocate for the feeding industry.


Sandhusker: "Maybe the travel was a problem? They couldn't figure out how to get the checkoff to pay for the 5 hour drive to Gordon?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh gosh you're funny.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Perhaps they'd rather debate a more formidable opponent than an organization that has lost every court battle.


SECOND CALL.....

SHOW ME THE PROOF WHERE PRODUCERS ON AVERAGE RECEIVED LESS MONEY ON THE GRID THAN THROUGH THE CASH MARKET.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
It wasn't R-CALF's challenge, it was from Jim Lambley of KSDZ radio.

NCBA had better things to do than actually back the talking points they share with AMI? "Having better things to do" is a pretty weak excuse.

You want proof on grid pricing? Do a Google search.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Surely the radio station personnel in Gordon, NE knows their audience and knows the slant of arguments that generate controversy as being popular with some people. That goal (the notoriety generated by controversy) just possibly had more to do with the 'invitation' than did motivation to inform people.

NCBA leaders have been shouted down, NOT debated down, in previous 'invitations' from R-CALF promoters.....complete with cat calls and thinly veiled threats.

Why would any logical person willingly walk into a stacked deck situation which literally leaves the stage to the person willing to be the rudest at interrupting, and the loudest at shouting, with strongly opinionated convictions and little reliance on factual information?

mrj
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
What about customers who sold their cattle to Creekstone Farms? Those same people that you think I should listen to did all they could to deny Creekstone a niche market that could of been very profitable for them and my customers. I've seen their colors.

What has Creekstone got to do with this? I supported Creekstone and their "quest to test". This is a totally different issue.

You would do well to read and listen to those who are bringing the facts to the table and then making up your own mind instead of blindly supporting something just because NCBA is opposing.

Do you honestly think there will be ANY grid based premiums if this goes forward?

You're the one that wanted to inject my client's welfare into the discussion. I brought up Creekstone as an example to show where the guys that I'm supposed to be taking talking points from went completely against my client's best interests.... again.

What grid-based premium? It's been shown that producers, on average, received LESS on the grid.
:roll: Incredible :roll:

Would that be the times that they simply didnt meet the grids criteria?
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
It wasn't R-CALF's challenge, it was from Jim Lambley of KSDZ radio.

NCBA had better things to do than actually back the talking points they share with AMI? "Having better things to do" is a pretty weak excuse.

You want proof on grid pricing? Do a Google search.

I took your advice, and googled "grid pricing". 14,600 hits. First deal with car pricing, next three dealt with fed cattle. The concurrent theme is those that can learn from carcass data results, and utilize this information to make ranch improvements are improving their bottom line results today.

Next time you visit the local salebarn, or watch a Superior sale, notice any pricing differentials on calves that are age and source verified.....qualify for natural programs, have a history of grading well.......qualify for CAB, Cert Hereford, and a host of other branded programs, and see how these calves sell. Any idea why these calves top the market? (hint, they're worth more finished).

http://beefmagazine.com/markets/2010-alliance-yellow-pages/ You really need to check this site out. To claim "producers, on average, received LESS on the grid" is not factual information.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker: "You want proof on grid pricing? Do a Google search."

Yup, just as I thought. Another bullet dodged by the "Master of Illusion".


Tell me Sandhusker, if grid pricing has been proven to pay less than the cash market, why did USPB members receive around $25 aerage in carcass premiums during their first years?

How do you explain that? You can't, you just repeat the R-CALF mantra you hear.

Producers use grid pricing so they don't have to take an AVERAGE PRICE and if you actually fed cattle, you would know that.

Arrogant sale barn managers and cow calf men who have never fed their own cattle or bought cattle and fed them out in a feedlot have no right to tell those of us who have the manner in which we can market those cattle.

"WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU" - Typical R-CALF!

That's why I am proud not to be a member of R-CALF! I don't need them to tell me or any other feeder how to market fat cattle.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cowboys Versus Packers This Week -- And We're Not Talking Football



Mabel Dobbs, Rancher from Weiser, Idaho, and Chair of Western Organization of Resource Councils on The Huffington Post - August 25, 2010 07:38 PM



A tiny handful of giant meatpackers and processors have been underpaying and unfairly treating livestock producers for decades. These packers control the livestock markets and their market power harms independent producers and the prosperity of rural communities.



