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

Swift Goes Brazilian

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
China has more population and less natural resources - they seem to be playing the trading game pretty well....
Rod

But they've increased exports to keep pace with their required imports. If you want to balance your trade defecit globally, then tell your government to increase manufacturing and export. Artificially restricting imports will only lead to inflation as your population struggles to get those things that they want or need. Like it or not, the US is a product hungry nation and you can't supply the demand with homegrown products. You simply don't have the natural resources to do it.

Quite frankly, I think the US's biggest problem is in their desire to ship their manufacturing jobs off shore. NOT in a NAFTA agreement which gives them virtually unrestricted access to natural resources which they need. If anything, NAFTA hurt us more in that we were suddenly shipping out our natural resources wholesale, versus processing them in country. It drove up our costs on virtually everything.

Rod

We're kind of going on a tangent here, but that's fun, too. I guess my point was that I didn't see population/resources to be an insurmountable obstacle. The Chinese are doing very, very well with their huge population and limited resources. I think that we largely do have the resources to be more self-sufficient. The problem I see is that our government has decided that short-term corporate profits are more important than the long-term welfare of our country. They seem to have the notion that whats good for corporate America will spread to everybody and that obviously isn't working. I'm also certain that "donations" have more than a little to do with the decision making.

You're right about shipping our manufacturing off shore. Again, it's the corporate profits deal. Here we have local and state governments giving away money to get plants to locate here as they recognize the value that payroll will bring to their local economies, and then we have the Feds making it easy to go offshore. The right hand spites the left and the tax payers get slapped twice.

I'm not advocating restricting imports. I am saying that if we give, there had better be some getting. We kind of have that system now; the taxpayers give and the big corporations get, but that isn't what I'm talking about. We're only planning for the next quarter, not the next decade.

Pre NAFTA, we had trade surpluses with both Canada and Mexico - now we have deficits. NAFTA was also supposed to stem the tide of illegals up here as our purchasing of their products would provide jobs down there - no further comments needed there. All it is is a revenue producer for the multi nationals. Dang, I'm starting to sound like Econ! The problem is, he's got a lot of this crap pegged about right.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Rod -
I had another thought last night after writing that last note. When the border closed, Tyson shut down a NW packing plant and increased slaughter capacity in Alberta. Essentially they reduced demand in the US, putting a downwards pressure on cull prices. When that border opens back up again to culls, how much do you want to bet that NW packing plant re-opens?

Heard an interesting rumor yesterday from a reliable source. You know how the Nillsen boys seemed to aquire a whole pile of new capital when old Bill finally stepped aside? Well this rumor talks of Johhny Machine Gun Tyosn putting something other than a horses head under their pillow. The Two plants that Nillsons bought in the states this past year - Guess who's?
Talk about yer verticle integration from the contract cow calf guy to the auction barn to the packing plant.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Red Robin said:
Fooled me. I know that smithfield wanted them pretty bad. How will this play out? Will it make any difference?

I like you Red Robin, thought Swift would be bought out by Smithfield, now that that is not going to happen, where will Smithfield look next, will they make an offer again for IBP from Tyson, or go for Cargill's meats division, I don't see them putting up brick and mortar.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
I don't know Ben. Smithfield owns the cattle in the yards, swift has the processing plant. They'll either agree to work together (which I doubt) or smithfield will build their new state of the art plant. I have heard there is bad blood between Rich Vesta and some swift management. He used to work there I think before he bought packerland.
My current thinking is this might be a good time for smithfield to spend their money back east in their VI venture and truely put wings to their plans. I personally wouldnt spend the money for a western packing facility with the paradigm shift in corn, ddg, shrinking private ownership that wants to raise beef on grass, expanded foreign competition, increased environmental concerns, and 3.00 fuel to truck the beef to the people. I'd sell the lots back to swift and move back east if it were me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
New Swift Owner to Raise Beef Cattle



By Pork news staff

(Wednesday, June 13, 2007)



The Brazilian meatpacking conglomerate — JBS — that recently purchased Swift & Co., is going to enter the beef production business. The company plans to build a $15.2-million beef production farm near San Paulo, Brazil.



JBS's $1.4 billion acquisition of Swift made it the world's largest meatpacker.



In the San Paulo system, the company intends to raise about 150,000 cattle to supply some of JBS' packing plants. This is a new and significant step for the company, which has previously only run slaughter and processing plants.



Meanwhile, Smithfield Foods officials say the company has put its beef packing expansion plans on hold, waiting to see what else JBS does. Smithfield officials have said, "we want to get bigger in beef."



porkmag.com
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
New Swift Owner to Raise Beef Cattle



By Pork news staff

(Wednesday, June 13, 2007)



The Brazilian meatpacking conglomerate — JBS — that recently purchased Swift & Co., is going to enter the beef production business. The company plans to build a $15.2-million beef production farm near San Paulo, Brazil.



