The "Salmon Run"

[Big Muddy rancher]

Gee Randy I was civil and you didn't answer my queation.
If UTM slaughter was the biggest problem in Canada why was the Big C proposal for OTM slaughter?

Can we try this on again Randy?

 

[mrj]

Come on Big Muddy. During the time when Nillsons were lapping up the spilled milk, Cargill and Tyson were skimming the cream for crying out loud.

I'm not going to defend Nillsons, but continuing to make Tyson and Cargill out to be angels is truley browning your nose.

The rules just happened to change at a favourable time for Tyson, don't you think? UTM cattle spread dropped and Tyson starts killing cows.

Good gravy Big Muddy, has Tam been feeding you the sugar agin.

Out of half-interested curiousity, why do you persist in calling anyone who disagrees with your take on this issue "brown nosers"? I can see two different people having different perspectives based on their relative positions in the industry, attitude, experience, whatever....as being able to interpret the same set of facts differently in some instances. Why can't you admit that is possible and do your darndest to bring real arguments to convince others of your take rather than resorting to name calling?

MRJ

 

[mrj]

Tyson could not kill OTM cattle in the same plant as UTM. The UTM cattle are higher valued and if they become OTM that would have hurt us alot more then keeping our culls for a while longer. Does it make good sense to kill OTM cattle with no market and tie up freezer space? Or did it help themselves(for Randy) and the industry as a whole to kill and export UTM?

BMR, were there a lot of Canadians retaining their older cows and getting a more valuable calf out of them at the time?

Re. Randy's disdain for "cow beef" sold at retail, while at the NCBA convention we had access to sample beef steaks and prime rib from "cow beef" treated with a marinade/tenderizer,which I believe was developed at SD State U by Dr. Wulff (not sure spelling is correct on that) and some students. It was excellent! Best of tenderness and flavor. I have not checked the literature I brought home to read "later" as yet, but have heard quite a lot of cows beef is being treated with things like that and eat just great. Very likely a MAJOR reason our cull cow prices are holding up well. Others on this site, I believe, have stated that most steak meals at less than $18.00 per plate in the USA probably are from cow beef. Just another good example of adding value to beef, which serves all in this cattle/beef industry well, IMO.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Come on Big Muddy. During the time when Nillsons were lapping up the spilled milk, Cargill and Tyson were skimming the cream for crying out loud.

I'm not going to defend Nillsons, but continuing to make Tyson and Cargill out to be angels is truley browning your nose.

The rules just happened to change at a favourable time for Tyson, don't you think? UTM cattle spread dropped and Tyson starts killing cows.

Good gravy Big Muddy, has Tam been feeding you the sugar agin.

Out of half-interested curiousity, why do you persist in calling anyone who disagrees with your take on this issue "brown nosers"? I can see two different people having different perspectives based on their relative positions in the industry, attitude, experience, whatever....as being able to interpret the same set of facts differently in some instances. Why can't you admit that is possible and do your darndest to bring real arguments to convince others of your take rather than resorting to name calling?

MRJ

MRJ, this post may have had a little credibilty to the stated intent had you posted it against SH. Just my half-interested observation.

 

[mrj]

Come on Big Muddy. During the time when Nillsons were lapping up the spilled milk, Cargill and Tyson were skimming the cream for crying out loud.

I'm not going to defend Nillsons, but continuing to make Tyson and Cargill out to be angels is truley browning your nose.

The rules just happened to change at a favourable time for Tyson, don't you think? UTM cattle spread dropped and Tyson starts killing cows.

Good gravy Big Muddy, has Tam been feeding you the sugar agin.

Out of half-interested curiousity, why do you persist in calling anyone who disagrees with your take on this issue "brown nosers"? I can see two different people having different perspectives based on their relative positions in the industry, attitude, experience, whatever....as being able to interpret the same set of facts differently in some instances. Why can't you admit that is possible and do your darndest to bring real arguments to convince others of your take rather than resorting to name calling?

