• 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 Biggest Get Bigger

Mike

Well-known member
Tyson Foods Expands Into Argentina

By Kim Souza
The Morning News
Email this story Print this story Comment on this story After months of negotiations Springdale-based Tyson Foods Inc. announced Friday it has formed a joint venture with two Argentine beef companies that could help it expand its international channels of beef distribution.

The joint venture -- which will result in to create a fully integrated beef operation located in Santa Rosa, Argentina -- is the meat giant's first participation in a beef operation located outside of North America. The company owns and operates a large beef processing facility in Alberta, Canada and eight American beef processing plants.

Tyson said it will partner with Cactus and Cresud who together have operated an Argentine feedlot since 1999.

Tyson Foods has a majority share in the joint venture owning slightly more than half of the new company's interest, said Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson.

The financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Cactus Feeders is based in Amarillo, Texas, and also operates nine large-scale U.S. feedlots. Cresud is a leading cattle company involved in both crop production and cattle raising in Argentina, the release said.

Tyson is lending its experience in processing and marketing to the new joint venture that includes all three companies, Rick Gruebel, vice president of Tyson's international division said in the release.

The new venture will include a cattle feedlot and a boxed beef processing plant located in central Argentina.

"We believe our combined expertise will create a great new company that will be able to produce products for domestic consumption as well as export," Gruebel said in the release.

The scope of the overall operation is small compared to Tyson's U.S. beef business, but it offers the company a chance to grow its international exposure and is in line with the company's long term strategy, said Farha Aslam, analyst with Stephens Inc. (Stephens Inc. provides investment banking services for Tyson Foods and expects to receive compensation for those services in the next three months.)

Tyson Foods reported total beef sales of $11.82 billion in 2006. The company estimates the new venture will post between $30 to $35 million in sales for 2007.

While the overall projected sales of the new venture pales in comparison to Tyson Foods' beef segment sales, Dr. Ka Zeng, a professor of international relations at the University of Arkansas, said not to underestimate the value of this partnership.

"Tyson's move into a joint-venture within Argentina gives the company channels of distribution already established and access to countries for beef export they can't get from the United States," Zeng said.

Lower labor, livestock and energy costs are advantageous for raising beef in Argentina, it is the fifth largest leading producer of beef and veal and the second leading exporter of beef in the world, according to the press release.

This venture allows Tyson Foods to participate and grow sales in a new region with minimal costs because it is working with partners who already know the region, Zeng said.

Beef exports from the United States to Argentina would face high tariffs and the difference in currencies would make the imported product more expensive, according to the Argentina Exporter Guide written in November by the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service

The beef produced by the venture will be marketed for the Argentine consumer as well as give Tyson Foods access to European and other high value beef markets.

Tyson said the new plant has already received approval to ship product to the European Union as well as other countries.

"The top two markets for all of South American beef exports are the European Union and Russia. In 2007, both Russia and EU rank are expected to rank second and third in beef imports behind the United States," said Greg Doud, economist with the National Cattlemen's Association.

Reductions of subsidies in the EU and growth in the Russian economy have pushed these countries ahead of Japan -- a situation world meat trade officials are watching closely, he said.

While the United States recently signed an agreement to allow beef exports to Russia, more time is needed for plant visits and other governmental red tape before actual shipments will begin, said Lynn Heinze, spokesman for the U.S. Meat Export Federation.

Although one of Tyson's American plants is approved to ship beef to the European Union, Mickelson said the company is not shipping beef to the EU at this time.

Tyson Foods Inc. International Sales

In fiscal 2006 international sales totaled $2.81 billion or 11 percent of total sales, down $455 million from fiscal 2005.

2006 2005

Mexico $702 million $725 million

Canada $618 million $609 million

Japan $224 million $261 million

Russia $196 million $261 million

China $196 million $174 million

South Korea$140 million $116 million

Italy $112 million $116 million

These sales reflect both meat and poultry exports and sales made by Tyson Foods, including its joint ventures and other companies based outside the United States.

Source: Tyson Foods Inc.

Hear that GIANT SUCKING SOUND?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I think the independent nature of farmers/ranchers can easily be exploited by the packers. Farmers and ranchers will sacrifice what benefits them all by taking what benefits themselves---even if it comes from violating anti competitive provisions of the laws of the land. In this instance, the ones violating the laws are the packers, not the farmers/ranchers.

How many times have we heard of SH saying he has the right to sell his cattle anywhere under any conditions yet not hold packers responsible for the rules of competition.

