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

Tyson wants to outsource our Food

Tex

Well-known member
This is the reason Tyson and other packing companys fought the COOL program so hard. I like to know which country the meat I eat comes from.
J.
> Tyson International President Rick Greubel told analysts the company has set
> a goal to increase international sales from $3 billion in 2007 to $5 billion
> by 2010.
>
> In Brazil, Greubel said Tyson has signed a letter of intent to buy a
> mid-sized, vertically integrated poultry business, which he would not name. Tyson
> hopes to complete the deal by the end of calendar year 2007.
>
> In China, Tyson has reached preliminary agreements for two joint-venture
> poultry operations. Greubel said the company expects to complete both
> transactions during fiscal 2008, which ends Sept. 29, 2008.
>
> In Mexico, Tyson is exploring ways to significantly increase production at
> its chicken processing operations and expand sales throughout Mexico and
> Central America through its Tyson de Mexico subsidiary.
>
> Bond told the analysts that the deals, while accretive, would likely have
> little impact on 2008 results.
>
> Value-added strategy
>
> To mitigate uncertainty and an expected $300 million increase in yearly
> grain expenses in the chicken segment, Bond said Tyson has reined in costs and is
> pushing ahead with initiatives to add higher-margin, value-added products.
>
> "From an innovation perspective, we are the leader," Bond said. "We're going
> to increase our new products sales pounds, in prepared foods, in chicken
> [and] in beef." He added that some 200 new products have been either launched or
> are being tested as a result of the company's 100,000-sq.-ft. research and
> development facility, the Discovery Center, which opened earlier this year.
>
> Tyson executives also said the company will continue to raise some prices on
> chicken products, instituting staggered increases as foodservice and retail
> contracts come up for renewal.

Tyson is taking U.S. (might I say Canadian) dollars to "invest" overseas.

Haven't we had enough of these "globalists"?

The world is their pearl.


Why should the U.S. promote a strong dollar? It only promotes those who can make a lot of money in the U.S. to then go and invest over seas.

I for one am about fed up with these unamerican businessmen. They have no ties to America other than profits.

It reminds me of Yahoo's chairman.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Tex said:
This is the reason Tyson and other packing companys fought the COOL program so hard. I like to know which country the meat I eat comes from.
J.
> Tyson International President Rick Greubel told analysts the company has set
> a goal to increase international sales from $3 billion in 2007 to $5 billion
> by 2010.
>
> In Brazil, Greubel said Tyson has signed a letter of intent to buy a
> mid-sized, vertically integrated poultry business, which he would not name. Tyson
> hopes to complete the deal by the end of calendar year 2007.
>
> In China, Tyson has reached preliminary agreements for two joint-venture
> poultry operations. Greubel said the company expects to complete both
> transactions during fiscal 2008, which ends Sept. 29, 2008.
>
> In Mexico, Tyson is exploring ways to significantly increase production at
> its chicken processing operations and expand sales throughout Mexico and
> Central America through its Tyson de Mexico subsidiary.
>
> Bond told the analysts that the deals, while accretive, would likely have
> little impact on 2008 results.
>
> Value-added strategy
>
> To mitigate uncertainty and an expected $300 million increase in yearly
> grain expenses in the chicken segment, Bond said Tyson has reined in costs and is
> pushing ahead with initiatives to add higher-margin, value-added products.
>
> "From an innovation perspective, we are the leader," Bond said. "We're going
> to increase our new products sales pounds, in prepared foods, in chicken
> [and] in beef." He added that some 200 new products have been either launched or
> are being tested as a result of the company's 100,000-sq.-ft. research and
> development facility, the Discovery Center, which opened earlier this year.
>
> Tyson executives also said the company will continue to raise some prices on
> chicken products, instituting staggered increases as foodservice and retail
> contracts come up for renewal.

Tyson is taking U.S. (might I say Canadian) dollars to "invest" overseas.

Haven't we had enough of these "globalists"?

The world is their pearl.


Why should the U.S. promote a strong dollar? It only promotes those who can make a lot of money in the U.S. to then go and invest over seas.

I for one am about fed up with these unamerican businessmen. They have no ties to America other than profits.

It reminds me of Yahoo's chairman.




2010/2012 is getting closer!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

PORKER

Well-known member
For Pork, it's woe, Canada
The Canadian dollar is at record highs against the U.S. dollar, and it's killing Canada's hog producers



(MEATPOULTRY.com, November 09, 2007)
by Steve Bjerklie

On Jan. 22, 2002, the Canadian dollar hit an all-time low against the dollar south of the border. On that day, one Canadian dollar, nicknamed a "loonie" because an image of the common loon, a waterfowl frequently seen on Canadian lakes and rivers, appears on Canada’s one-dollar coin, bought 61.79 U.S. cents.