MRJ

MRJ, this post may have had a little credibilty to the stated intent had you posted it against SH. Just my half-interested observation.

Rod, I am sorry for the harm that has come to the Canadian cattle industr, mostly due to not enough slaughter capacity and the closed border. You sound like the typical R-CALF member in assigning all blame for any low cattle prices on what you perceive to be packer attempts to force all cattlemen out of business. That is ludicrous! SH has posted sound information and some of you insist it isn't true, That is your problem. Just remember, it is people with you same mind-set and attitude to packers who are in the organization that is trying to close the Canadian border for many years, if not permanently, due to BSE, so they claim. Do you believe that is their reason?

MRJ

MRJ

MRJ

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Out of half-interested curiousity, why do you persist in calling anyone who disagrees with your take on this issue "brown nosers"? I can see two different people having different perspectives based on their relative positions in the industry, attitude, experience, whatever....as being able to interpret the same set of facts differently in some instances. Why can't you admit that is possible and do your darndest to bring real arguments to convince others of your take rather than resorting to name calling?

MRJ

MRJ, this post may have had a little credibilty to the stated intent had you posted it against SH. Just my half-interested observation.

Rod, I am sorry for the harm that has come to the Canadian cattle industr, mostly due to not enough slaughter capacity and the closed border. You sound like the typical R-CALF member in assigning all blame for any low cattle prices on what you perceive to be packer attempts to force all cattlemen out of business. That is ludicrous! SH has posted sound information and some of you insist it isn't true, That is your problem. Just remember, it is people with you same mind-set and attitude to packers who are in the organization that is trying to close the Canadian border for many years, if not permanently, due to BSE, so they claim. Do you believe that is their reason?

Hmmmm, I'm not 100% sure how I got drug back into this thread, but OK, here goes:

I'm not sure how your logic is working in this post, but its left me scratching my head. How is R-Calf working to hold a border closed even remotely like me pointing out that packers are NOT starving as so many people seem to believe they are? Not trying to be insulting, but I am lost.

Tyson alone is spending 650 MILLION on NEW aquisitions this year. Where did this money come from? I grow very weary of listening to packers and their cronies poor mouth all the time, while spending BILLIONS on EXPANSION!

Where does this money come from? Where? And why, if they can afford to spend billions on expansion are cows still selling for 25 cents? Seems to me if they were even remotely interested in helping out the average producer, they may rethink their 650 million dollar expansion budget and give a little back to the producer. SH, while posting some decent information, is still only posting numbers that the packers spewed out, while ignoring most of the business aspects of the number crunching.

The packers could stand to learn a lesson from Pfizer. During BSE, Pfizer issued cheques back to producers who used their products. My cheque size was significant. Pfizer Animal Health then posted lower than average earnings in the first year, due in part to the refunds they issued. Their share value dropped by a healthy margin, but THEY TOOK THE LOSS WITHOUT COMPLAINT, and issued refunds in the second year. That is a company who realized they had more responsibility to the industry than simple fiscal responsibility to their shareholders. If Tyson, Swift, and other cronies operated with a similar mindset, the world would be a much better place.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

So Ron, let me get this straight. You think you can be against the actions of packers concentrating the markets and frauds in Canada and still be against rcalf who is trying to close the border? You mean the "enemy"(packers) of your enemy(rcalf) is not necessarily your friend? It seems you can think for yourself!!!

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

So Ron, let me get this straight. You think you can be against the actions of packers concentrating the markets and frauds in Canada and still be against rcalf who is trying to close the border? You mean the "enemy"(packers) of your enemy(rcalf) is not necessarily your friend? It seems you can think for yourself!!!

