Vertical integration coming soon to a packer near you

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "They don't have any equity tied up in land, barns, equipment, etc.... in chickens, why do you think they will need it in beef?"

It's not cost effective to confine beef cattle you moron.


~SH~

They need to confine cattle? They can let the feeders do that in their own feedlots - just as they have the poultry growers do that in their own barns.

See how silly you are when you let your opinion formulate facts instead of letting facts from your opinion?

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "They don't have any equity tied up in land, barns, equipment, etc.... in chickens, why do you think they will need it in beef?"

It's not cost effective to confine beef cattle you moron.


~SH~

They need to confine cattle?

You would think that being from where he is from out west, he would know about the open range.

I suppose SH just opens the trailer door and they hop right in. Guess what, SH, when they are in the trailer they are confined.

 

[Red Robin]

Sandbag: "They don't have any equity tied up in land, barns, equipment, etc.... in chickens, why do you think they will need it in beef?"

It's not cost effective to confine beef cattle you moron.


~SH~

Have you notified Smithfield of that fact? They bought a 9500 head once time capacity lot in Ohio if I remember correctly, confined and under roof.

 

[andybob]

Correct, Red Robin, despite being in the process of taking over their biggest competitors in the pork industry, and buying out Butterball turkeys to add to their Carolina turkeys,Smithfields has purchased two feedlots and a packing plant already. The initial emphasis will be in the purchasing of more of both which will give a large degree of controll of the market even if they didn't own a single head of cattle. The producing side will take a back seat initially, but the costs involved in developing their own genetic lines is almost a case of being financed out of petty cash! Much has been said about the effects of the grain price hikes on Smithfields, they have for many years been the only IMPORTERSof feed corn into the United States, and have been futures trading for wheat and corn on the world markets for years. The company has the means, the finance and the experience to move into the beef industry exactly as they have done in the pig and poultry industries, when these arguments were broached in the pig industry evryone agreed it would not happen, even while Smithfields were buying out Murphy Farms, Carrolls (pig and turkeys),Browns and NationalPig Development Company, the medium and small producers did not believe that this scale of intigration would affect them, mostof my neighbours had pigs 5 or 6 years ago, none have any now!

 

[mrj]

Sandbag: "They don't have any equity tied up in land, barns, equipment, etc.... in chickens, why do you think they will need it in beef?"

It's not cost effective to confine beef cattle you moron.


~SH~

Have you notified Smithfield of that fact? They bought a 9500 head once time capacity lot in Ohio if I remember correctly, confined and under roof.

Was that 9500 head facility for stock cows and their calves, or for feedlot cattle?

BTW, there has been some research recently promoting the effectiveness of managing cows and calves in confinement situations as being desireable to combat the high costs of land and in times of drought.

I don't like it, would hate to do it that way, and would find it hard to believe it could be cost effective, but research is showing benefits.

MRJ

 

[andybob]

MJR; the feedlots are for finishing cattle for the packing plant, there is still plenty of underutilised land owned by the company that can be used for breeding stock,and unused bales of hay from last year are still stacked on the perimeters of the spray fields of several of the pig farms close to me.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "They need to confine cattle? They can let the feeders do that in their own feedlots - just as they have the poultry growers do that in their own barns."

How can they control the industry without owning the cow?

It is much easier for them to integrate poultry and pork due to those animals being totally confined. It is not cost effective to confine beef cows and they are not going to invest in land, livestock, and machinery.

5 major beef packers in competition for the same cattle is a far cry from the integration in the poultry or pork industries.

More ignorant R-CULT "SKY IS FALLING" fear mongering. No basis in fact!

Sandbag: "See how silly you are when you let your opinion formulate facts instead of letting facts from your opinion?"

Hahaha! Listen to you little Sandcheska, what the hell would you know about facts when nothing you believe is supported by fact.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT PACKERS ARE INTEGRATING THE BEEF INDUSTRY LIKE THEY HAVE PORK AND POULTRY???

Nonexistant, that's where!

Lying King: "You would think that being from where he is from out west, he would know about the open range.

I suppose SH just opens the trailer door and they hop right in. Guess what, SH, when they are in the trailer they are confined."

Unworthy of response!

Red Robin: "Have you notified Smithfield of that fact? They bought a 9500 head once time capacity lot in Ohio if I remember correctly, confined and under roof."

So what?

That doesn't have anything to do with confining the mother cows which is what total confinement would entail.

