Socialism?

[Anonymous]

I can't believe the thickness of your head Randy.

Here it is:

Let's use the flat iron steak as an example. The research that led to the discovery of the flat iron steak was paid for by checkoff dollars. The packers have utilized this research to sell the flat iron steak. The flat iron steak creates more value out of the carcass because now a product that used to be ground up is selling at steak price. This added value allows packers to pay more money for the cattle and they do or they don't get the cattle bought against the competition that is also adding value to it.

Why do packers have to pay more money for cattle when they add value to the carcass? Because if they don't, another packer will bid more for the cattle because the value of the flat iron steak has added value to the carcass for them as well. MARGIN OPERATORS! A concept you simply cannot grasp.

Here's another example. The beef checkoff helped fund the research surrounding the 10 minute microwavable products that added value to the chuck and round. This value was passed on to the producers in the form of higher prices for their cattle. Bernie, from Flint Hill Farms, stated that they were able to pay $3 per cwt more for fat cattle due to the value that they added to the chuck and round through these 10 minute microwavable products. MARGIN OPERATORS! A concept you simply cannot grasp.

I still can't believe you are involved in a producer driven packing venture when you can't even comprehend the most basic fact that the value of cattle is determined by the value of beef and beef by products.

You are so blinded by your packer blame that you make a complete fool out of yourself every time you type and here you are involved in a producer driven packing venture. I can't believe it.


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Who is the fool here SH. Who is the blind fool.

I understand that packers are margin players and competition drives price.

What a packer defender like yourself can't understand is that you and all the experts you want to hire cannot prove that that flank steak has made the producer of your country any more profit from his cattle. Higher price for his cattle - your opinion - and even maybe some truth in it. But have you forgotten the extra costs involved in making that flank product. Costs that simply have to be passed down to the producer in your words of wisdom.

Blind faith in the packers has sure gotten you a long way hasn't it SH. Trappin gophers rather than taking advantage of all of these opportunities right in front of the producers eyes. :roll:

Keep going back to the BIG C thing SH, it seems to be your best slam these days. Why are you not the CEO at USBP if you are so much in tune with the industry you are so quick to defend at every move? :lol:

 

[Tommy]

SH...Bernie, from Flint Hill Farms, stated that they were able to pay $3 per cwt more for fat cattle due to the value that they added to the chuck and round through these 10 minute microwavable products.

SH in old Ranchers Net...Bernie from Flint Hills Farms stated at the Nebraska Cattlemen's Association meeting that he is able to pay $5 /cwt more for fat cattle than he would if he wasn't adding value to the chuck and round with his "Hormel" microwavable products.

Is he paying less these days Scott than he was a couple years ago? Looks like it.

 

[Jason]

What a packer defender like yourself can't understand is that you and all the experts you want to hire cannot prove that that flank steak has made the producer of your country any more profit from his cattle. Higher price for his cattle - your opinion - and even maybe some truth in it. But have you forgotten the extra costs involved in making that flank product. Costs that simply have to be passed down to the producer in your words of wisdom.

Randy re-read that paragraph. You say SH can't prove it but maybe it is true... Ignore the fact that you dislike SH.

Would the packers cut out the Flat Iron steak if it was not price positive?

Would the packers choose to pay more for cattle if they were worth less?

If a competetitor uses a practice like selling shoulder clods for more money than you will he make more money than you all things being equal?

Would you make more selling your Celtic beef to high end restaruants or to generic grocery stores? If yes, is any of that higher price passed on to the producers?

5 simple yes/no questions.

 

[rkaiser]

Before I answer your questions Jason, I got one for you.

Do you want to see the family farm go the way of the dinosaur and have corporate welfare ranchers and packers take over the industry?

Quote:
What a packer defender like yourself can't understand is that you and all the experts you want to hire cannot prove that that flank steak has made the producer of your country any more profit from his cattle. Higher price for his cattle - your opinion - and even maybe some truth in it. But have you forgotten the extra costs involved in making that flank product. Costs that simply have to be passed down to the producer in your words of wisdom.