:lol: Unless my wife is doing my thinking for me that day :lol:

Despite some of the debates that I've had with Oldtimer on here, I really don't consider R-Calf my "Enemy". In some ways, I respect what they are attempting to do, vis-a-vis protecting their cattle industry. I just feel they aren't going about it in the right fashion, nor do I feel that they are correct in their judgement that Canadian beef is a danger to them. But thats neither here nor there, and don't want to turn this thread into an R-Calf debate.

I do however feel that the packers are making a great deal of money off the backs of producers, burying the large profits in expansion capital write offs, and poor-mouthing their way to destroying an industry that I had hoped would be viable for my children.

Rod

 

[greg]

Yup to everything you said there Rod!!!

 

[mrj]

MRJ, this post may have had a little credibilty to the stated intent had you posted it against SH. Just my half-interested observation.

Rod, I am sorry for the harm that has come to the Canadian cattle industr, mostly due to not enough slaughter capacity and the closed border. You sound like the typical R-CALF member in assigning all blame for any low cattle prices on what you perceive to be packer attempts to force all cattlemen out of business. That is ludicrous! SH has posted sound information and some of you insist it isn't true, That is your problem. Just remember, it is people with you same mind-set and attitude to packers who are in the organization that is trying to close the Canadian border for many years, if not permanently, due to BSE, so they claim. Do you believe that is their reason?

Hmmmm, I'm not 100% sure how I got drug back into this thread, but OK, here goes:

I'm not sure how your logic is working in this post, but its left me scratching my head. How is R-Calf working to hold a border closed even remotely like me pointing out that packers are NOT starving as so many people seem to believe they are? Not trying to be insulting, but I am lost.

Tyson alone is spending 650 MILLION on NEW aquisitions this year. Where did this money come from? I grow very weary of listening to packers and their cronies poor mouth all the time, while spending BILLIONS on EXPANSION!

Where does this money come from? Where? And why, if they can afford to spend billions on expansion are cows still selling for 25 cents? Seems to me if they were even remotely interested in helping out the average producer, they may rethink their 650 million dollar expansion budget and give a little back to the producer. SH, while posting some decent information, is still only posting numbers that the packers spewed out, while ignoring most of the business aspects of the number crunching.

The packers could stand to learn a lesson from Pfizer. During BSE, Pfizer issued cheques back to producers who used their products. My cheque size was significant. Pfizer Animal Health then posted lower than average earnings in the first year, due in part to the refunds they issued. Their share value dropped by a healthy margin, but THEY TOOK THE LOSS WITHOUT COMPLAINT, and issued refunds in the second year. That is a company who realized they had more responsibility to the industry than simple fiscal responsibility to their shareholders. If Tyson, Swift, and other cronies operated with a similar mindset, the world would be a much better place.

Rod

Rod, sorry that I didn't make that post more clear, the comparisons of some Canadians and the R-CALF members in the US. My point is that both blame packers for low cattle prices. The RCALf members here being maybe the more guilty because our prices are not low except as compared with our costs of operating.

I don't believe anyone has said packers are starving, only that they are into an unprofitable situation right now.

I'm not sure we should expect packers or any other business entity with which we producers do business to be "interested in helping out the average producer" as you imply they should. Turning our cattle into the best beef possible is their job. That job may require the expansion and more especially the modernizing and re-tooling of existing plants to facilitate processing of newer consumer friendly, quick preparation beef entre's. Right or wrong, the current business trend is that one must get bigger, more focused on ones' specialized products, or lose ground. Where the money comes from I do not know. My guess would be that at least some of it is borrowed, with the assumption of improving the bottom line of the company via the streamlined new set-up and new branded and organic beef products that have been announced will be produced by Tyson.

What Pfizer did was commendable, but only they know if it will end up being of benefit to them over the long term.

While I don't pretend to know the reasons for the way Tyson operated in Canada during the BSE crisis, let alone what they actually did, I definitely do know that attacking someone, even a multi-national corporation, is not going to make them more likely to WANT to help anyone out of a bad situation.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ: "I don't believe anyone has said packers are starving, only that they are into an unprofitable situation right now."