JBS's $1.4 billion acquisition of Swift made it the world's largest meatpacker.



In the San Paulo system, the company intends to raise about 150,000 cattle to supply some of JBS' packing plants. This is a new and significant step for the company, which has previously only run slaughter and processing plants.



Meanwhile, Smithfield Foods officials say the company has put its beef packing expansion plans on hold, waiting to see what else JBS does. Smithfield officials have said, "we want to get bigger in beef."



porkmag.com

Haven't we been told by a few that this would never happen? :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
New Swift Owner to Raise Beef Cattle



By Pork news staff

(Wednesday, June 13, 2007)



The Brazilian meatpacking conglomerate — JBS — that recently purchased Swift & Co., is going to enter the beef production business. The company plans to build a $15.2-million beef production farm near San Paulo, Brazil.



JBS's $1.4 billion acquisition of Swift made it the world's largest meatpacker.



In the San Paulo system, the company intends to raise about 150,000 cattle to supply some of JBS' packing plants. This is a new and significant step for the company, which has previously only run slaughter and processing plants.



Meanwhile, Smithfield Foods officials say the company has put its beef packing expansion plans on hold, waiting to see what else JBS does. Smithfield officials have said, "we want to get bigger in beef."



porkmag.com

Haven't we been told by a few that this would never happen? :shock:

Just like we've been told that we never have to worry about Brazilian or Argentine beef coming into the US :roll: :wink: :lol: :( :( :mad:

--------------------------------



Bovine meat exports from Brazil hit record high in May



From the Newsroom*

ANBA \ Brazil

06/12/2007 - 14:09]



São Paulo – Brazilian exports of bovine meat yielded US$ 443 million in May, a new monthly record high according to information disclosed today (12) by the Brazilian Beef Industry and Exporters Association (Abiec). The value amount is 28% higher than recorded in the same month last week. Shipments totalled 266,000 tonnes, a 28.6% increase compared with May 2006.



During the first five months of 2007, foreign sales reached US$ 1.8 billion, a 39.4% increase over the same period last year. In total, 1.1 million tonnes were shipped form January until May, 33.4% more than in the first five months of 2006.



According to a press release by Abiec, the president of the organisation, Marcus Vinicius Pratini de Moraes, ascribed the growth in May to the increased cattle supply, the increased sales to emerging markets, the increased supply of special cuts, which have greater value, and to the increase in the price of shipped offal.



Egpyt remains as the second largest importer of raw Brazilian meat, with US$ 35 million in imports in May, and US$ 153 million in the accumulated result for the year. Russia, in turn, continues to be the main market for the raw commodity. In the case of industrialised meat, the largest buyers are the United States and Great Britain.


*Translated by Gabriel Pomerancblum



anba.com.br
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Can you say "ready-to-serve beef". That's the open door for SA beef...no restrictions for h&m...just get rid of the quotas.

Competition will always be there...the question is what are you going to do about it as a producer??????

I got to go deliver some more Beef! 8)
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Beef News
Smithfield seeking more 'properly structured' beef operations

By Tom Johnston on 9/6/2007 for Meatingplace.com




Smithfield Foods Inc. CEO Larry Pope told investors Wednesday the company needs to improve the structure of its U.S. beef business.

"If you look at the feedlots, they're in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas, and our plants are in Arizona, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania," Pope said during a presentation at Lehman Brothers "Back-to-School" conference. "The feedlots are nowhere near where our plants are, so we are not properly structured on the beef side."

Smithfield's feedlots are near Swift & Co. meatpacking facilities, but Smithfield passed on the opportunity to buy Swift earlier this year, saying it wasn't worth the $1.4 billion Brazil's JBS-Friboi ultimately paid.

"We did not buy Swift, so we're re-evaluating what we're going to do on the beef side of the business," Pope said.

That includes mulling over the proposed construction of a giant beef plant in the Oklahoma panhandle, with increased costs and a tight labor market among the company's chief concerns.

"We are in a thought process of how are we going to resolve this," he said. "We know today we cannot stay where we are."
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Smithfield: Statement on plant in two weeks



KTEN-TV NBC 10 - Oklahoma

Associated Press - September 26, 2007 5:15 PM ET



TULSA, Okla. (AP) - Smithfield Beef is promising to issue a statement within two weeks on its plans to build a $200 million processing plant in the Oklahoma Panhandle.



The pledge comes amid growing concern from lawmakers and residents, who say they've been left in the dark far too long on the company's plans and now believe the plant will never come.



Last October, the Green Bay, Wisconsin-based company announced construction would begin in January near the tiny cattle town of Hooker.



It would bring the largest beef plant built in the United States in 20 years there and with it, as many as 3,000 jobs and a shot at putting the place back on the map.



kten.com
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Plans for meatpacking plant delayed

By Paul Monies

Business Writer

The Oklahoman

October 31, 2007

A year ago, company and state officials lauded the landing of a 3,000-job meatpacking plant near the small Panhandle town of Hooker.