In 1921, when Congress passed the Packers & Stockyards Act, it was the most comprehensive antitrust legislation enacted in this country. Back then, five companies controlled between 75% and 80% of all interstate livestock slaughter. Today, the livestock packing industry is even more concentrated. Three packing companies control over 80% of all livestock slaughter and have taken control of the marketplace in beef and hogs.



These companies manipulate the market and keep the real prices they pay for hogs and cattle a secret. Packers use livestock they own or control under contract, known was captive supplies, to drive down prices to livestock producers. When the cattle prices are high, packers slaughter the cattle they already own or control. When the prices are low, they slaughter my cattle.



This manipulation impedes the ability of ranchers to earn a decent price for their cattle sold on the cash market. A 2006 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that use of captive supplies cost cattle producers $69 per head and hog producers $32 per head. In total, captive supplies cost family farmers and ranchers nearly $2 billion in 2006--four years later those losses continue to increase.



USDA needs to address the market power of the large packers. The agency should develop an open and competitive market by requiring packers to pay a firm bid price for all livestock they procure and require them to sell livestock in an open public market where all buyers and sellers have access.



Ranchers from around the country are gathering in Fort Collins this week to focus on corporate concentration and lack of competition in the livestock industry. On Thursday, August 26, ranchers are joining with meatpacking workers, consumers, urban farmers, and food justice activists for a Public Forum to Save Rural America and Family Ranching. Sponsored by the Western Organization of Resource Councils, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, R-CALF, and Food & Water Watch, the forum begins at 7 p.m. in the Marriott Hotel of Fort Collins, 350 East Horsetooth Road.



Then, on Friday, ranchers have an opportunity to voice their concerns during a



USDA and Department of Justice workshop, "Agriculture and Antitrust Enforcement Issues in Our 21st Century Economy: Livestock." The workshop begins at 9 a.m., at Colorado State University, Lory Student Center, 1101 Centre Avenue Mall.



Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division Christine Varney, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will participate in the workshop.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
And Mabel Dobbs, the Western Organization of Resource Councils, AND the Huffing Post are bastions of accuracy and honesty regarding what????

Re. Grid Pricing and paying more for better QUALITY in cattle.....what is going to reward the producers who are doing that when packers are forced to pay "equally" for cattle????

I notice that many producers of quality seedstock, feeder calves, fed cattle, and who produce quality cattle in pot load numbers are pretty well united AGAINST this attempt to make all cattle 'equal' by government decree!

Is anyone else wondering how much government money is being spent to get those union promoters to that meeting held yesterday in Ft. Collins, as well as to the government 'workshop' today???

Who among the ag producers on this forum are eager to have a group of "food justice activists" tell us how much our cattle are worth????

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
These companies manipulate the market and keep the real prices they pay for hogs and cattle a secret. Packers use livestock they own or control under contract, known was captive supplies, to drive down prices to livestock producers. When the cattle prices are high, packers slaughter the cattle they already own or control. When the prices are low, they slaughter my cattle.

This manipulation impedes the ability of ranchers to earn a decent price for their cattle sold on the cash market. A 2006 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that use of captive supplies cost cattle producers $69 per head and hog producers $32 per head. In total, captive supplies cost family farmers and ranchers nearly $2 billion in 2006--four years later those losses continue to increase.


$69 per head but when the financial records were subpoenaed into court during "pickett vs. ibp", those records showed a $16 per head profit.

These packer blamers and their lies have kept this industry from moving forward. Yes, they are lies. When you continue to spread something like this after court documents prove otherwise, it's a lie.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
These companies manipulate the market and keep the real prices they pay for hogs and cattle a secret. Packers use livestock they own or control under contract, known was captive supplies, to drive down prices to livestock producers. When the cattle prices are high, packers slaughter the cattle they already own or control. When the prices are low, they slaughter my cattle.

This manipulation impedes the ability of ranchers to earn a decent price for their cattle sold on the cash market. A 2006 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that use of captive supplies cost cattle producers $69 per head and hog producers $32 per head. In total, captive supplies cost family farmers and ranchers nearly $2 billion in 2006--four years later those losses continue to increase.