MRJ, Tyson is not unprofitable right now and they are a packer. Go read their report they filed that I posted.

If you make the assumption that they are unprofitable in light of the posted report, you just are not dealing with reality. Their beef part has had problems but their poultry has been gangbusters. It is part of the concentration plan. Where do you think they got the money to reinvest?

I am sorry you think the cattlemen need to use their checkoff dollars to bring back Tyson's profitabilty through product development. Don't you know it just gives them more money for concentrating resources on their poultry and pork businesses?

Sometimes, MRJ, I just don't understand you.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Rod, sorry that I didn't make that post more clear, the comparisons of some Canadians and the R-CALF members in the US. My point is that both blame packers for low cattle prices. The RCALf members here being maybe the more guilty because our prices are not low except as compared with our costs of operating.

2) I'm not sure we should expect packers or any other business entity with which we producers do business to be "interested in helping out the average producer" as you imply they should.

3) Turning our cattle into the best beef possible is their job. That job may require the expansion and more especially the modernizing and re-tooling of existing plants to facilitate processing of newer consumer friendly, quick preparation beef entre's. Right or wrong, the current business trend is that one must get bigger, more focused on ones' specialized products, or lose ground.

4) Where the money comes from I do not know. My guess would be that at least some of it is borrowed, with the assumption of improving the bottom line of the company via the streamlined new set-up and new branded and organic beef products that have been announced will be produced by Tyson.

1) I know I've slotted solidly into the "Packer Blamers" camp, however I don't think I've ever said that packers were completely to blame for dimishing margins. But they are certainly part of the problem. I don't feel that the Tyson's of the world should be allowed to utilize the profits from the beef industry to fund development or expansion into a competing industry. I also don't feel they are being honest about their profit margins. I'd probably have way less to say about them if they came right and said, YUP, we're making $95/animal, whatteryagonnadoaboutit? Instead they poor-mouth while spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

2) Well MRJ, I feel that large corporations SHOULD be concerned about the health of the producers and the people. I realize that I may be labelled a socialist for feeling the way that I do, but the quest for the almighty buck is destroying society. Dual incomes required, just to survive in any sort of reasonable comfort? I won't go any further along this line here, as I want to post something about it in a separate thread.

3) I also wouldn't have an issue with Tyson modernizing and turning our beef into the best possible product. At least then they are returning some value back to the producer. However they have used the profits from the beef side to buy into competing arenas (chicken and pork), and are no longer focused on beef. This I do have a problem with. I'm funding my competition now.

4) In order to borrow, they have to show that they can pay it back, and with lending being the way it is, they'd also have to have a certain amount of cash available. That cash has come from somewhere, and I strongly suspect it came out of my pocket during the BSE crisis.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

So Ron, let me get this straight. You think you can be against the actions of packers concentrating the markets and frauds in Canada and still be against rcalf who is trying to close the border? You mean the "enemy"(packers) of your enemy(rcalf) is not necessarily your friend? It seems you can think for yourself!!!

:lol: Unless my wife is doing my thinking for me that day :lol:

Despite some of the debates that I've had with Oldtimer on here, I really don't consider R-Calf my "Enemy". In some ways, I respect what they are attempting to do, vis-a-vis protecting their cattle industry. I just feel they aren't going about it in the right fashion, nor do I feel that they are correct in their judgement that Canadian beef is a danger to them. But thats neither here nor there, and don't want to turn this thread into an R-Calf debate.

I do however feel that the packers are making a great deal of money off the backs of producers, burying the large profits in expansion capital write offs, and poor-mouthing their way to destroying an industry that I had hoped would be viable for my children.