A year later, those plans by Smithfield Beef Group Inc. and ContiGroup Cos. Inc. appear to be back on the shelf.

Nobody is ready to admit defeat, but Smithfield said in a recent financial filing it is taking another look at the proposed Texas County plant.

"In August 2007, the company announced that it is reevaluating its decision to move forward with the beef processing plant due to the increased cost to build the plant and expected difficulty in finding employees to staff the operation,” Smithfield said in a quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Company officials with ContiGroup and Smithfield did not return repeated calls or e-mails from The Oklahoman.

Hooker Mayor Rod Childress said he's heard very little from the companies. After announcing the project in October 2006, construction was to start on the plant by January. It was to be ready by late 2008.

"The longer the wait, the less likely it will come,” Childress said. "We just continue to do what we can do in the planning for it.”

Zac Perkins, manager of customer service for Tri-County Electric Co-op, said the company has laid electrical lines to the Smithfield property. It has an agreement to recoup its investment if the plant doesn't get built.

"Until we hear ‘No,' we're going to assume they're still coming,” Perkins said.

That's also the attitude at the state Commerce Department, which has brought local and state leaders together to prepare for the plant.


Commerce Secretary Natalie Shirley said the department expects a decision from the company in the next several weeks.

"We're aware there are challenges, and I'm not unmindful of them, but we continue to work as if this project is moving forward,” Shirley said.

The delays don't surprise Hooker resident John Hairford, who organized community resistance to the project.

Hairford said low unemployment in the area and a lack of infrastructure to deal with an influx of up to 3,000 workers at the plant meant the plans were shaky from the start.

"We still feel the same way as we did to start with,” Hairford said. "We do not have the infrastructure here; we don't have the money for it. We don't have the personnel they'll need to operate that plant.”
 

PORKER

Well-known member
EU imports of Brazil beef fall 40%
DAN BUGLASS
RURAL AFFAIRS EDITOR ([email protected])
BEEF production in Brazil continues to expand at a remorseless pace, with the latest forecast revolving around claims that output from the country's 220 million cattle - which accounts for 20 per cent of all beef cattle in the world - could increase sill further.

Exports are the key to the prosperity of the Brazilian beef industry and the latest figures from the country's foreign trade secretariat reveal that in the first nine months of this year just over one million tonnes were shipped to a range of markets all over the world. This represents an increase of 114,000 tonnes on the first three quarters of 2006.

However, exports to the 27 nations of the expanded European Union in the same period declined from 244,100 tonnes to 152,300 tonnes, or almost 40 per cent.

It is difficult to gauge the precise reason for such a pronounced decline in trade with the EU.

One possibility is that major customers in Europe are concerned that a ban might be imposed in imports from Brazil unless it cleans up its act on controls of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and cattle traceability - issues that have been highlighted in recent months by several EU member states, most notably the Republic of Ireland.

There are exceptions to the trend: beef exports from Brazil to Italy have increased from 37,100 tonnes to 42,200 tonnes; the Netherlands has stepped up its trade from 33,200 tonnes to 39,600 tonnes; and business with Germany has risen from 12,800 tonnes to 14,700 tonnes.

Of all Brazil's major customers in the EU, the UK has cut back most drastically, with imports falling from 55,800 tonnes to 21,000 tonnes.

Organisations such as the Scottish Beef Cattle Association will claim that this decline is a result of greater publicity concerning the risks of importing beef from a country where FMD has reached near endemic proportions, despite the fact that Brazil claims to have spent about £1 billion between 1998 and 2003 in combating the disease - no reliable figures are available for recent years.

While Brazil's exports to the EU have declined in the first nine months of this year, trade with other countries has increased massively, from 642,400 tonnes in the first three quarters of 2006 to 853,000 tonnes in the equivalent period of 2007.

Russia is now the major destination, taking in 319,200 tonnes compared with 173,300 tonnes last year.

The Russian authorities were initially wary of Brazilian beef and the possible introduction of FMD, but those reservations appear to have been put aside, largely on the grounds of price.

Ireland has consequently lost considerable market share in Russia. Egypt is another important customer, taking 152,000 tonnes, and there has been a substantial increase in trade with Iran, where imports of Brazilian beef have risen from 23,700 tonnes to 47,100 tonnes.

The fear of importing disease is regularly cited as a major reason for the EU to cut back on imports from Brazil, but a major underlying concern remains the outcome of the World Trade Organisation talks on liberalising international commerce. Currently, Brazil and other South American countries have to pay a tax of 170 per cent before beef can be landed in the EU. If these taxes were removed, there is no way any farmer in the EU could compete.

Europe frequently alleges that Brazilian agriculture operates with something akin to slave labour, but this is countered by claims that with the overall economy growing at close to 6 per cent and creating two million jobs each year, wages have to be competitive.
 

Latest posts

Top