Tam

[Sandhusker]

Rev. Roberts, "My point, when has the government ever gave the producers a fair deal? The cattle producers have never been silent, and we are still at a disadvantage. Why? "

It's high time the government did give producers a fair deal. I would argue that, compared to what the packers have done in Washington, producers have been silent. The AMI is a very strong lobby, who has ever lobbied for producers?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Rev. Roberts, "My point, when has the government ever gave the producers a fair deal? The cattle producers have never been silent, and we are still at a disadvantage. Why? "

It's high time the government did give producers a fair deal. I would argue that, compared to what the packers have done in Washington, producers have been silent. The AMI is a very strong lobby, who has ever lobbied for producers?

Sadhusker your beloved R-CALVED started to develop a Washingtom lobby but back slide into a den of litigation. AMEN

 

[PureCountry]

To add to that point Jason, who remembers the article in Canadian Cattleman Magazine a few years ago in the midst of BSE chaos, that listed dozens of "proposed plants" across Canada. Since that time, how many of those plants have been built?

PureCountry, you should have built those plants, when Canada is able to slaughter their supply, then you would not be at the mercy of the USA market. You were getting close, then the border reopened, did you ever think of why? Could it be, the packers don't ever want Canada to be able to slaughter their own supply.

Ben Roberts

Ben, after the conversation we had on the phone tonight, and reading this, all I can say is, 'Touche'.

 

[RobertMac]

[ranchers]...do not have the time necessary to build and operate packing plants and market their beef themselves...

Your quote is the key to NCBA failing the producer. The top five packers process over 90% of fed cattle and, for what should be obvious reason, they don't want to help producers take back control of the beef industry. This means there is very little processing capacity for producers to have an avenue to be able to market their beef themselves!!!! This is because NCBA stood behind AMI, with their mouths shut, while these large packers bought up and shut down the independent processors who were this avenue for producers to get their product, BEEF, to the consumer. And now you hypocritically complain about how hard it is because producers HAVE TO BUILD PROCESSING PLANTS to be able to market their beef. NCBA has been the worst enemy to progressive thinking, independent producers and I have no use for your blind NCBA loyalty...which is the brainwashing I was talking about!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jason]

MRJ used an intereting term, "fully employed".

I don't want, need, nor am able to take on another full time job.

I am fully employed. If I were to run a packing operation, to do it justice it would be a full time commitment.

Most of the proposed plants here just fleeced $100K out of producers pockets to find out they couldn't do it in 2 hours after they feed cows. As soon as they started having to account for other people's money they awoke to the reality it isn't that easy to kill animals and sell the beef.

The reason we have few players is that it is a difficult business. 1 mistake and you can be done for.

Ben asks about the banks buying me out, not a chance unless I mortgauge my life to them to build a low profit plant. I am almost free of the regular banks altogether, and I will retire before I am 50.

 

[mrj]

RobertMac, my major point was the OPERATION of a packing plant is not necessarily the best use of a full time cattle producer.

The BUILDING of a packing plant was mentioned only because South Dakota has NO commercial capacity cattle processing plant large enough to handle a decent number of the cattle produced in our state at the present time.

Who can verify that it is for your claimed reasons those smaller packers sold, and the buyers, IF they were purchased by large packers who did not re-open?

Who can honestly and verifiably state there were not other factors, such as out of date equipment, difficulty getting/keeping employees, too high costs for what the market will bear....and on and on.

Were you in on the 'meetings' where NCBA 'agreed' to stand with AMI and not speak out?

I certainly never said a producer wanting to market his own beef HAS to build and operate his own plant.

I would say that to totally CONTROL his product from the ranch to the consumer plate, he might have to do that.

If he cannot locate a small (or large) packer nearby enough to be feasible, as well as knowing them well enough to trust them so totally, as would be necessary in such a situation, building and operating MAY be necessary.

You seem to be engaging in mind reading unless you have been involved in leadership in NCBA. Have you served on committees or the board of the NCBA Policy Division? Or even of the Federation of State Beef Councils, though that would not make you privy to policy decisions such as you imply you know so much about.

MRJ

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Did R-CALF get started because NCBA was promoting producers to look at retained ownership and branded programs ect and the LMA saw commisions shrinking and pushed to get R-CALF stirring things up?

 

[Sandhusker]

Did R-CALF get started because NCBA was promoting producers to look at retained ownership and branded programs ect and the LMA saw commisions shrinking and pushed to get R-CALF stirring things up?