Rod

Rod- I'm kind of the same way... Many of the arguments I stir is the days when I'm home on a cold day bored just to get the radical Canucks that live and die by CCA and ABP like Frenchie and Tam stirred up- ...But there are also many days I set at the local Pub or coffee shop and me and some of my neighbors to the north are very close to being in agreement- have the same subsidy arguments with them as I do the farmer neighbors :lol: - and as we were discussing today we're not sure that lately the US ranchers shouldn't get the same bent farmer caps (so they will fit in the mailbox)- (altho with some of the latest grass insurance payments they should probably back up to collect the checks :lol: )...You will not believe the number of PM's on here and cattletoday I've received from Canadians that believe much the same way I (and R-CALF) do and especially the way the CCA, ABP, NCBA have sold out to the Packer/Big feeder interests.....I've hooked a couple into the OCM and R-CALF website to find the proposed anti Packer ownership laws- as they can see what is happening and they think Canada needs a change too....

And NO TAM and SH I won't tell you which Canadians PMed me :wink: :lol: :lol:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Gee Randy I was civil and you didn't answer my queation.
If UTM slaughter was the biggest problem in Canada why was the Big C proposal for OTM slaughter?

Can we try this on again Randy?

Was your sale that good that you went on another holiday?

 

[mrj]

1) Rod, sorry that I didn't make that post more clear, the comparisons of some Canadians and the R-CALF members in the US. My point is that both blame packers for low cattle prices. The RCALf members here being maybe the more guilty because our prices are not low except as compared with our costs of operating.

2) I'm not sure we should expect packers or any other business entity with which we producers do business to be "interested in helping out the average producer" as you imply they should.

3) Turning our cattle into the best beef possible is their job. That job may require the expansion and more especially the modernizing and re-tooling of existing plants to facilitate processing of newer consumer friendly, quick preparation beef entre's. Right or wrong, the current business trend is that one must get bigger, more focused on ones' specialized products, or lose ground.

4) Where the money comes from I do not know. My guess would be that at least some of it is borrowed, with the assumption of improving the bottom line of the company via the streamlined new set-up and new branded and organic beef products that have been announced will be produced by Tyson.

1) I know I've slotted solidly into the "Packer Blamers" camp, however I don't think I've ever said that packers were completely to blame for dimishing margins. But they are certainly part of the problem. I don't feel that the Tyson's of the world should be allowed to utilize the profits from the beef industry to fund development or expansion into a competing industry. I also don't feel they are being honest about their profit margins. I'd probably have way less to say about them if they came right and said, YUP, we're making $95/animal, whatteryagonnadoaboutit? Instead they poor-mouth while spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

2) Well MRJ, I feel that large corporations SHOULD be concerned about the health of the producers and the people. I realize that I may be labelled a socialist for feeling the way that I do, but the quest for the almighty buck is destroying society. Dual incomes required, just to survive in any sort of reasonable comfort? I won't go any further along this line here, as I want to post something about it in a separate thread.

3) I also wouldn't have an issue with Tyson modernizing and turning our beef into the best possible product. At least then they are returning some value back to the producer. However they have used the profits from the beef side to buy into competing arenas (chicken and pork), and are no longer focused on beef. This I do have a problem with. I'm funding my competition now.

4) In order to borrow, they have to show that they can pay it back, and with lending being the way it is, they'd also have to have a certain amount of cash available. That cash has come from somewhere, and I strongly suspect it came out of my pocket during the BSE crisis.

Rod

Rod, I may be a bit guilty of lumping the complaints of various people together to conclude that you all believe packers guilty of ALL diminishing margins.

1 & 3. Are you saying you believe Tysons are making $95.00 per head profit? If so, what is your basis? I don't understand how anyone can 'just know' what a packer, or any other company is 'thinking' without having some information as the basis (re. your comment of "being honest about their profit margins" and their reasons for and financing of business expansion. In 3. you say Tyson uses beef profits to buy into chicken and pork. Isn't it a fact that Tysons started in pork and poultry and then bought the beef operation? Do you really want government to say what, if the day should come, that ranchers use their profits for? If you wanted to get into some other business, say in order to diversify and protect your income from drought, low cattle prices, etc., would you really want government to prevent that? That is what you appear to be saying you want for Tyson.