You have something against Smithfield bidding on feeder cattle? I don't! Their money is as good as anyone else's. Oh, let me guess, I bet you are one of those who thinks we should have a government mandate that allows big government to pick and choose who can and who can't own cattle like the R-CULTers want. I certainly hope you're smarter than the liberals who want to regulate prosperity.

In order to have integration in the cattle/beef industry that is comparable to the pork and poultry industries, you need to have cows confined too, not just a handful of feeder cattle.

The fact remains and none of you will refute, there is more integration occurring from the producer level towards the packing level than packers trying to integrate from the top down.

More R-CULT "SKY IS FALLING" baseless fear mongering.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

They don't need to confine the mother cows. They don't need to own a single acre or one shed. Why don't you look at how they run the chicken business and try to learn something before you start yapping?

 

[Red Robin]

So what?

That doesn't have anything to do with confining the mother cows which is what total confinement would entail.

You have something against Smithfield bidding on feeder cattle? I don't! Their money is as good as anyone else's. Oh, let me guess, I bet you are one of those who thinks we should have a government mandate that allows big government to pick and choose who can and who can't own cattle like the R-CULTers want. I certainly hope you're smarter than the liberals who want to regulate prosperity.

In order to have integration in the cattle/beef industry that is comparable to the pork and poultry industries, you need to have cows confined too, not just a handful of feeder cattle.

The fact remains and none of you will refute, there is more integration occurring from the producer level towards the packing level than packers trying to integrate from the top down.

More R-CULT "SKY IS FALLING" baseless fear mongering.


~SH~

If you'll read my post, you would realize that I favor some amount of integration, think that tyson has helped Arkansas to some extent, and think that VI is inevitable.

After reading your posts, I do notice a lack of awareness of the discussion. I don't remember you saying you were refering to breeding stock however it is quite efficient to dry lot the cows and harvest green chop and carry it to the cows especially when it's going on back east (where the effluent is applied to ground from smithfield hog manuer) because of the realestate size. I think both sides in this argument, you and your opposition have their heads in the sand. One side thinks tyson is the boogyman and the other side sees no way to fence the range. Both of ya'll need to get out more.

 

[andybob]

SH didn't you read my reply to Red Robin at the top of the previous page?
The existing Smithfield commercial herd is grazed on the pig farm spray fields, no confinement needed!

 

[Anonymous]

Red Robin,

I am very well aware of every facet of this industry. I can assure you that it is a lot more cost effective to run cows on open range than it is to confine them and that is one of the main reasons why integration in the cattle/beef industry is not comparable to integration in the poultry and pork industries.

You need to understand that I have to be subjected to this R-CULT "integration fear mongering" on a daily basis. If I have heard the phrase "chickenization of the cattle/beef industry" once, I have heard it a hundred times. There is no basis in fact for the statement.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "They don't need to confine the mother cows. They don't need to own a single acre or one shed. Why don't you look at how they run the chicken business and try to learn something before you start yapping?"

There is no comparison between the integration in the cattle/beef industry and the integration occuring in the poultry and pork industries. It takes a hell of a lot more equity to integrate the beef industry.

FACT REMAINS, THERE IS MORE BOTTOM UP INTEGRATION OCCURING IN THE CATTLE/BEEF INDUSTRY THAN TOP DOWN. You cannot refute that fact which blows your worthless "SKY IS FALLING" integration of the cattle/beef industry right out of the water.

There is no comparison. NONE!

Try another worthless argument.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "There is no comparison between the integration in the cattle/beef industry and the integration occuring in the poultry and pork industries. It takes a hell of a lot more equity to integrate the beef industry. "

No, it doesn't. The packers don't need to buy a single acre. They don't own the land chickens are grown on - they don't need to own the land cattle are raised on.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "How can they control the industry without owning the cow? It is much easier for them to integrate poultry and pork due to those animals being totally confined. It is not cost effective to confine beef cows and they are not going to invest in land, livestock, and machinery"

What does confinement have to do with anything? You're trying to put up a strawman.

 

[Econ101]

In hogs it wasn't confinement, it was shackle space.

 

[Red Robin]

Red Robin,

I am very well aware of every facet of this industry. I can assure you that it is a lot more cost effective to run cows on open range than it is to confine them
~SH~

Have you got any data saying so?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "No, it doesn't."

The hell if it doesn't.