NO :roll:

Let me ask a question on the same level; Did SSGA get started because aliens were abducting Canadian producers and trying to cross them with cattle to create a hybrid that could calve themselves out, fix their own fences, put up their own hay, etc...?

 

[Anonymous]

BMR,

The fight between NCBA and the LMA started when the beef checkoff funded the strategic alliances program which showed producers that they could make more money retaining ownership on their cattle than selling them through the "HOW MUCH YOU GONNA GIVE FOR EM" sale barns.

This infuriated the LMA and that's when they started assuming the role of spokespersons for the industry.

R-CALF was started as a watchdog group for fair trade by Leo McDonnell. Certain LMA reps liked the blaming agenda and infiltrated the organization bringing their packer blaming, NCBA blaming agenda with them. That's why Herman and Johnny quickly filled board seats and had Bullard eating out of their hand and that's also a big reason why R-CALF is now defunct.

Salebarn managers have their own agenda.

R.I.P.
R-CULT!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Did R-CALF get started because NCBA was promoting producers to look at retained ownership and branded programs ect and the LMA saw commisions shrinking and pushed to get R-CALF stirring things up?

NO :roll:

Let me ask a question on the same level; Did SSGA get started because aliens were abducting Canadian producers and trying to cross them with cattle to create a hybrid that could calve themselves out, fix their own fences, put up their own hay, etc...?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[RobertMac]

RobertMac, my major point was the OPERATION of a packing plant is not necessarily the best use of a full time cattle producer.

No, it's not, but a full time cattle producer shouldn't have to just to be involved in the end product.

The BUILDING of a packing plant was mentioned only because South Dakota has NO commercial capacity cattle processing plant large enough to handle a decent number of the cattle produced in our state at the present time.

That's my point!

Who can verify that it is for your claimed reasons those smaller packers sold, and the buyers, IF they were purchased by large packers who did not re-open?

Who can honestly and verifiably state there were not other factors, such as out of date equipment, difficulty getting/keeping employees, too high costs for what the market will bear....and on and on.

Were you in on the 'meetings' where NCBA 'agreed' to stand with AMI and not speak out?

MRJ, I don't think there is anything that is verifiable for you except what come straight from NCBA.
There were several reasons we lost these plants, but it was NCBA's failure to recognize that these plants were producers avenue to go directly to the consumer with our product. The ability to do that is the most accurate way to get direct market signals from the consumer. The ability for producers to sell in this manner is the best way to receive a fair price for live cattle and thereby set a fair price in the overall market. If we had 100 packers doing the same job as the 5 packers we now have, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I certainly never said a producer wanting to market his own beef HAS to build and operate his own plant.

I would say that to totally CONTROL his product from the ranch to the consumer plate, he might have to do that.

If he cannot locate a small (or large) packer nearby enough to be feasible, as well as knowing them well enough to trust them so totally, as would be necessary in such a situation, building and operating MAY be necessary.

You seem to be engaging in mind reading unless you have been involved in leadership in NCBA. Have you served on committees or the board of the NCBA Policy Division? Or even of the Federation of State Beef Councils, though that would not make you privy to policy decisions such as you imply you know so much about.

Just because you fail to see the obvious, doesn't mean some of us are mind readers! :roll: :lol:

MRJ

 

[mrj]

RobertMac, my major point was the OPERATION of a packing plant is not necessarily the best use of a full time cattle producer.

No, it's not, but a full time cattle producer shouldn't have to just to be involved in the end product.

The BUILDING of a packing plant was mentioned only because South Dakota has NO commercial capacity cattle processing plant large enough to handle a decent number of the cattle produced in our state at the present time.

That's my point!

Who can verify that it is for your claimed reasons those smaller packers sold, and the buyers, IF they were purchased by large packers who did not re-open?

Who can honestly and verifiably state there were not other factors, such as out of date equipment, difficulty getting/keeping employees, too high costs for what the market will bear....and on and on.

Were you in on the 'meetings' where NCBA 'agreed' to stand with AMI and not speak out?

MRJ, I don't think there is anything that is verifiable for you except what come straight from NCBA.
There were several reasons we lost these plants, but it was NCBA's failure to recognize that these plants were producers avenue to go directly to the consumer with our product. The ability to do that is the most accurate way to get direct market signals from the consumer. The ability for producers to sell in this manner is the best way to receive a fair price for live cattle and thereby set a fair price in the overall market. If we had 100 packers doing the same job as the 5 packers we now have, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I certainly never said a producer wanting to market his own beef HAS to build and operate his own plant.

I would say that to totally CONTROL his product from the ranch to the consumer plate, he might have to do that.