2. Really, how do you KNOW what Tysons or any other large corporation is or is not concerned with? We see lots of allegations and yes, even some fines they paid, but very few instances of convictions of their guilt on these issues. We do know that businesses do accept fines, not necessarily because they are guilty, but because they are inundated with nuisance charges and the cost of fighting them and having to rely on juries, not of their peers who may have some grasp of the problems of running a mega business, but of ordinary citizens of any level of education and bias, who are often eager to sock it to the corporations, especially if a "little guy" will get some money out of the deal.

4. How do you know they do not have a business plan, having put the pencil to their project, that looks like prospects for paying off the expansion should be reasonably sure?

For anyone to assume they know what anyone else is thinking just seems quite a stretch of imagination, IMO.

BTW, there are wives who want to work, whether they need to or not, and everyone can use more money, it seems, and our wants and needs blur together so we really don't understand the difference, it seems.

From OT's comments to you re. being bored and chewing the fat with the locals at the pub, maybe that is where way too much of the innuendo and
"deciding" what other people and managers of businesses are "thinking" is dreamed up. Just maybe if all those guys had enough work to keep them to busy to dream up all that junk, they wouldn't be so angry at the various businesses that turn their cattle into a consumer ready product.

 

[Anonymous]

From OT's comments to you re. being bored and chewing the fat with the locals at the pub, maybe that is where way too much of the innuendo and
"deciding" what other people and managers of businesses are "thinking" is dreamed up. Just maybe if all those guys had enough work to keep them to busy to dream up all that junk, they wouldn't be so angry at the various businesses that turn their cattle into a consumer ready product.

Sorry Maxine- I guess I should have put down church socials for you of delicate upbringing :???: :lol: - altho thats not where I've met up with many Canadian ranchers :wink: ....I suppose I should apologize for having so many sociable friends too- but as far as I'm concerned thats your own problem if you've buried yourself in a hole with your own flock.......

 

[rkaiser]

Sorry BMR, just spending some of that BIG C money on a new wide screen TV down at Future Shop today. :lol:

I guess I need to keep things in order as a few folks have asked me questions today.

Fisrt for you BMR. Both OTM and UTM cattle became a problem when the border was closed. Neither situation would be solved quickly with a new plant, as new plants take a lot of time to build. Ranchers beef may open later this spring. 3 years after it was needed. I think that you will agree with me that right from the begining it became obvious that OTM cattle would never cross the border for a very very long time. The opening to boxed beef took months and the expansions at Cargill and Tyson were announced shortly thereafter. A plant for UTM cattle would have to be in a postion to go head to head with two companies who had filled their war chest with excessive profits from a salmon run like the industry has never seen. Two reasons in one paragraph there BMR. Need any more?

As for MRJ and my horrible name calling. (brown nosers). I will relate that to the kids in high school who took everything that those NDP teachers of ours spewed as gospel. Not willing to think for themselves, and scared of what other students might think if they showed the knowledge that they themselves may have had and questioned the so called teacher. ( There is a compliment in there somewhere MRJ if you look hard enough. )

As far as the cow beef thing MRJ, you cooked your own goose on that one. I too ate D1 cow meat and rated it second out of 7 similarly prepared cubes of steak. Kind of tells you that Tyson is making a killing on that good cow beef here in Canadar at 30 cents (CDN) a pound live eh!

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) 1 & 3. Are you saying you believe Tysons are making $95.00 per head profit? If so, what is your basis? I don't understand how anyone can 'just know' what a packer, or any other company is 'thinking' without having some information as the basis (re. your comment of "being honest about their profit margins" and their reasons for and financing of business expansion.