As packers continue to use economic tools to squash out competition, the industry becomes more concentrated both here and in the world. The less and less farmers/ranchers have the ability to remain without the tools of procurement that poultry has had to utilize and therefore less market power. When the processors have all the market power, they will regulate profits, not through the market equilibrium of competition, but of access to markets of farmers/ranchers.

In not allowing MCOOL, the packers are able to use producer's dollars to help subsidize advertising the products they bring in from the rest of the world. They get a free ride off of producers. Generic beef advertising by the checkoff program does just that.

Globalization is great for big outfits that benefit off of a lousy fiscal policy of the U.S. and extra savings from the rest of the world invested in the U.S. It is not good for domestic producers.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
I think the independent nature of farmers/ranchers can easily be exploited by the packers. Farmers and ranchers will sacrifice what benefits them all by taking what benefits themselves---even if it comes from violating anti competitive provisions of the laws of the land. In this instance, the ones violating the laws are the packers, not the farmers/ranchers.

How many times have we heard of SH saying he has the right to sell his cattle anywhere under any conditions yet not hold packers responsible for the rules of competition.

As packers continue to use economic tools to squash out competition, the industry becomes more concentrated both here and in the world. The less and less farmers/ranchers have the ability to remain without the tools of procurement that poultry has had to utilize and therefore less market power. When the processors have all the market power, they will regulate profits, not through the market equilibrium of competition, but of access to markets of farmers/ranchers.

In not allowing MCOOL, the packers are able to use producer's dollars to help subsidize advertising the products they bring in from the rest of the world. They get a free ride off of producers. Generic beef advertising by the checkoff program does just that.

Globalization is great for big outfits that benefit off of a lousy fiscal policy of the U.S. and extra savings from the rest of the world invested in the U.S. It is not good for domestic producers.

It simply amazes me why some folks that post/read the boards cannot/willnot understand this.
We have posted countless reputable articles/charts showing how NAFTA/CAFTA does nothing for anyone except Multinational corporations,all to no avail,there will be a lull when you stick it their face,then two days later............same of stuff :???: :???: ...............good luck
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
You R-Calf guys think that Canadian beef is causing your prices to fall, just wait until that dirt cheap Argentine stuff comes north.

I just hope that the powers that be up here smarten up soon and give us the tools we need to market elsewhere. We're gonna need alternate markets even more than we do right now.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
You R-Calf guys think that Canadian beef is causing your prices to fall, just wait until that dirt cheap Argentine stuff comes north.

I just hope that the powers that be up here smarten up soon and give us the tools we need to market elsewhere. We're gonna need alternate markets even more than we do right now.

Rod

Thats what several of us have been saying for sometime Rod--It isn't going to only affect the US, but Canada will be right in the middle of it...Anything that comes into the US can slip right thru into Canada- marked with the USDA stamp and passed off as US beef......

That is why many want to get the M-COOL implemented, USA born, raised, and slaughtered BEEF promoted, and the US consumer sold on our home product before the rest of this comes to be...
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
You R-Calf guys think that Canadian beef is causing your prices to fall, just wait until that dirt cheap Argentine stuff comes north.

I just hope that the powers that be up here smarten up soon and give us the tools we need to market elsewhere. We're gonna need alternate markets even more than we do right now.

Rod

Thats what several of us have been saying for sometime Rod--It isn't going to only affect the US, but Canada will be right in the middle of it...Anything that comes into the US can slip right thru into Canada- marked with the USDA stamp and passed off as US beef......

That is why many want to get the M-COOL implemented, USA born, raised, and slaughtered BEEF promoted, and the US consumer sold on our home product before the rest of this comes to be...

Don't forget Brazil. There is a huge market that will buy U.S. beef (or Canadian) just to save the world's rain forest. If the meat isn't so labeled, there can be no distinction between our beef and S. American beef and therefore no advertising for it.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
You R-Calf guys think that Canadian beef is causing your prices to fall, just wait until that dirt cheap Argentine stuff comes north.

I just hope that the powers that be up here smarten up soon and give us the tools we need to market elsewhere. We're gonna need alternate markets even more than we do right now.

Rod

Rod, do you really believe that the powers up there are going to help you? We need to take control of our industry, without government intervention, before it's gone. Write it on the wall, three to five years.

Ben Roberts
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Rod, do you really believe that the powers up there are going to help you? We need to take control of our industry, without government intervention, before it's gone. Write it on the wall, three to five years.