If he cannot locate a small (or large) packer nearby enough to be feasible, as well as knowing them well enough to trust them so totally, as would be necessary in such a situation, building and operating MAY be necessary.

You seem to be engaging in mind reading unless you have been involved in leadership in NCBA. Have you served on committees or the board of the NCBA Policy Division? Or even of the Federation of State Beef Councils, though that would not make you privy to policy decisions such as you imply you know so much about.

Just because you fail to see the obvious, doesn't mean some of us are mind readers! :roll: :lol:

MRJ

RobertMac, you and who else decreed that it was "NCBA's failure to recognize these plants were producers' avenue to go directly to the consumer with our product"?

YOU fail to recognize that you just might be wrong. Those smaller plants cannot process the cattle at competitive prices with the bigger ones.

Are there no larger packers processing cattle for producer alliances?

Isn't it because of the scarcity of the top notch, 'hand produced' beef like yours that you enjoy the higher prices for it? If ALL beef was processed for owner entrepreneurs by the 'Big Five', there would be more competive pricing and your 'gravy train' would dry up!!!

Just because you WANT to believe what you ALLEGE is obvious, does not make it true!

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

RM: "There were several reasons we lost these plants, but it was NCBA's failure to recognize that these plants were producers avenue to go directly to the consumer with our product."

So what's your point? NCBA should have bought those plants?

You think NCBA should stand in the way of the sale of these plants?

Damn you really are a socialist aren't you?

RM: "The ability to do that is the most accurate way to get direct market signals from the consumer."

So what's stopping you? Ranchers Renaisance (sp?) did it with Excel.

Other alliances have formed with other major packers. This doesn't require small less efficient plants.

Future Beef bought a plant and what happened to them?

RM: "The ability for producers to sell in this manner is the best way to receive a fair price for live cattle and thereby set a fair price in the overall market."

So why not get out your checkbook and buy shares in USPB?

RM: "If we had 100 packers doing the same job as the 5 packers we now have, we wouldn't be having this discussion."

The smaller less efficient packer couldn't compete with the larger more efficient packer. If we turned back the hands of time for you, you would force us all into a lower cattle market. Good thing blamers like you don't run this industry.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

RM: "There were several reasons we lost these plants, but it was NCBA's failure to recognize that these plants were producers avenue to go directly to the consumer with our product."

So what's your point? NCBA should have bought those plants?

You think NCBA should stand in the way of the sale of these plants?

Damn you really are a socialist aren't you?

RM: "The ability to do that is the most accurate way to get direct market signals from the consumer."

So what's stopping you? Ranchers Renaisance (sp?) did it with Excel.

Other alliances have formed with other major packers. This doesn't require small less efficient plants.

Future Beef bought a plant and what happened to them?

RM: "The ability for producers to sell in this manner is the best way to receive a fair price for live cattle and thereby set a fair price in the overall market."

So why not get out your checkbook and buy shares in USPB?

RM: "If we had 100 packers doing the same job as the 5 packers we now have, we wouldn't be having this discussion."

The smaller less efficient packer couldn't compete with the larger more efficient packer. If we turned back the hands of time for you, you would force us all into a lower cattle market. Good thing blamers like you don't run this industry.


~SH~

You are playing devil's advocate for commodity beef, SH.

Robert Mac is still in the cattle business. Where are you?

 

[Anonymous]

Lying King: "You are playing devil's advocate for commodity beef, SH."

You are an idiot. I fed cattle for the first USDA total process verified branded beef program. Far from commodity but what would an idiot like you know?

Lying King: "Robert Mac is still in the cattle business. Where are you?"

Still in the cattle business.

Where are you?

Typing on a computer from your jail cell?


~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

RobertMac, you and who else decreed that it was "NCBA's failure to recognize these plants were producers' avenue to go directly to the consumer with our product"?

History and commonsense...NCBA not speaking out against the concentration of the processing industry showed they favored 'corporate' capitalism over 'small business' capitalism. Do you really believe that producers will have more control over their destiny(and that of their children) with just a few large corporate processors?

How else can a producer sell directly to the consumer except through a processor? Do you think my customers would be happy if I unloaded a finished in their back yard??????????????

YOU fail to recognize that you just might be wrong. Those smaller plants cannot process the cattle at competitive prices with the bigger ones.

I'm all ears...prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are there no larger packers processing cattle for producer alliances?

USPB....all for them!!!!!!!!!! We need more!!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't it because of the scarcity of the top notch, 'hand produced' beef like yours that you enjoy the higher prices for it? If ALL beef was processed for owner entrepreneurs by the 'Big Five', there would be more competive pricing and your 'gravy train' would dry up!!!