Randy re-read that paragraph. You say SH can't prove it but maybe it is true... Ignore the fact that you dislike SH.

Would the packers cut out the Flat Iron steak if it was not price positive?

Would the packers choose to pay more for cattle if they were worth less?

If a competetitor uses a practice like selling shoulder clods for more money than you will he make more money than you all things being equal?

Would you make more selling your Celtic beef to high end restaruants or to generic grocery stores? If yes, is any of that higher price passed on to the producers?

5 simple yes/no questions.

Okay Jason, I re read the paragraph. Now you re read it.

What is "it" that you can't understand. SH cannot prove that it has helped the producer. He may be able to show a price increase, but he hasn't told us about extra cost which "always get past down to the producer."

Of couse packers cut out Flat iron, we do too. Does it help create value from the carcass that the PACKER owns? Yes. Does it help the producer? Good question.

Would the packers choose to pay more for cattle if they were worth less?

You learn well from Master Super Hero Gwasshopper. Ask stupid question, get to twist answer.

Same with next question.

Canadian Celtic is a vertically integrated program Mr. question mark, offering producers any amount of integration they desire. I have never said that the packing industry is a golden goose. My problem with the current situation is the advantage that mutinationals have and keep aquiring due to lobby effort (whining to the government) and blind followers like yourself and SH who simply defend every move toward communist like economics.

 

[Anonymous]

Tommy: "Is he paying less these days Scott than he was a couple years ago? Looks like it."

I stand corrected Tommy. It was even higher than I had remembered. $5 per cwt is correct. Thank you Tommy!



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Randy Kaiser: "What a packer defender like yourself can't understand is that you and all the experts you want to hire cannot prove that that flank steak has made the producer of your country any more profit from his cattle. Higher price for his cattle - your opinion - and even maybe some truth in it."

What do we know for sure Randy?

We know as the value of beef goes up the price of cattle goes up.

We know as the value of beef and beef by products go down, the price of cattle goes down.

We know that Tyson's profits are reported publicly and we know how many cattle they slaughter so it's simple math to figure out what they make per head.

What's not to understand?

Any value added to the carcass is passed on to the producer. If that was not the case, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE CAB PREMIUMS ON GRID PRICING?

Once again, the obvious is simply too obvious for a whiny whelp like you.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Randy Kaiser: "What a packer defender like yourself can't understand is that you and all the experts you want to hire cannot prove that that flank steak has made the producer of your country any more profit from his cattle. Higher price for his cattle - your opinion - and even maybe some truth in it."

What do we know for sure Randy?

We know as the value of beef goes up the price of cattle goes up.

We know as the value of beef and beef by products go down, the price of cattle goes down.

We know that Tyson's profits are reported publicly and we know how many cattle they slaughter so it's simple math to figure out what they make per head.

What's not to understand?

Any value added to the carcass is passed on to the producer. If that was not the case, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE CAB PREMIUMS ON GRID PRICING?

Once again, the obvious is simply too obvious for a whiny whelp like you.


~SH~

SH, with their tying relationship with Walmart you know less than you think.

 

[rkaiser]

Super Hero writes

We know that Tyson's profits are reported publicly and we know how many cattle they slaughter so it's simple math to figure out what they make per head.

Should have been easy for you to prove your fairy tale then SH.

Got the gopher hairs picked off your thumb yet SH? It must be just about bedtime for you. You had a big day defending the packers.

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary Economics: "SH, with their tying relationship with Walmart you know less than you think."

Talk is cheap and no cheaper than it is from you!


~SH~

 

[Murgen]

Just a question?

Can a primary producer get paid more for his product and still be less profitable?

Can the added value of his product be passed on to him, and he still end up with less in his pocket?

What might the added expenses be, that are taking away from his margin?

 

[Sandhusker]

Just a question?

Can a primary producer get paid more for his product and still be less profitable?

Can the added value of his product be passed on to him, and he still end up with less in his pocket?

What might the added expenses be, that are taking away from his margin?

