Silence please

[Anonymous]

ml: "Trying to figure out how "I'll" make a living when the packers and Johans(sp) successfully drive prices back down to where it was before Atkins (not NCBA) brought the prices up."

That statement doesn't even make sense.

First, if you credit the Atkins diet for higher cattle prices, WHAT DOES THE PACKERS AND JOHANNS HAVE TO DO WITH THE ATKINS DIET???

Not a darn thing!

Did they write a book to refute Mr. Atkins???

I don't know anyone in the cattle/beef industry that didn't acknowledge Mr. Atkins for his contribution.

Second, when did anyone ever say that NCBA brought the prices up? That's the first I ever heard of that.

OH, YOU MEANT THE CHECKOFF WHICH IS FINANCIALLY SEPERATE FROM THE NCBA DIDN'T YOU?

Imagine that!

Third, cattle prices were driven by an increase in consumer discretionary spending on beef along with a decrease in domestic beef supplies. Now instead of putting beef in the "fridge" consumers are putting higher priced fuel in their gas tanks.

BLAME THE CONSUMER!

Fourth, our cattle prices would be higher than they are right now if we were still trading with Japan and South Korea but why should they feel safe about our beef when R-CULT is telling them that a country with a native case of BSE is a threat to consumer safety????

DID YOU GUYS FORGET WE NOW HAVE A NATIVE CASE OF BSE?????

CLEAN UP YOUR OWN RANKS!

ml: "The packers (and the NCBA&USDA it appears) will only be happy when my 650lb weaned calves bring, once again, $500, as they gleefully import cattle from around the world into my market, the packers and NCBA will once again be thumping their chests saying how great life is and this is the way it should be for people to make a profit."

What a ridiculous statement.

NCBA wants normalized trade which would lead to higher cattle prices, not lower.

The R-CULT isolationists are jeoprodizing our export markets by lying about the affects of BSE in our native herd.

You are just upset that NCBA didn't support R-CULT in their BSE "fear mongering" lies about the safety of Canadian beef to stop Canadian imports WHICH COULD HAVE KILLED OUR MARKETS IF THE MEDIA ACTUALLY BELIEVED R-CULT'S LIES.

For anyone to suggest that the forward thinking NCBA cattle producers want lower cattle prices is absolutely insane.

ml: "Before this good market came along there was nothing left to tighten and the only way to be more efficient was to quit ranching."

SO WHY DON'T YOU SUE THE CONSUMER?????

SUE THEM FOR BUYING CHICKEN AND PORK INSTEAD OF BEEF!!!!

SUE THE FEEDERS FOR FEEDING FAT CATTLE TO HIGHER WEIGHTS!!!!!

PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS, BLAME THE CONSUMER FOR NOT BUYING MORE BEEF!!!!!!!!!!!!


Why is it that you guys are always looking for a "SCAPEGOAT"???

If it's not USDA, it's NCBA, if it's not NCBA, it's the packers, if it's not the packers, it's the retailers, if it's not the retailers, it's imports WHEN NOT A SINGLE NEW DOLLAR WILL COME IN TO THIS INDUSTRY EXCEPT THROUGH THE CONSUMER!!!!

HEY, I GOT AN IDEA, LET'S GET RID OF THE BEEF CHECKOFF SO WE DON'T ADD VALUE TO THE BEEF CARCASSS!!!

Yeh, now there's a real winner of an idea. Why didn't I think of that? SLAPS HEAD!


~SH~

 

[agman]

Perhaps agman, we don't come on to bitch and whine about crap like you do. And maybe we don't wait to shout "told you so" when we win.

You're such a BIG man, aren't you, when you have corporate interests and money on your side.

Your momma must be proud! :shock:

Hey, those of us fighting FOR the producer have learned over the years to accept defeat and move on. We have learned how to live with break even prices. We have learned how to live with unfair competitive practices. We will survive to fight another day for independence in the agricultural world.

Y'all be good to someone today.

Once again you show your total ignorance of the situation. I have no client who pays me to agree with them. I get paid from producers and corporations to express my opinion based on serious research. If you wish to challenge the research be my guest. You ar not the first one who has tried and failed at that attempt. You can join the loosers in that crowd also.