$69 per head but when the financial records were subpoenaed into court during "pickett vs. ibp", those records showed a $16 per head profit.

These packer blamers and their lies have kept this industry from moving forward. Yes, they are lies. When you continue to spread something like this after court documents prove otherwise, it's a lie.


~SH~

So the USDA are packer blamers and liars?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
These companies manipulate the market and keep the real prices they pay for hogs and cattle a secret. Packers use livestock they own or control under contract, known was captive supplies, to drive down prices to livestock producers. When the cattle prices are high, packers slaughter the cattle they already own or control. When the prices are low, they slaughter my cattle.

This manipulation impedes the ability of ranchers to earn a decent price for their cattle sold on the cash market. A 2006 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that use of captive supplies cost cattle producers $69 per head and hog producers $32 per head. In total, captive supplies cost family farmers and ranchers nearly $2 billion in 2006--four years later those losses continue to increase.


$69 per head but when the financial records were subpoenaed into court during "pickett vs. ibp", those records showed a $16 per head profit.

These packer blamers and their lies have kept this industry from moving forward. Yes, they are lies. When you continue to spread something like this after court documents prove otherwise, it's a lie.


~SH~

So the USDA are packer blamers and liars?

I saw that too, Sandhusker.

What am I missing here? The $69 figure above is supposed to represent what captive supply costs the producer per head and Scott is comparing that to a $16 per head profit? Help me understand. :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's quite simple Mike.

If Captive Supplies were costing cattle producers $69 per head, ibp's profits would have been much higher than $16 per head based on subpoenoed financial records. If someone had actually lost $69 per head due to captive supplies, someone else had to make $69 per head. I would be just as accurate in stating that captive supplies gained producers $69 per head.

USDA never stated that captive supplies HAVE cost ALL cattle producers $69 per head which is what is being implied here. This statement was taken out of context in typical R-CALF fashion. If the $69 per head figure was accurate don't you think that would have been compelling evidence in "pickett vs. ibp". It's more R-CALF bullcrap to further their agenda of socializing the cattle markets.

For the record, "Captive Supplies" do not include grid pricing cattle. Captive supplies was defined by GIPSA as those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.
R-CALF can't change the definition of "captive supplies" to include grid cattle. Captive supplies has already been defined and that's exactly how it was stated in the packer blamer's infamous Johnson Amendment.


~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
mj...Is anyone else wondering how much government money is being spent to get those union promoters to that meeting held yesterday in Ft. Collins, as well as to the government 'workshop' today???


Who knows, they might have their own checkoff account they can dip into like the NCBA.
 

BRG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
North Western SD
These proposed Gipsa rules scare me to death. If their will be no difference in cattle price, why would anyone want to produce better than average cattle?

I witness time and time again that calves that are vaccinated correct, source and aged tagged, have a history to them or all the above recieve a huge premium over the average calf. If these rulles go through, that will eventially go away.
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central SD
So far, I think this is just Wolf Wolf!
I have not taken sides with this issue or formed an opinion. I believe when this law is implemented we most likely won't see much difference in the way we sell and price our cattle. The ones that make the most money in the end will still be worth the most. The grids will still be there. We have quallity grades set up for most everything, there just needs to be more transparity so we can learn what to produce, and the price we can expect.

The Central Public Markets and the people like Don Cunningham are long gone. Today to do a good job of marketing cattle, you have to be computer savvy and spend more time in the office then being out wadding out hay.

Here, way back in the early 1970's we started backgrounding our calves getting them bunk broke and giving them their shots. Even though we had them past their stress stage, we didn't receive any more for them when we sold. Finally in the past ten years or so feeders have come to realize these cattle are worth more to them.

Imay be wrong, but the way I see it, a feeder may have three buyers come look at his cattle and make an offer. The three may have had coffee together the morning before and decided what they would pay. The seller has little clue.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Clarencen said:
So far, I think this is just Wolf Wolf!
I have not taken sides with this issue or formed an opinion. I believe when this law is implemented we most likely won't see much difference in the way we sell and price our cattle. The ones that make the most money in the end will still be worth the most. The grids will still be there. We have quallity grades set up for most everything, there just needs to be more transparity so we can learn what to produce, and the price we can expect.