Sure, a person could gross more, but when expenses were added would net him less. You could buy the highest priced bulls in Denver and put on 50 lbs on your calves. This would give you a fatter calf check that could be whittled to nothing when you make your bull payment.

 

[Murgen]

So, why is the number one concern what we get paid for calves or feeders, when there are a lot more determinants of profit?

 

[Anonymous]

Murgen: "So, why is the number one concern what we get paid for calves or feeders, when there are a lot more determinants of profit?"

Excellent question!

Attended a seminar last night on the antagonisms between increasing production and increasing profitability.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

So, why is the number one concern what we get paid for calves or feeders, when there are a lot more determinants of profit?

Probably because of the visibility of that one check compared to the multitude of expenses that add up during the year.

 

[RobertMac]

What do we know for sure Randy?

We know as the value of beef goes up the price of cattle goes up.

We know as the value of beef and beef by products go down, the price of cattle goes down.

What's not to understand?

Any value added to the carcass is passed on to the producer. If that was not the case, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE CAB PREMIUMS ON GRID PRICING?

Once again, the obvious is simply too obvious for a whiny whelp like you.


~SH~

From 1985 to 2003, total beef production has grown 1.4%
From 1985 to 2003, population has grown 1.8%

That means the beef industry has not grown enough to keep up with population growth. In order for value added products to be the factor effecting prices paid the producer, they would have to increase demand for more supply. It is the reduction in supply with respect to demand for supply that has increased the prices paid producers.

We know that Tyson's profits are reported publicly and we know how many cattle they slaughter so it's simple math to figure out what they make per head.

What part of gross profits are reinvested and don't appear in net profits?
Simply spinning! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

1. Decreased supplies in relation to demand is a driver behind higher cattle prices as is value added products. The flat iron steak used to sell for the price of ground round.

Funny how you can argue that the value of the Atkins diet was passed on to the producer then question whether the value of checkoff products are passed on to the producer.

BUSTED AGAIN!

If you want to try to argue that this value is not passed on to the producer, then you also have to argue that any other value that is added is not passed on to the producer. Amazingly, you cannot defend that in light of the fact that live cattle prices track with boxed beef prices and the fact that packer profit margins remain in a consistant range of profit and losses.

THE OBVIOUS IS SIMPLY TOO OBVIOUS FOR A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SUCH AS YOURSELF, RM.


2. Packer profits are figured before reinvestments are made.


NEXT!


~SH~

 

[Mike]

SH wrote:

Packer profits are figured before reinvestments are made.

That statement might not be altogether accurate. It depends on what you call a "Reinvestment". A reinvestment might be the purchase of new equipment to replace old equipment, and would be considered any operating expense.

 

[rkaiser]

What's the conspiracy SH?

Do you truely feel that people standing up for the right of small business are actually anti capitalists.

Take an honest look at the system that you defend SH, and tell us all that that sytem has has any brakes. That system is where Stalin and the boys got their ideas for crying out loud.

I truely have a hard time beleiving that you are that dumb SH. Pigheaded yes.

 

[Anonymous]

RK: "What's the conspiracy SH?"

Here's the conspiracy........

RK: "Take an honest look at the system that you defend SH, and tell us all that that sytem has has any brakes."

LOOK AT THE OBVIOUS RANDY KAISER. MORRIS, WILSON, SWIFT, CUDAHEY, AND ARMOUR SOMEHOW MIRACULOUSLY BECAME IBP, EXCEL, MONFORT, NATIONAL, AND BEEF AMERICA IN AN INDUSTRY THAT "SUPPOSEDLY" HAD NO BRAKES THEN EITHER.

HOW THE HELL DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT RANDY?????

LISTENING TO DOOMSDAY PROPHETS LIKE YOU, ONE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED ONE OF THOSE BIG FIVE TO TAKE OVER THE WHOLE SHOW??

Defeatests like you just make me nauseous.

POOR, POOR RANDY KAISER!

RK: "I truely have a hard time beleiving that you are that dumb SH. Pigheaded yes."

The epitomy of ignorance is to be too ignorant to realize how ignorant you are.



~SH~