A
Anonymous
Guest
Over the past week I have been thinking about the biggest difference between the blaming side of this industry and the progressive side of this industry. There is no question that the difference between the two philosophies is based on their understanding vs. lack of understanding of what factors affect cattle prices.
I can offer no greater proof of this than a recent quote from the current president of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association. In his presidents report, Rick Fox actually stated that imports have a bigger affect on our markets than competitive meats. I actually stood in awe of what I had just read. I couldn't believe it.
R-CALF overstates the impact of imports. What more proof does anyone need than the fact that feeder cattle prices were higher in 2005 with an opened Canadian border than in 2004 with a closed Canadian border yet the blamers continue to blame lower cattle prices on imports.
R-CALF supports "Mandatory" ("Please government, save us from ourselves again") Country of Origin Labeling based on the ignorance that we have all kinds of imported beef being sold in this country at the retail level. The fact is, under their stupid law, only 5% of the beef at the retail level would be labeled as "imported beef" providing that this beef didn't also find it's way to the "food service exemption". How can anyone be so naive as to add the expense of Country of Origin labeling to our industry, WHEN THE FEW CONSUMERS THAT WANT IT CAN BUY SOURCE VERIFIED BEEF NOW, only to segregate 5% of our beef as a NOVELTY ITEM to the benefit of the novelty item??? WHERE'S THE LOGIC?????
Everytime I see one of those "symbolism over substance" bumper stickers about "USA BEEF, ASK FOR IT" I want to slap one along side it that says "95% OF THE BEEF AT THE RETAIL LEVEL IS US BEEF SO EVEN IF YOU ASK FOR IT, THERE'S A 95% CHANCE THAT IS WHAT YOU'LL GET ANYWAY" but it would take up too much space. LOL! Makes import blamers feel good.
R-CALF has over exaggerated packer profits. While their packer blaming heros were telling us about these "HUGE" $400 per head profits in the packing industry, the most efficient packers financial records which were subponoed (sp?) into court only showed a $26 per head profit margin IN THEIR PROFITABLE YEARS???? WHERE'S THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT WHEN YOU WERE WRONG?????
R-CALF over states the affects of "captive supply". They couldn't prove their case in Pickett but they can't let the conspiracy theory die. Funny how captive supply levels vary very little yet they are the reason for lower cattle prices but still present in higher cattle markets. I suppose that little fact will be puzzling R-CALF scientists for years.
On the opposite side of the equation, NCBA realizes that the only new money to come into this industry will come from the consumer both foreign and abroad. One side of our industry is focused on "scape goats" while the other side is focused on the consumer. R-CALFers blame NCBA for not joining them in their baseless packer blaming allegations when NCBA is understandably focused on the consumer.
The blaming side of this industry made their mistake when they let a handful of salebarn managers with an agenda to maintain "socialized cattle marketing" become the spokespersons for the cattlemen. I can assure you that the Livestock Marketing Police does not speak for me.
There's no question that the biggest difference between the two sides of this industry has it's roots in the understanding of what factors truly affect cattle prices. R-CALF couldn't be more wrong and it's proven time and time again in court.
I would love to listen to a discussion on which factors affect cattle prices at a blamer's convention. I bet you couldn't get two blamers to agree unless they just let their leaders make back to back contradicting statements while they sat there nodding their heads in agreement to both statements. LOL!
Perhaps that would be an interesting topic for discussion.
~SH~
I can offer no greater proof of this than a recent quote from the current president of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association. In his presidents report, Rick Fox actually stated that imports have a bigger affect on our markets than competitive meats. I actually stood in awe of what I had just read. I couldn't believe it.
R-CALF overstates the impact of imports. What more proof does anyone need than the fact that feeder cattle prices were higher in 2005 with an opened Canadian border than in 2004 with a closed Canadian border yet the blamers continue to blame lower cattle prices on imports.
R-CALF supports "Mandatory" ("Please government, save us from ourselves again") Country of Origin Labeling based on the ignorance that we have all kinds of imported beef being sold in this country at the retail level. The fact is, under their stupid law, only 5% of the beef at the retail level would be labeled as "imported beef" providing that this beef didn't also find it's way to the "food service exemption". How can anyone be so naive as to add the expense of Country of Origin labeling to our industry, WHEN THE FEW CONSUMERS THAT WANT IT CAN BUY SOURCE VERIFIED BEEF NOW, only to segregate 5% of our beef as a NOVELTY ITEM to the benefit of the novelty item??? WHERE'S THE LOGIC?????
Everytime I see one of those "symbolism over substance" bumper stickers about "USA BEEF, ASK FOR IT" I want to slap one along side it that says "95% OF THE BEEF AT THE RETAIL LEVEL IS US BEEF SO EVEN IF YOU ASK FOR IT, THERE'S A 95% CHANCE THAT IS WHAT YOU'LL GET ANYWAY" but it would take up too much space. LOL! Makes import blamers feel good.
R-CALF has over exaggerated packer profits. While their packer blaming heros were telling us about these "HUGE" $400 per head profits in the packing industry, the most efficient packers financial records which were subponoed (sp?) into court only showed a $26 per head profit margin IN THEIR PROFITABLE YEARS???? WHERE'S THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT WHEN YOU WERE WRONG?????
R-CALF over states the affects of "captive supply". They couldn't prove their case in Pickett but they can't let the conspiracy theory die. Funny how captive supply levels vary very little yet they are the reason for lower cattle prices but still present in higher cattle markets. I suppose that little fact will be puzzling R-CALF scientists for years.
On the opposite side of the equation, NCBA realizes that the only new money to come into this industry will come from the consumer both foreign and abroad. One side of our industry is focused on "scape goats" while the other side is focused on the consumer. R-CALFers blame NCBA for not joining them in their baseless packer blaming allegations when NCBA is understandably focused on the consumer.
The blaming side of this industry made their mistake when they let a handful of salebarn managers with an agenda to maintain "socialized cattle marketing" become the spokespersons for the cattlemen. I can assure you that the Livestock Marketing Police does not speak for me.
There's no question that the biggest difference between the two sides of this industry has it's roots in the understanding of what factors truly affect cattle prices. R-CALF couldn't be more wrong and it's proven time and time again in court.
I would love to listen to a discussion on which factors affect cattle prices at a blamer's convention. I bet you couldn't get two blamers to agree unless they just let their leaders make back to back contradicting statements while they sat there nodding their heads in agreement to both statements. LOL!
Perhaps that would be an interesting topic for discussion.
~SH~