The day must seem like decades, if not eons, ago to Canadian livestock and meat producers. This week, the "loonie" out bought a U.S. buck by US$1.08. The striking turnaround – a 77% increase in the value of the Canadian dollar compared with the U.S. dollar – is creating ruin and devastation for Canadian hog producers especially, says one leading hog producer in Saskatchewan. BEEF TOO!
Florian Possberg runs Big Sky Farms, Canada’s third-largest hog operation, with 49,000 sows on hand at a time and a production of 1.5 million hogs annually. The detrimental exchange rate, he told MEAT&POULTRY, "is causing our industry up here to question whether it can be competitive again with the U.S."

"Our industry is in crisis here," he continued. "This is hitting some producers like a cannon ball. It’s been devastating." According to what he’s heard among colleagues in the business, some Canadian hog producers are losing as much as C$70 per hog. Not only that, added Possberg, "but our pork packers have been losing buckets of money, too."

Big Sky is protected – a little. It sends some hogs to Iowa for finishing, taking advantage of the Canadian dollar’s buying power in the U.S. Midwest. At the same time, Possberg said he and his staff have calculated that every one-cent swing in the loonie’s value relative to the U.S. dollar means C$900,000 to Big Sky’s bottom line. "That can go either way," he said, "to the good or the bad. What is most important, however, is that our price is 100%, totally, completely tied to the U.S."

This week, the cash price for hogs in the Sioux Falls market was approximately US$0.34 per pound. Back in early 2002, that sum would’ve translated to C$0.55, but today it becomes C$0.31.

But in addition to troubles with the U.S. exchange, what also worries Possberg, who is a member of the Canadian Pork Council’s executive committee, is the long-term outlook globally. "The world price of pork has to go up," he said, "because hog producers elsewhere, like in Australia and Europe, are telling us they’re losing money too." It’s not an economically sustainable situation, he pointed out; livestock prices will have to increase to keep pork in production. And when they do, Canada’s hog prices and pork will be even more expensive.

Where exports have been a bright spot for the U.S. pork industry, "the appreciation of the Canadian dollar has caused Canadian packers to be non-competitive with their U.S. counterparts" in global markets, noted Possberg. The only good news for the industry north of the border, he said, is that as the Canadian dollar goes up, the value of Canadian export grain goes down, keeping more of it at home and thus flattening feed costs.

Still, Possberg retains a shred of optimism. He keeps a sign over his desk that sums up a hog producer’s feelings about raising pigs: "It may not be sexy, but doggone it people have to eat," it reads. "There will be a vital Canadian hog industry after this is all over," he said, "but it just may not be as extensive an industry as it is now. The Canadian industry is going to shrink, no question about it."
 

cedardell

Well-known member
Back in 2001 I asked how we can have world trade if everyones currency value is constantly changing. I blamed Canadians for taking advantage of the exchange rate. Everyone in internetdoom laughed at me. I figured that's why Europe went to the Eruro to even out the value. So are US producers going to suffer as Big Business who was taking advantage of the unfair exchange rate try to recoup their losses? Look at Tyson and weep you chicken farmers.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Just as Nafta opened the door to free trade with Mexico (we pretty much had it already with Canada) which was used by big business to jump to the orient, the fix is in.

Globalism helps an elite group of businesses who will continue to control the profits from the world as exchange rates change to fit the monetary and fiscal differences between countries.

It is a concentration of wealth and and end run to domestic producers of all kinds.
 

mrj

Well-known member
FACT CHECK: most of the countries with which the USA has, or is working for, Free Trade Agreements ALREADY had/have free access to our country for THEIR products. The FTA's give the USA more access to sell OUR products in THEIR countries with no or lower tax and barriers than previously. The majority of the products coming here from the FTA nations can't be produced in our country, or can only be grown here in summer.

mrj
 

Mike

Well-known member
mrj said:
FACT CHECK: most of the countries with which the USA has, or is working for, Free Trade Agreements ALREADY had/have free access to our country for THEIR products.

mrj

Well that was a dumba$$ move.

Why would anyone allow them to without reciprocal implications?

Seems like that would be easy enough to change too.

Just stop their goods from coming in until they give us unfettered access.

Problems I see with Cafta is that it will be 15 or so years before we will be able to send the better cuts of beef there. Meanwhile they are chipping away at our prices..............................................