2) Do you really want government to say what, if the day should come, that ranchers use their profits for? If you wanted to get into some other business, say in order to diversify and protect your income from drought, low cattle prices, etc., would you really want government to prevent that? That is what you appear to be saying you want for Tyson.

3) 2. Really, how do you KNOW what Tysons or any other large corporation is or is not concerned with? We see lots of allegations and yes, even some fines they paid, but very few instances of convictions of their guilt on these issues.

4) 4. How do you know they do not have a business plan, having put the pencil to their project, that looks like prospects for paying off the expansion should be reasonably sure?

5) BTW, there are wives who want to work, whether they need to or not, and everyone can use more money, it seems, and our wants and needs blur together so we really don't understand the difference, it seems.

1) The $95/hd was just a number I yanked down. I grow weary of seeing that $3.88/hd number, and knowing thats its BS. And this has nothing to do with 'just knowing'. Its got to do with being able to grab a pen, figure out what I just recieved for my product that I sold, then looking at that same product and seeing what it sold for in the store. SInce I know what the markup is at the storefront, thanks to friends in the retail industry allowing me access to their books, its not difficult to calculate a gross margin for the packer. Since I also know what it costs small time butchers to cut, wrap, do SRM removal, SRM disposal, put the lights on, etc, I can use that as a starting point for calulcating packer costs. And I keep coming up with far more than $3.88/hd. So far, I'm back 10 years on my numbers, and haven't even come CLOSE to $3.88/hd.

2) <sigh> We've broached this topic time and time again. A small producer exerts NO market power at all, therefore the government does not need to step in. Now, if enough ranchers got together, and exerted sufficient market power in a damaging fashion, I'd be all over it. I don't care whose damaging the market, all I care is that someone is damaging it.

3) 17 years of working for more than 100 corporations gives me a VERY safe feeling that I know what they're after. It frequently amazes me how well the PR firms do their jobs. Tyson is after one thing: To ensure the survival of their company. They will do this in any fashion necessary.

4) Investment bankers are playing it safe these days. No matter how good your credit rating is, Tyson would not be able to borrow 650 million at the drop of a hat. How do I know this? 17 years of working in the corporate world. Its not the same as you or I walking into the local credit union with a business plan and wanting to borrow $20,000.

5) Now we're broaching a topic that I wanted to cover in another thread. Wives that wanna work are just fine and dandy. You'll notice that I said NOTHING about that being a bad thing. What is a bad thing is having to have a dual income simply to survive in a middle class neighborhood. Its destroying society. I think there should one parent (either father or mother) at home, where the children can have safety and refuge. Our modern society isn't allowing that to happen and still keep a decent roof over those kid's heads.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Rod, we all agree companies are trying to ensure survival. Some managers would employ illegal means to do so. That's why laws are there, to protect the rest of us.

How do you look at the Canfax numbers I posted that was buried by those who didn't like the fact that Tyson/lakeside and Cargill don't control 80% of the Canadian kill market?

You might not like the $3.88 number, but that is fact, for the 90's for all major US packers.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Rod, we all agree companies are trying to ensure survival. Some managers would employ illegal means to do so. That's why laws are there, to protect the rest of us.

2) How do you look at the Canfax numbers I posted that was buried by those who didn't like the fact that Tyson/lakeside and Cargill don't control 80% of the Canadian kill market?

3) You might not like the $3.88 number, but that is fact, for the 90's for all major US packers.

1) They are trying to ensure survival, but being in competing markets is illegal. Its called a conflict of interest and is anti-competitive and those laws need to be enforced.

2) About the only thing I thought about them was that I found it interesting they varied so much from the numbers Randy was able to find. But even if they don't control 80% of the kill market, say its only 60%, thats still FAR too much. Ignoring the spewing of the US competition bureau, many economists feel that a company with 10% market share can begin exerting anti-competitive force. Of course, this depends on the size of the market.

3) Its treated as fact, but all it is is a number spewed forth by the packers.

Rod