No, I don't, but one can always dream :)

I see whats happened to the grain industry, and I see the exact same thing happening to the livestock industry. Unfortunately, small to medium sized guys like me are too busy scrambling to get big and ensure our survival that it distracts us from the real issues. These days, I've decided that my only real hope of having a ranch to pass on to my boys is to find a niche and hide in it for awhile. I've been frustrated by the smaller producers in my area not wanting to band together and increase our power through numbers. I couldn't even gather enough of us together for a no-risk alternate marketing opportunity, via internet auctions.

Rod
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Ben Roberts said:
Rod, do you really believe that the powers up there are going to help you? We need to take control of our industry, without government intervention, before it's gone. Write it on the wall, three to five years.

No, I don't, but one can always dream :)

I see whats happened to the grain industry, and I see the exact same thing happening to the livestock industry. Unfortunately, small to medium sized guys like me are too busy scrambling to get big and ensure our survival that it distracts us from the real issues. These days, I've decided that my only real hope of having a ranch to pass on to my boys is to find a niche and hide in it for awhile. I've been frustrated by the smaller producers in my area not wanting to band together and increase our power through numbers. I couldn't even gather enough of us together for a no-risk alternate marketing opportunity, via internet auctions.

Rod

Rod, it's proudcers like yourself that i'm trying to help. I work on it every- day, you can't hide, we need to draw that line and say, thus far and no farther. One of the first issues we need to understand is that, the 49th. parallel is not a militarize zone for cattle producers. Working together is the only way we can have solvency.


Ben Roberts
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Rod, it's proudcers like yourself that i'm trying to help. I work on it every- day, you can't hide, we need to draw that line and say, thus far and no farther. One of the first issues we need to understand is that, the 49th. parallel is not a militarize zone for cattle producers. Working together is the only way we can have solvency.

I agree Ben. That border should not play a role in _any_ of the trade between our two nations. I've said this before, but I firmly believe in a wide open Can-Am border, with NO restrictions whatsoever. Its not as difficult to accomplish as one might think.

Rod
 

Bill

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Ben Roberts said:
Rod, do you really believe that the powers up there are going to help you? We need to take control of our industry, without government intervention, before it's gone. Write it on the wall, three to five years.

No, I don't, but one can always dream :)

I see whats happened to the grain industry, and I see the exact same thing happening to the livestock industry. Unfortunately, small to medium sized guys like me are too busy scrambling to get big and ensure our survival that it distracts us from the real issues. These days, I've decided that my only real hope of having a ranch to pass on to my boys is to find a niche and hide in it for awhile. I've been frustrated by the smaller producers in my area not wanting to band together and increase our power through numbers. I couldn't even gather enough of us together for a no-risk alternate marketing opportunity, via internet auctions.

Rod

Rod, it's proudcers like yourself that i'm trying to help. I work on it every- day, you can't hide, we need to draw that line and say, thus far and no farther. One of the first issues we need to understand is that, the 49th. parallel is not a militarize zone for cattle producers. Working together is the only way we can have solvency.


Ben Roberts

Hi Ben,

A good start would be if R-Calf withdrew its latest legal action filed in December against Canadian UTM's and then followed by their support for implementation of Rule 2.

What do you think the odds are of that happening?

Bill
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Sandhusker -
A good start would be the USDA explaining where the science was wrong in their first polity.

Now you are getting it Sandhusker - the USDA should have never used their cherry picked trade related science to close the border and cause the two multinational packers to use the border issue to expand power like they have done.

Good on you Sandhusker. I won't even go after your Rcalf connections this time. You have finally posted a very common sense statement about the USDA and the Canadian border.
:clap:
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Oh yeah, Sandhusker. That USDA policy was also a key for self interest leaders like those of Rcalf to expound on the legitimate argument of decent American producer to want fair pricing and lie to them about the problems Canadian cattle and beef cause in their market.

Two of the major places that Cargill and Tyson put their multi millions in profit where exposed quite early when both made major expansions in Canada. Cargill showed more about their fortunate gift when they bought out Better Beef in Ontario which gave the two pirates over 80% control of the Canadian packing industry. Most of this one likely came from their Canadian federal government cheques. Tyson's expansion into Argentina is another prime example of how to shift money from an excessively profitable segment of a company to major acquisitions somewhere else.

Congratulations to Rcalf for Helping make GOOD things happen for the folks at Cargill andTyson foods. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rkaiser said:
Sandhusker -
A good start would be the USDA explaining where the science was wrong in their first polity.