You just do not get the message that you continue to ride a losing horse. Blame will get you know where. Rather than complain about those who are successful engage them to find out why they are successful. Success does not know names or size, it only knows results. Give yourself a chance and pay attention to the facts, not the garbage you want to hear. The latter will keep you mired on the same path to failure. It is your choice to make.

And once again agman you show how sorry you are,these multinational conglomerates could care less about small town America,small buisness men like Robert Mac,working long hours to feed the kids,so they can enjoy what they and their parents enjoyed,people like you and that two bit mongrel that calls him self SH,make me ill..............good luck PS let me wash some of this trail dust off and get some decent food and ILL be glad to put you packer lovers in your place.

You know less about me than "captive supply". It has been cleary demonstrated here many times that you know nothing about the latter. As such, I really don't give a hoot about what you think Haymaker.

Was rural America not in decline before multi-nationals corporations existed? Who did you blame then? An original thought please.

I may not always agree with RM but I do respect him for his thought process, something you lack, and wish him all the success in the world. He at least has shown a willingness to learn, albeit he can be a bit stubborn once in a while! He has my full respect.

 

[agman]

Agman, "Does the AMI influence policy? Yes, but not for the entire beef industry all of the time. Why is it that you think you know more about the entire beef industry than they do?"

You can bet they try to influence all they can if there is to be any effect to their bottom line.

I don't know more about the entire beef industry than they do - never said I did. However, it does't take a rocket scientist to recognize and understand their long-range plan. I've said before that it isn't devious and is in fact a sound business plan and one shareholders would expect. (although I won't endorse it on morality standards) The problem is that it steps on US producer's toes - the same producers who I rely on for my living and the survival of my community.

I understand your loyalties - you're for the big boys as they butter your bread. I'm for the little guys for the same reasons.

Once again your last statement is totally false. But then again, why would you care you. You heard something about my clientèle from someone who likely knows less than you-what a joke. Fact: I work with every segment of the beef industry, inclusive of very many producers. That is to my credit. Have you ever wondered why?

 

[smalltime]

Don"t get excited. The price of cattle will stabilize at preruling levels in two weeks.If your smart you'll just wait it out. If not guy's like me are readey with the checkbook to screw you blind.Monday morning you'll find me in the salebarn.

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Don"t get excited. The price of cattle will stabilize at preruling levels in two weeks.If your smart you'll just wait it out. If not guy's like me are readey with the checkbook to screw you blind.Monday morning you'll find me in the salebarn.

Oh man, you gotta love free enterprise! :lol: :lol:

 

[smalltime]

Yes.Ain't it great .

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Does the AMI influence policy? Yes, but not for the entire beef industry all of the time. Why is it that you think you know more about the entire beef industry than they do?"

You can bet they try to influence all they can if there is to be any effect to their bottom line.

I don't know more about the entire beef industry than they do - never said I did. However, it does't take a rocket scientist to recognize and understand their long-range plan. I've said before that it isn't devious and is in fact a sound business plan and one shareholders would expect. (although I won't endorse it on morality standards) The problem is that it steps on US producer's toes - the same producers who I rely on for my living and the survival of my community.

I understand your loyalties - you're for the big boys as they butter your bread. I'm for the little guys for the same reasons.

Once again your last statement is totally false. But then again, why would you care you. You heard something about my clientèle from someone who likely knows less than you-what a joke. Fact: I work with every segment of the beef industry, inclusive of very many producers. That is to my credit. Have you ever wondered why?

No, Agman, nobody has told me anything about your clientele. I've read plenty of your posts and, from them, it is easy to see that you value the profits of big business over the survival of the US producer. Would you like me to provide a shining example?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman,

Don't you want the packers to be profitable?

How much profit per head would be an acceptable packer profit in your mind?

What don't you understand about the fact that any new money to come into this industry has to come from the consumer.

It's not going to come from the packer and it's not going to come from the retailer. Those margins are as tight as they are going to get. A 2% return. WHOOPIE!

If Agman's information is faulty, the reputation of his business is at stake. If your information is based on nothing more than opinions, which it is, then nobody's hurt but those who believe your bullsh*t.

You have nothing to lose by being continually wrong!



~SH~

 

[agman]

I understand your loyalties - you're for the big boys as they butter your bread. I'm for the little guys for the same reasons.

