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

The 85% thing for SH

Help Support Ranchers.net:

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
SH -
Personally, I think an industry is much better served with the situation we have here in the states where we have 5 large efficient packers all competing for the same cattle and numerous level 2 packers with niche marketing schemes.

I thought that this post would be led off appropriately by your own words SH. Words that I ultimately agree with.

Prior to BSE Canada was working within this framework. It cost a bit more to get the cattle to the extra 3 large packers, (sorry but I have to leave off the word efficient as I believe the level two and niche market schemes can be just as efficient) and the numerous others.

BSE changed all of that. But BSE quickly became far more of an economic game than anything about health of humans or animals. BSE became an opportunity. An opportunity to reap the benefits of the Canadian producers misfortune.

What made the border open to boxed beef? Science - Bull ****. The border was opened to boxed beef for economic reasons.

At this point, Cargill and Tyson had a choice to make. Would they simply take what was given to them in this amazingly lottery like way. Or would they follow the path that the industry was on towards working together with producers as groups like the CCA or the USDA like to think. He was the chance for the USDA, and the CCA to prove to cattlemen that we truly have one industry rather than a beef industry and a cattle industry. Instead the two packers who then controlled less than 70% of the packing industry in Canada (with no custom slaughter allowance) took the salmon run opportunity, took the phony taxpayer bailout money, and made the most of the situation by expanding to the current 85% of production and expanding other aspects of their business as well. All at the same time as Canadian Cattle producers saw billions of dollars in equity loss and had to depend on the Taxpayer for welfare cheques.

If this is not a true picture of the story SH, what is. And yet, the producer of Canada is supposed to overlook all of this as an unfortunate biological event, or in your case Rcalf's fault.

Let's look back at what could have happened should the government of Canada have allowed BSE testing for potential markets if protocol could have been reached with Japan for instance. The science was all there. Japan was using it themselves.

Even if Cargill and Tyson would have declined from testing, investors in Canada would have had the incentive that they needed to forge ahead, and forge ahead quickly. Our own Canadian Beef Export Federation showed how, over time, they could change their attitude about testing. What if they would have supported the first call by a fledgling group like Beef Initiative Group Canada to allow any and all new plant proposals to BSE test if the market was there.

This brings us to a point about 85% control. Not only do Cargill and Tyson control 85% of slaughter capacity, there is no custom capability in their manual. They own the cattle that they kill. This fact, even though it was closer to 70% at the time, meant that Cargil and Tyson were doing just fine, and in fact enjoying a salmon run, so why on earth would they support giving another plant or plants a step up now, which could mean a slight advantage in the future. Just as many other producers have likely witnessed the lobby effort of the packers in policy making, I witnessed myself the emotional pleas of Brent Altwasser of Tyson foods, spewing statements and opinions similar to those of our own Scott Huber about testing for BSE. Neither side in this issue has cold hard facts. But one FACT is this. If a market could have been opened with BSE tested product, the picture would have been a whole lot different. Supporters of every move the packers made may not have looked so much like puppets in the largest money grab in the history of the Canadian beef Industry. And those of us who have been so eloquently labeled packer bwamers by those puppets could have simply gotten down to business.

The bottom line is that 85% of the packing industry controlled by two packers in Canada would likely work again if the border between Canada and the United States were to stay open with no restrictions and no potential for these same kind of situations. BUT we all know that will never be the case. **** happens, and when it does, I predict that (like I did on a private level) everyone including Cargill and Tyson will take as much as they can again. Go ahead and compare me to Cargill again in your childish way SH, I left that one open for you. You know that it is silly and far fetched.

Canada needs more of what is happening in the back wings. More producer owned, or even simply investor owned capacity other than Cargill and Tyson. And a review of policy to make sure that these plants get the same opportunity to operate in the world market as Cargill and Tyson have and had. If that opportunity is testing beef for a market that asks, Cargill and Tyson should have NO say in government policy to allow it.