If it didn't take more equity to integrate the beef industry than the poultry and pork industries, the beef industry would already be integrated to the same degree as poultry and pork. Instead, the integration in the beef industry is occurring from the opposite direction with producers integrating from the bottom up. One more fact that you cannot refute.

Sandbag: "The packers don't need to buy a single acre."

Since the largest packer (Tyson) has less than 33% of the total slaughter capacity and the two second largest packers (Excel and Swift) have less than 25% each, there is no way in hell the packing industry will become integrated like the poultry and pork industries. No producer is forced to sell to only one packer and few cattlemen are contracting their cattle with Tyson, Excel, and Swift the way they are contracting hogs and poultry.

There is no comparison, PERIOD!

The R-CULT "chickenization of the cattle industry" is just one more pile of unsubstantiated fear mongering bullsh*t!

Sandbag: "They don't own the land chickens are grown on - they don't need to own the land cattle are raised on."

Many of those chicken farmers are contract producers as well as the hog producers because there is fewer markets for pork and poultry. In contrast, there is far more beef packers and far less contracts made with beef packers. The two are not comparable.

Come on Sandbag, make a good case for comparing the two. You won't because you can't. All you have again is cheap talk and an empty head.

Sandbag: "What does confinement have to do with anything?"

In order to have complete integration where the packer owns the animal from pasture to plate, it takes far less equity to integrate pork and poultry, due to the ability to confine those animals on small pieces of property. That is one of the major limiting factors to prevent total integration in the cattle/beef industry. The other major factor preventing integration in the cattle/beef industry is the fact that there is numerous packer options for marketing cattle.

Red Robin: "Have you got any data saying so?"

Come on Red Robin, use your head. Don't you think if it was economically feasible to confine beef cattle IT WOULD BE OCCURING MORE OFTEN????

Good grief, who needs data to see the obvious?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Since the largest packer (Tyson) has less than 33% of the total slaughter capacity and the two second largest packers (Excel and Swift) have less than 25% each, there is no way in hell the packing industry will become integrated like the poultry and pork industries. No producer is forced to sell to only one packer and few cattlemen are contracting their cattle with Tyson, Excel, and Swift the way they are contracting hogs and poultry. There is no comparison, PERIOD! The R-CULT "chickenization of the cattle industry" is just one more pile of unsubstantiated fear mongering bullsh*t! "

How many packers were there 40 years ago? ___
How many packers were there 30 years ago? ___
How many packers were there 20 years ago? ___
How many packers were there 10 years ago? ___

Now, do you notice a trend, SH? No way packing will ever become integrated?

 

[Red Robin]

Red Robin: "Have you got any data saying so?"

Come on Red Robin, use your head. Don't you think if it was economically feasible to confine beef cattle IT WOULD BE OCCURING MORE OFTEN????

Good grief, who needs data to see the obvious?


~SH~

I guess it depends. If I was smithfield, I would work with what I had (which doesn't require capital outlay) instead of buying expensive western real estate that no longer pencils out in the ROI catagory. At least not like they'd like. I haven't seen any data but I would think if they already own land they are putting effluent on anyway it would work in the short run....maybe the long run depending on their real estate holdings. That would also put them closer to the end user , the steak joints back east .

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag:

"How many packers were there 40 years ago? ___
How many packers were there 30 years ago? ___
How many packers were there 20 years ago? ___
How many packers were there 10 years ago? ___

Now, do you notice a trend, SH? No way packing will ever become integrated?"

Don't try to spin what I said "OH MASTER OF ILLUSION", I did not say "there is no way in hell PACKING WILL EVER BECOME INTEGRATED (those are your deceptive words, not mine).

What I said was, "there is no way in hell the packing industry will become integrated like the poultry and pork industries".

Big difference! Par for your deceptive, slimy ways again Randy. That's a perfect example of why I find you so pathetic.

Now you think you got another live one by asking a question that creates the "ILLUSION" that the beef packing industry has integrated huh Little Sandcheska? Hahaha!

Tell you what, let's go to about 50 or more years ago. Back then, Morris, Swift, Wilson, Cudahey, and Armour dominated the beef packing industry. Now those names have changed to Tyson, Excel, Swift & Co., Smithfield, and USPB. 5 companies used to dominate the packing industry and 5 companies dominate it today. The integration didn't change in the beef industry, only the names did.

GEE, REALLY SHOWED ME THAR DIDN'T YOU?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Sorry Little Sandcheska but you really pulled that one out of your a$$.


~SH~