Am I for the big boys as you say just because I have been on the winning side of the legal battles that you have failed to support? If I was on the losing side of those legal battles as you have been would that make me a producer supporter also?

What is your definition of producer? I work with many producers who have taken the same position as I have. In fact the vast majority of producers side with my opinion. It is amazing how successful these individuals are. Remember, R-Calf does not represent the majority of producers-not even close to the majority. They are a fringe and fanatical element of this great beef industry. Just because you support R-Calf who claims to support producers that does not make you or them correct on the major issues before this industry. The courts have ruled with the majority opinion and against R-Calf and you.

I am concerned about being on the right side of the issue period. You can waste your time trying to differentiate what group that may support. Your time would be better spent better educating yourself to the truth of the issues at hand. Only then can we work in unison to make this great beef industy and all its members even better.

 

[smalltime]

agman are you shure your on the winning side?

 

[agman]

agman are you shure your on the winning side?

"No doubt at all" is my response. Facts will win out everytime over fiction. Have a cool one.

 

[HAY MAKER]

You just do not get the message that you continue to ride a losing horse. Blame will get you know where. Rather than complain about those who are successful engage them to find out why they are successful. Success does not know names or size, it only knows results. Give yourself a chance and pay attention to the facts, not the garbage you want to hear. The latter will keep you mired on the same path to failure. It is your choice to make.

And once again agman you show how sorry you are,these multinational conglomerates could care less about small town America,small buisness men like Robert Mac,working long hours to feed the kids,so they can enjoy what they and their parents enjoyed,people like you and that two bit mongrel that calls him self SH,make me ill..............good luck PS let me wash some of this trail dust off and get some decent food and ILL be glad to put you packer lovers in your place.

You know less about me than "captive supply". It has been cleary demonstrated here many times that you know nothing about the latter. As such, I really don't give a hoot about what you think Haymaker.

Was rural America not in decline before multi-nationals corporations existed? Who did you blame then? An original thought please.

I may not always agree with RM but I do respect him for his thought process, something you lack, and wish him all the success in the world. He at least has shown a willingness to learn, albeit he can be a bit stubborn once in a while! He has my full respect.

agman you educated *sshole,you can't even spell when some one points out where your loyalties lie,but you have the benefit of doubt,I figger you use a computer screen and telephone to earn a living and you live in Denver,but that dont make you all bad and some times I really do feel bad calling you a packer lover,fact of the matter is as bad as I hate to admitt it is people like you and me need each other,so I guess ILL have to tolerate you :wink: ............good luck

 

[Denny]

"I'll" make a living when the packers and Johans(sp) successfully drive prices back down to where it was before Atkins (not NCBA) brought the prices up. The packers (and the NCBA&USDA it appears) will only be happy when my 650lb weaned calves bring, once again, $500, "


Well ..................if you cannot make money weaning a 600# calf for $500 you had better look at your management practices. I would suggest not paying 1250 for a bred heifer!!!!!!!! I would think $500 for a 550 wt. would make about 150 to 200. That is a lot more than an acre of corn will make this year....what's your problem????? GREED!!!!

Well la dee dah you can take your corn twist it sideways and shove it. you crybaby crop farmers will get your crop insurance payment then you'll get your disaster payment and even your ldp payment.if you cant make money farming the insurance companies and FSA you could always try barber school. :cry2:

 

[Denny]

Don"t get excited. The price of cattle will stabilize at preruling levels in two weeks.If your smart you'll just wait it out. If not guy's like me are readey with the checkbook to screw you blind.Monday morning you'll find me in the salebarn.

Are you going to use a lubricant or drive it in dry??????

 

[Denny]

Sandman,

Don't you want the packers to be profitable?

How much profit per head would be an acceptable packer profit in your mind?
~SH~

8 bucks I reckon...Better than a poke in the eye aint it ....

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Don't you want the packers to be profitable?"

I don't begrudge anybody from being profitable, but my concern is the US rancher's profitability. Are you going to try to tell me that certain actions and goals of the big packers are not to the detriment of US ranchers?

 

[Sandhusker]

I understand your loyalties - you're for the big boys as they butter your bread. I'm for the little guys for the same reasons.

Am I for the big boys as you say just because I have been on the winning side of the legal battles that you have failed to support? If I was on the losing side of those legal battles as you have been would that make me a producer supporter also?