Most ranchers in Canada are down to earth people, just like their comrades (like that one SH) in the United States. Most watch the prices at the sale barn when they prepare to sell more than anything else. Most are trusting that the market is based on supply and demand, and that the guy who buys his calves or his feeders can be trusted in one of the last marketplace systems that comes close to free enterprise in the world. Most reject government intervention, or something as ridiculous as supply management. Most even like the idea of an industry where packers and producers sit at a similar table to discuss where the industry can go.

BSE opened the eyes of some of those producers in Canada. Those producers never had the choice that the packers had. The packers made the choice, and now anyone who speaks out against those choices is branded.

Tear that one apart with your damning mouth SH.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I thought that this post would be led off appropriately by your own words SH. Words that I ultimately agree with.

Prior to BSE Canada was working within this framework. It cost a bit more to get the cattle to the extra 3 large packers, (sorry but I have to leave off the word efficient as I believe the level two and niche market schemes can be just as efficient) and the numerous others.

BSE changed all of that. But BSE quickly became far more of an economic game than anything about health of humans or animals. BSE became an opportunity. An opportunity to reap the benefits of the Canadian producers misfortune.

That's right, R-CULT took advantage of that opportunity and most Canadian producers have that figured out. Tyson and Cargill never wanted the border to stay closed to live cattle. The benefit they had in Canada was offset by their losses in the United States. The net was a loss to them and that is revealed in their financial statements. A fact you simply refuse to acknowledge. Anyone with any common sense knows that the Canadian cattle that used to be killed in plants in the United States were now stuck in Canada creating a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity. Did Canadian packers benefit, yes but not enough to offset the losses that were occuring in U.S. plants at the time. Tyson and Cargill wanted the Canadian border to open, that is a cold hard fact.


What made the border open to boxed beef? Science - BS. The border was opened to boxed beef for economic reasons.

Wrong again!

The reason the border was opened to boxed beef was based on science. The reason the border was closed to live cattle was based on R-CULT's bullsh*t injunction which threatened the integrity of the U.S. beef industry.

Go ahead Randy, give R-CULT a bye. Everyone else in Canada seems to have it figured out but you.


At this point, Cargill and Tyson had a choice to make. Would they simply take what was given to them in this amazingly lottery like way. Or would they follow the path that the industry was on towards working together with producers as groups like the CCA or the USDA like to think. He was the chance for the USDA, and the CCA to prove to cattlemen that we truly have one industry rather than a beef industry and a cattle industry. Instead the two packers who then controlled less than 70% of the packing industry in Canada (with no custom slaughter allowance) took the salmon run opportunity, took the phony taxpayer bailout money, and made the most of the situation by expanding to the current 85% of production and expanding other aspects of their business as well. All at the same time as Canadian Cattle producers saw billions of dollars in equity loss and had to depend on the Taxpayer for welfare cheques.

CANADA HAD MORE CATTLE THAN SLAUGHTER CAPACITY YOU DOLT! Had Tyson and Cargill not expanded their slaughter capacity, you would have been in worse shape. Did they do that for you? Of course not, they did it for themselves BUT ULTIMATELY IT BENEFITTED YOU BECAUSE THEY MOVED YOUR CATTLE THROUGH THE SYSTEM FOR YOU.

Your such a damn packer blamer that you can't even reason it out.


If this is not a true picture of the story SH, what is. And yet, the producer of Canada is supposed to overlook all of this as an unfortunate biological event, or in your case Rcalf's fault.

Let's look back at what could have happened should the government of Canada have allowed BSE testing for potential markets if protocol could have been reached with Japan for instance. The science was all there. Japan was using it themselves.

Even if Cargill and Tyson would have declined from testing, investors in Canada would have had the incentive that they needed to forge ahead, and forge ahead quickly. Our own Canadian Beef Export Federation showed how, over time, they could change their attitude about testing. What if they would have supported the first call by a fledgling group like Beef Initiative Group Canada to allow any and all new plant proposals to BSE test if the market was there.