Now you are getting it Sandhusker - the USDA should have never used their cherry picked trade related science to close the border and cause the two multinational packers to use the border issue to expand power like they have done.

Good on you Sandhusker. I won't even go after your Rcalf connections this time. You have finally posted a very common sense statement about the USDA and the Canadian border.
:clap:

Not sure if that is what Sandhusker meant there kaiser- but thinking about that--old Willow-Kreek made an interesting post on Agriville...Why do all the testing and find all the positives-- when USDA says that doesn't matter anyway :roll: ...That no matter how many positives or what kind a country has we should import from them- :shock: because its supposedly all handled by the SRM removal and firewalls- and cured by the feedban... :???:

If you think of it he's right... Since USDA doesn't follow sound science and all the testing does is scare the home folks-- and noone will test all for true safety-- why test any?

I guess someone forgot to tell all those POST feedban Canuck cows that they aren't supposed to exist- eh :???:

What a tangled web USDA has weaved after it first started to deceive...
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Oh yeah, Sandhusker. That USDA policy was also a key for self interest leaders like those of Rcalf to expound on the legitimate argument of decent American producer to want fair pricing and lie to them about the problems Canadian cattle and beef cause in their market.

Two of the major places that Cargill and Tyson put their multi millions in profit where exposed quite early when both made major expansions in Canada. Cargill showed more about their fortunate gift when they bought out Better Beef in Ontario which gave the two pirates over 80% control of the Canadian packing industry. Most of this one likely came from their Canadian federal government cheques. Tyson's expansion into Argentina is another prime example of how to shift money from an excessively profitable segment of a company to major acquisitions somewhere else.

Congratulations to Rcalf for Helping make GOOD things happen for the folks at Cargill andTyson foods.

I'll simply have to keep posting my reply Oldtimer. How many times do you think you would have to read it to get it through your head. I would guess 786,447. And that would be without any alchohol or drugs.

BSE is a non issue Oltimer, beyond a trade issue. I support testing as a tool for American and Canadian producers to fight off the lop sided trade issue (or captive market issue), that has only profitted a limited number of packers,and stolen money from the rest of our pockets, including packer competitoin on both sides of the border.

Wake up is right.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Sandhusker -
A good start would be the USDA explaining where the science was wrong in their first polity.

Now you are getting it Sandhusker - the USDA should have never used their cherry picked trade related science to close the border and cause the two multinational packers to use the border issue to expand power like they have done.

Good on you Sandhusker. I won't even go after your Rcalf connections this time. You have finally posted a very common sense statement about the USDA and the Canadian border.
:clap:

That was tongue-in-cheek. That policy was supposed to have been set after counsulting with the "experts". When the USDA says," Don't believe us then, but believe us now", I'd kind of like to know if "now" isn't going to be "then" down the road.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lying King: "How many times have we heard of SH saying he has the right to sell his cattle anywhere under any conditions yet not hold packers responsible for the rules of competition."

Chalk up another lie from the Lying King. Never said that. I'm telling you this guy is a compulsive liar. He can't help himself.


Sandcheska: "That policy was supposed to have been set after counsulting with the "experts". When the USDA says," Don't believe us then, but believe us now", I'd kind of like to know if "now" isn't going to be "then" down the road."

Only an idiotic policy would not consider precautionary measures that have been taken to address the issue. Those precautionary measures being:

1. Increased bse surveilance on cattle over 30 months.
2. SRM removal
3. Ruminant feed ban.

To keep an outdated policy and not consider the precautionary measures that have been taken would be foolish to anyone but an R-CULT isolationists who is looking for an excuse to keep the border closed.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Lying King: "How many times have we heard of SH saying he has the right to sell his cattle anywhere under any conditions yet not hold packers responsible for the rules of competition."

Chalk up another lie from the Lying King. Never said that. I'm telling you this guy is a compulsive liar. He can't help himself.


Sandcheska: "That policy was supposed to have been set after counsulting with the "experts". When the USDA says," Don't believe us then, but believe us now", I'd kind of like to know if "now" isn't going to be "then" down the road."

Only an idiotic policy would not consider precautionary measures that have been taken to address the issue. Those precautionary measures being:

1. Increased bse surveilance on cattle over 30 months.
2. SRM removal
3. Ruminant feed ban.

To keep an outdated policy and not consider the precautionary measures that have been taken would be foolish to anyone but an R-CULT isolationists who is looking for an excuse to keep the border closed.


~SH~

You don't even know the rules of competition, SH.

If you do, please explain them to us. As a matter of fact, please explain Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act.
 
Top