What is your definition of producer? I work with many producers who have taken the same position as I have. In fact the vast majority of producers side with my opinion. It is amazing how successful these individuals are. Remember, R-Calf does not represent the majority of producers-not even close to the majority. They are a fringe and fanatical element of this great beef industry. Just because you support R-Calf who claims to support producers that does not make you or them correct on the major issues before this industry. The courts have ruled with the majority opinion and against R-Calf and you.

I am concerned about being on the right side of the issue period. You can waste your time trying to differentiate what group that may support. Your time would be better spent better educating yourself to the truth of the issues at hand. Only then can we work in unison to make this great beef industy and all its members even better.

I'm trying to go thru the archives to bring up a post where you used trees and lumber as an analogy to try to convince me of the glory of bringing in Canadian cattle. That post reveals much about where you stand.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for answering the question Denny (5 dollars).

Sandman: "I don't begrudge anybody from being profitable, but my concern is the US rancher's profitability."

Sandman,

What would be an acceptable PER HEAD PROFIT for the packers to process our cattle into beef in your eyes?

Answer the question.

You don't have a corner on the market with your concern for rancher profitability. You simply have a backwards way of looking at how you can accomplish that.

Sandman: "Are you going to try to tell me that certain actions and goals of the big packers are not to the detriment of US ranchers?"

The only legitimate one I can think of is the Canadian situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity putting the leverage in the packer's favor.

What I refuse to do is blame them for taking advantage of that situation when the ones who are doing the blaming would not hesitate to pick up a bargain at an estate sale of a rancher who was sold out.

It's ok to buy breeding stock as cheaply as you can isn't it? That looks out for ONE RANCHER'S profitability if you happen to be loaning him the money. What about the seller?

DIVERTION!

Oh, here Mr. Seedstock Producer, here's an extra $200 per head to help you with your average. YEH, YOU BET!



~SH~

 

[agman]

Agman, "believe two key points will emerge in their opinion. One, the discretion of the USDA and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish guidelines in this case were consistent with existing laws. Second, the USDA defined the risk as low which Cebull rejected. The term low risk is consistent with scientific terminology. The judges basically said that zero risk was impossible which the plaintiff's attorney had to agree with. That immediately put R-Calf's position in a box. If zero could not be achieved then low risk was in order. That is the exact position the government had initailly taken."

Yes, from what I've read, the court did say the secretary should have discretion. I will disagree that they were consistant with existing laws. For example, where was the impact study? Where was the reasons for rejecting other options?

Low is a term consistant with scientific terminology only if there is a corresponding measurement of what low, high, etc ... is for the individual case. Example; I'm the Mayor and I know about the requirements that we are held do by the state concerning our drinking water. It is tested regularly for various impurities. We have to be under a certain measurement of parts per million, but the allowance is different for different impurities. A measurement of "low" for one element could be completely out of compliance for another with the exact same concentration. Thus, as the USDA could not give a supporting scale, "Low" is totally meaningless and I view it as attempt at bullshitting us, which makes me madder than their initial transgression!

By the way, I also view your telling us that "low" is scientifically acceptable as an attempt of bullshitting as well. :wink:

What impact study? The one regarding trucks entering from Canada that R-Laughter suggested be completed. How long have trucks used those very roads of the very purpose of transporting cattle? That was clearly a reach and demonstrates how weak their original case was. Only in Cebull's court did the challenge survive. He looks really brilliant now, does he not.

"Low" as defined in scientific terms, not your term, is what the judges cited as a proper measurement of risk. The fallacy of R-Calf's position was clearly demonstrated with that line of questioning.

 

[agman]

SH, "Don't you want the packers to be profitable?"

I don't begrudge anybody from being profitable, but my concern is the US rancher's profitability. Are you going to try to tell me that certain actions and goals of the big packers are not to the detriment of US ranchers?

If your clientèle, ranchers, have not been profitable since 1999 then they need to get up to speed or get out. The top third of producers are profitable even in the worst of times. The operational difference from top to bottom can exceed $200 per head. Who is at fault for that?

Yes, I am going to tell you that the goals of the packer are not inconsistent with goals of producers. They need each other and the packer knows that. What organization is it that ignores the other segments and claims they represent the producer who are they claim not part of the BEEF industry? Ignorance is the cause of that dimension.