Like Ben, I'm selling my 'hand produced' beef at reasonable prices(10-15% above average retail USDA scanner prices)...I'm not riding the 'gravy train'!!!!! After 30 years in production agriculture, I know that if you aren't planning at least 5 years down the road, you are already behind...and you can't even get the past 5 years right!!!!!!!!! The thing is that even with my inefficient, high cost processing, over the course of a cattle cycle, I'll return more income to my ranch for each animal I process.

Just because you WANT to believe what you ALLEGE is obvious, does not make it true!

Prove me wrong!!!

MRJ

 

[RobertMac]

So what's your point? NCBA should have bought those plants?

You think NCBA should stand in the way of the sale of these plants?

Damn you really are a socialist aren't you?

So what's your point?


So what's stopping you? Ranchers Renaisance (sp?) did it with Excel.

Ranchers Renaissance is not an independent branded beef program of producers selling directly to consumers.

Other alliances have formed with other major packers. This doesn't require small less efficient plants.

Future Beef bought a plant and what happened to them?

Tough business, I never said it would be easy! If you're scared, say you are!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:



So why not get out your checkbook and buy shares in USPB?

I didn't think there were shares available...besides, I got my own deal going and I'm in complete control!!!!!!!!!!!


The smaller less efficient packer couldn't compete with the larger more efficient packer. If we turned back the hands of time for you, you would force us all into a lower cattle market. Good thing blamers like you don't run this industry.

You don't understand efficiency...it is balancing supply, processing ability, and market.

~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Lying King: "You are playing devil's advocate for commodity beef, SH."

You are an idiot. I fed cattle for the first USDA total process verified branded beef program. Far from commodity but what would an idiot like you know?

Lying King: "Robert Mac is still in the cattle business. Where are you?"

Still in the cattle business.

Where are you?

Typing on a computer from your jail cell?


~SH~

Fact is, you couldn't make it. Robert Mac and Ben are. Who has been more successful in the long term? Your appetite for short term gain at the expense of long term gain has done you in.

The only thing you will have, like Jason, is what your pappy gives you. Even Jason has done better than you.

You are the low man on the totem pole.

 

[Anonymous]

Lying King: "Fact is, you couldn't make it."

Yet another lie. I have gained as much success in the cattle industry as I pursued. You just can't help your lying self can you? You are just a compulsive liar aren't you? You can't even make a post without lying.

Lying King: "Who has been more successful in the long term?"

You don't know anything about me other than my lack of tolerance for liars like you.

Lying King: "Your appetite for short term gain at the expense of long term gain has done you in."

Hahaha! If you say so Lying King!

Lying king: "The only thing you will have, like Jason, is what your pappy gives you."

Thank you for proving once again that you are the undisputed Lying King of this forum. You don't know sh*t about me or Jason. You just lie about anyone that doesn't cry in your packer blaming beer with you.

Lying King: "Even Jason has done better than you."

You don't know anything about anything.

Lying King: "You are the low man on the totem pole."

I could be the poorest man in the world and I could hold my head higher than a lying pathetic chickensh*t alias like you.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Lying King: "Fact is, you couldn't make it."

SH: Yet another lie. I have gained as much success in the cattle industry as I pursued. You just can't help your lying self can you? You are just a compulsive liar aren't you? You can't even make a post without lying.

Econ: So I guess you didn't fail, you just gave up. Right again, you are!

Lying King: "Who has been more successful in the long term?"

SH: You don't know anything about me other than my lack of tolerance for liars like you.

Econ: Aside from your idiot fabrications and lack of economic jargon, where is the lie?

Lying King: "Your appetite for short term gain at the expense of long term gain has done you in."

SH: Hahaha! If you say so Lying King!

Econ: Thanks for the affirmation.

Lying king: "The only thing you will have, like Jason, is what your pappy gives you."

SH: Thank you for proving once again that you are the undisputed Lying King of this forum. You don't know sh*t about me or Jason. You just lie about anyone that doesn't cry in your packer blaming beer with you.

Econ: Oh, I know "sh*t" about you and Jason. You have both shared it on this forum.

Lying King: "Even Jason has done better than you."

SH: You don't know anything about anything

Econ: Do you have a jingle to go with that?

Lying King: "You are the low man on the totem pole."

SH: I could be the poorest man in the world and I could hold my head higher than a lying pathetic chickensh*t alias like you.

Econ: I hope you remain proud, SH. It is the things you are proud about that worry me.