I can hear that "GIANT....SUCKING SOUND"!

Free trade agreements can't work if you've got the very same companies shipping goods out that are shipping goods in. :???: :???: :???:

They'll wear the ones out that can't compete for prices...........
 

mrj

Well-known member
News Flash! Mike, we are in a world trade situation now. Many nations have had great growth in their economy, including the USA, over the past few years. Other nations are gaining more and more citizens who can afford US products. Trade is going to continue to grow and go both ways. We can't stop it and we can either p!$$ and moan about it or make it work for us, too. That is what the new FTA's are giving us the opportunity to do, IMO.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
News Flash! Mike, we are in a world trade situation now. Many nations have had great growth in their economy, including the USA, over the past few years. Other nations are gaining more and more citizens who can afford US products. Trade is going to continue to grow and go both ways. We can't stop it and we can either p!$$ and moan about it or make it work for us, too. That is what the new FTA's are giving us the opportunity to do, IMO.

mrj

You have bought a load of bull there, MRJ. I go for Mike's idea. You would too if you had common sense. Instead, you claim that we "are in a world trade situation now."

How much trade do we have as producers? How much trade do producers get the benefit from with beef trade and Japan, Korea, etc.

The trade deficits are there because we have trade representatives who don't know how to strike a fair trade deal for producers at home---that and a strong dollar policy. It hurts domestic producers!!!!---That includes youl!!!
 

Mike

Well-known member
mrj said:
News Flash! Mike, we are in a world trade situation now. Many nations have had great growth in their economy, including the USA, over the past few years. Other nations are gaining more and more citizens who can afford US products. Trade is going to continue to grow and go both ways. We can't stop it and we can either p!$$ and moan about it or make it work for us, too. That is what the new FTA's are giving us the opportunity to do, IMO.

mrj

I completely understand the world trade game going on.

With all the FTA's that have been implemented, they have not solved our trade deficit problem one iota.

Please answer my question.......

Why do all these other countries you mention have unfettered access to sell goods here, but we cannot reciprocate to their countries without an FTA?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Mike, you would have to check with administrations from about two presidents back, at least, to get that info. FTA's are, IMO, to repair the unequal deals previously made.

Maybe you could have done it more simply, but you are not president of the USA.

Tex, as usual, your rant really deserves no response.

It is amazing that you deny or fail to understand that those who sell US beef to foreign nations DO pass some of the financial benefit back to their suppliers (US cattle feeders and producers).

Fortunately, some cattle producers do understand that if more of the beef we produce is sold by businesses located in the USA , either to our own consumers or to consumers in other nations, the better for us.

Yes, we MIGHT be better off if less beef sold at higher prices, but apparently the majority of consumers are not willing to do that.......with some notable exceptions..........and apparently the market is there if you are willing to do the work and add the value to your cattle by marketing them yourself like PPRM and RobertMac do.

Which illustrates my long held conviction that consumers do not want simplistic Country of Origin labels which tell them NOTHING ABOUT that beef other than the nation where it was produced.

They want to KNOW the rancher, or at the least the name and location of the rancher who produces the beef they buy, if they are going to pay the higher prices for it.

You also forget that we have trade deficits because US consumers want the exotic products grown in mild climates, OR they want the lower cost products produced by the countries with huge labor pools where people are willing to work for much less than laborers in the USA. And, with the possible exception of coerced laborers (which pressure from US consumers is eliminating), those workers are making BETTER wages than ever before in their lives and/or the history of their nation. Many are, or soon will be, able to purchase more from the USA.

Surely it isn't easy for any nation to move into a global economy, but it seems inevitable if we don't want wars for conquest or starving populations in far off places. And just as surely, trade will eventually even out.

That is, UNLESS the forces leading some of you who believe free trade is never fair trade, or 'big business' is out to enslave us all, or that Capitalism is a dirty word and a worse system than socialism "win" your war against Capitalists.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
You got the labor thing right, mrj.

We should be able to sell as much as we buy. It would be called a balance of trade. The fact that we don't shows structural deficiencies.

I am not against trade, and in fact, think it is a good thing. An imbalance of trade shows we don't know how to do it very well.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "Which illustrates my long held conviction that consumers do not want simplistic Country of Origin labels which tell them NOTHING ABOUT that beef other than the nation where it was produced. "

Your long held conviction goes against every consumer poll on the subject. Chinese gluten, anyone?

MRJ, "They want to KNOW the rancher, or at the least the name and location of the rancher who produces the beef they buy, if they are going to pay the higher prices for it."

Who told you that?
 
Top