.


Every new law that is passed costs $$. Someone will have to pay the additional costs. What are the chances it will be the larger corporations? Who will become more "competitive"?

In a lot of cases the majority (if not all) extra cost, only goes to pay for the added cost of administration and expense of enforcing the new "law".
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central SD
It is going to provide more government jobs. It will take more people out of those who produce. Our production is what holds our economy up. The government will not continue to float unless we have a good economy. Our government does not produce wealth.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/0903-r-calfs-unholy-alliances/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I have to chuckle- with NCBA now screaming and whining about "enviromentalists"-- when several years ago they crawled in bed with the Nature Conservancy- to help some of their members be able to better profiteer with conservation easements- which in this part of the country is only going to fasttrack putting that land in the hand of the enviromentalists...



Group Calls NCBA Attack Desperate Attempt to Deflect Attention Away From Its Cheating With Checkoff Dollars



Source: R-CALF USA - Sept 1, 2010



Billings, Mont. - In a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) stands accused of cheating and misusing government-mandated Beef Checkoff Program dollars, NCBA has resurrected its tiresome attack against R-CALF USA for working with consumer groups such as Food & Water Watch.



When R-CALF USA worked with Food & Water Watch, the Consumers Federation of America and numerous other consumer groups to pass country-of-origin labeling earlier this decade and then joined with these same consumer groups in a 2007 lawsuit to prevent the introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or BSE disease) from imported Canadian cattle, NCBA cried loudly that R-CALF USA was working with the enemy.



"This is absurd," said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. "These consumer groups represent thousands of consumers who happen to be the very people we depend on to eat beef. If we are to improve beef demand, we must promote our product and explain how we raise our product to the members of these groups. What better way to accomplish this than to work directly with these groups to better demonstrate that the U.S.
cattle industry is serious about continuing to raise the safest, most wholesome beef in the world and under the best of conditions?"




Bullard said that R-CALF USA learned long ago that its effectiveness in preventing the multinational meatpackers and their closely aligned trade associations, including NCBA, from capturing control of the live cattle supply chain - just as they have already captured control over the poultry and hog supply chains - is dependent on building coalitions with numerous organizations that agree with R-CALF USA's positions on particular issues.



"We succeeded in passing country-of-origin labeling because we built a coalition of hundreds of various groups - including Food & Water Watch - that support this issue and we succeeding in delaying, for several years, the meatpackers' efforts to prematurely relax our BSE restrictions, again by building a huge coalition," he pointed out. "Recently, we formed a coalition of dozens of groups, again including Food & Water Watch, to prevent the government from importing fresh beef and cattle from Brazil, a country still fighting foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). And, now, we're continuing to build a coalition to support USDA's (U.S. Department of Agriculture's) GIPSA (Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration) rule that will halt the erosion of competition in the U.S. cattle market."



Bullard explained that the meatpackers hate USDA's proposed rule because it would require them to be accountable for their cattle procurement practices, requires meatpackers to keep records so USDA can determine if they are in compliance with the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), requires them to be transparent in their marketing practices, and it prohibits certain known, anticompetitive behavior that he said is pervasive in the marketplace where slaughter-ready cattle are sold to packers.



Bullard also said that Food & Water Watch has independently compiled research showing how the growing spread between the price of fed cattle and the price of beef that consumers pay at the grocery store demonstrates that under our current industry structure, the packing and retailing sectors are exploiting both consumers and producers.



"NCBA is supporting the meatpackers' efforts to kill the proposed GIPSA rule, and a June audit of NCBA's management of the government-mandated Beef Checkoff Program revealed that NCBA has misused funds contributed by every cattle producer in America.



"NCBA has breached the trust of every U.S. cattle producer, and rather than to repay the funds the audit indicated were used inappropriately, including NCBA's lobbying influence that is facilitated and greatly enhanced by its receipt of Beef Checkoff funds, NCBA is desperately trying to restore its lost credibility, but it is only digging a deeper hole," Bullard concluded "People, particularly cattle producers, don't appreciate organizations that try to deflect attention away from the issue at hand by trying to tear down other organizations such as Food & Water Watch."
 

Latest posts

Top