If Canada had used the most modern BSE testing methodology available that would detect any BSE prions in cattle under 24 months of age, I would say go for it. If they were going to use the same tests that Creekstone wanted to use, it would have been the same fraud. Let your conscience be your guide.


This brings us to a point about 85% control. Not only do Cargill and Tyson control 85% of slaughter capacity, there is no custom capability in their manual. They own the cattle that they kill. This fact, even though it was closer to 70% at the time, meant that Cargil and Tyson were doing just fine, and in fact enjoying a salmon run, so why on earth would they support giving another plant or plants a step up now, which could mean a slight advantage in the future. Just as many other producers have likely witnessed the lobby effort of the packers in policy making, I witnessed myself the emotional pleas of Brent Altwasser of Tyson foods, spewing statements and opinions similar to those of our own Scott Huber about testing for BSE. Neither side in this issue has cold hard facts. But one FACT is this. If a market could have been opened with BSE tested product, the picture would have been a whole lot different. Supporters of every move the packers made may not have looked so much like puppets in the largest money grab in the history of the Canadian beef Industry. And those of us who have been so eloquently labeled packer bwamers by those puppets could have simply gotten down to business.

If there is a fortune to be made in the packing industry, MAKE IT!


The bottom line is that 85% of the packing industry controlled by two packers in Canada would likely work again if the border between Canada and the United States were to stay open with no restrictions and no potential for these same kind of situations.

I agree but R-CULT will do everything in their power to stop Canadian imports because they fear imports due to their lack of understanding of the fundamentals that affect cattle markets.


BUT we all know that will never be the case. s*** happens, and when it does, I predict that (like I did on a private level) everyone including Cargill and Tyson will take as much as they can again. Go ahead and compare me to Cargill again in your childish way SH, I left that one open for you. You know that it is silly and far fetched.

Did I compare you to Cargill in a dream you had? You drinking again?


Canada needs more of what is happening in the back wings. More producer owned, or even simply investor owned capacity other than Cargill and Tyson. And a review of policy to make sure that these plants get the same opportunity to operate in the world market as Cargill and Tyson have and had. If that opportunity is testing beef for a market that asks, Cargill and Tyson should have NO say in government policy to allow it.

Best of luck, seriously! You need a Canadian USPB that doesn't rely on the government.


Most ranchers in Canada are down to earth people, just like their comrades (like that one SH) in the United States. Most watch the prices at the sale barn when they prepare to sell more than anything else. Most are trusting that the market is based on supply and demand, and that the guy who buys his calves or his feeders can be trusted in one of the last marketplace systems that comes close to free enterprise in the world. Most reject government intervention, or something as ridiculous as supply management. Most even like the idea of an industry where packers and producers sit at a similar table to discuss where the industry can go.

BSE opened the eyes of some of those producers in Canada. Those producers never had the choice that the packers had. The packers made the choice, and now anyone who speaks out against those choices is branded.

You have an obligation to base your opinions on factual information, not what you want to believe so you have someone or something to blame. You need to know what you are talking about and you don't when it comes to believing that Tyson and Cargill wanted the border to stay closed to live cattle. That is absolutely untrue.


Tear that one apart with your damning mouth SH.

Don't mind if I do! LOL!



~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
What else vould I have expected from you SH. Good luck with your opinions SH. Nothing you said inyour post has anything to do with anything but "your opinion".
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
I thought SH lost that bet. Must we hear his propaganda on it forever?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Two packer blaming ankle biters each take a little nip at my heals but none have the courage to disprove anything I have stated.

I guess everything is normal!


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just because you don't blame the packers for closing the border, you blame them for their actions that followed and you blame them for wanting it to stay closed. Trying to cleanse your packer blaming conscience now for not blaming them for BSE?


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
No SH. Not tring to cleanse nothing. Just wondering why you are so stuck on the word blame.

Whenever you get in a bind, it is your only defense.
 

Latest posts

Top