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

Vertical integration coming soon to a packer near you

Red Robin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
4,377
Location
8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.
Smithfield is pushing into the beef and turkey industries



By JEREMIAH MCWILLIAMS, The Virginian-Pilot

November 25, 2006



"Y'all know Smithfield," drawls Southern food personality Paula Deen in a radio commercial. "They're the ham people."



True: Smithfield Foods Inc., which recently hired Deen to push its spiral-sliced hams and other signature products, is the world's largest hog-raiser and pork processor. And it plans to further fatten its pork portfolio. But the company, with sales of $11.4 billion in its fiscal year ended April 30, also is growing aggressively beyond its roots in hogs and ham.



A recent deal gave Smithfield a 49 percent stake in Butterball LLC, the nation's largest turkey producer. And a planned Oklahoma beef plant will make the Smithfield-based company the fourth-largest beef processor in the United States.



Smithfield, which appears to be testing antitrust limits with growth in its core pig and pork business, is trying to buy or build its way into bigger positions in nearly every type of meat except chicken, which it has avoided so far.



"This is the most active period in Smithfield's history," chief executive C. Larry Pope told analysts at a Boston conference in September. "In virtually every segment of our business today, something very significant is going on.... Smithfield is not just in the pork business."





Smithfield is betting that the vertically integrated model it honed in pork - controlling production from animal-raising to meat-packing - will translate well to beef.



Smithfield has just 6 percent of the U.S. beef-processing market. But the company is dwarfed by the top four players, which together control 83 percent, according to its estimates.



"We need to get bigger - we're still too small in beef," Pope said Monday as Smithfield donated turkeys to a Norfolk food bank. "Our customers, like Farm Fresh... want to deal with fewer and fewer suppliers."



For example, Tyson Foods Inc. is more than twice Smithfield's size. "We need to be of size to match," Pope said.



U.S. beef packers have struggled in recent years, largely because of high cattle prices and restrictions on exported U.S. beef in Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea, which blocked such imports after a case of mad cow disease was discovered in Washington state in December 2003. At Smithfield, for instance, beef yielded about 23 percent of its sales last year, but the division lost $2.8 million.



Several analysts believe that U.S. beef plants don't stay busy enough to make a profit.



Smithfield's new plant, announced Oct. 18, could further weaken the industry and hurt Smithfield's earnings per share, said JPMorgan analyst Pablo Zuanic.



Construction on the $200 million plant in Texas County, Okla., is scheduled to begin in January. A 50-50 joint venture with ContiGroup Companies Inc., the plant will be able to slaughter as many as 5,000 cattle daily.



Zuanic suggested last month that Smithfield might be using "gamemanship" - the threat of tougher competition in an already battered industry - to force private equity firm HM Capital Partners to sell Swift & Co., a major beef and pork processor and longtime Smithfield target.



Pope denied that.



Because the Japanese market reopened this summer and Korea is loosening restrictions, "those markets will be alive and well" in two years, Pope said. The Oklahoma plant could help Smithfield target the export markets.



"There's a real opportunity to grow on the beef side," said Bill Chappell, an equity analyst in Atlanta with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey. Although beef is a secondary project for Smithfield, "they want to make a go of it."



The new plant will draw from Smithfield's cattle-feeding joint venture with ContiGroup, which can feed 811,000 cattle at its 10 feed lots in Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Texas and Oklahoma. It is the largest cattle-feeding operation in the country.



"We do have the cattle," Pope said at Smithfield's annual meeting in Richmond three months ago. "We could put together an integrated model that would be pretty compelling."



Smithfield's ability to trace cattle from feed lots to meat-packing lines - similar to its "traceability" in hog slaughtering, which the company touts as a safety benefit - could pay dividends, said Andrew Wolf, a managing director in Richmond with BB&T Capital Markets, which is seeking investment banking work from Smithfield Foods.



"They'll have control of the animal the whole time," Wolf said. So Smithfield will be able to get "a deserved premium on the export market."



The Butterball purchase, at least in name recognition, is one of Smithfield's most eye-catching moves.



Pope has said Butterball is "the national brand - it is almost synonymous with the word 'turkey.' "



This fall, Carolina Turkeys, of which Smithfield already owned 49 percent, shelled out $325 million for ConAgra Foods Inc.'s Butterball turkey operations. Renamed Butterball LLC, the Mount Olive, N.C.-based turkey producer is a joint venture with Maxwell Farms Inc.



Butterball gives the former Carolina Turkeys, and its owners, a stronger cache among consumers. Butterball's products command premium prices, Pope said. That matches a key Smithfield strategy - shifting the business into more profitable products such as pre-cooked sausages and bacon, and capitalizing on the higher prices consumers will pay for convenience.



In addition to the Butterball acquisition, Smithfield paid $246 million in cash for the rest of ConAgra's branded meats business, which included Armour and LunchMakers.



Convenience products such as precooked ribs can command prices eight or 10 times higher than unprocessed, fresh meat, Pope said in September.



It's "a gigantic move up the value chain," Pope said. "You can do the simple math on this, and the math is pretty darn explosive."



While it expands in beef and turkey, Smithfield is running into opposition as it tries to complete a strategic buy in its core business: the planned $810 million deal for Premium Standard Farms, a Kansas City-based hog raiser and processor.



The proposal, announced in September, sparked protests from farming groups and Midwest politicians who argued that the merger of the nation's top two hog-raisers would give Smithfield too much power over small hog farmers.



"It makes no anti trust sense to allow Smithfield to buy Premium Standard Farms," said Michael Stumo, an attorney for the Lincoln, Neb.-based Organization for Competitive Markets. "It is a 100 percent power grab."



The Department of Justice this month asked Smithfield and Premium Standard for more information on the merger - a move that will delay the deal until the companies comply. Such requests occurred in only 3.1 percent of transactions in fiscal 2005, according to a Department of Justice report.



"It indicates that you're much higher on the radar of the Justice Department than you'd like," said Thane Scott, co-chair of the antitrust practice group at Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge in Boston. "If you get a second request, you're in the danger zone."



Smithfield expected the additional scrutiny and would clear anti trust hurdles, Pope said. "We not trying to dominate the industry. We're trying to secure our future."



Still, if the deal goes through, Smithfield will have "probably grown as big as it can in the U.S. pork business," said SunTrust analyst Chappell, who added that it can still expand its European pork business.



Pope, who was promoted to chief executive on Sept. 1, seems to relish adding new brands and looking for new opportunities. Smithfield makes no apology for being one of the most opportunistic companies in the meat industry.



"We are committed to global expansion," Pope said.





content.hamptonroads.com
 
Vertical integration will be a great way for newbies to get in the game.

No breeding decisions. Just load the calves and wait on a check. :shock:
 
I was with a feedlot buyer just a few weeks ago and ran into a Cargill buyer bidding on the same calves we were.

Packers are already cutting out some of the middlemen for good calves.

Should they pass on to the producer some of the profits gained from going direct to the weaning pen?
 
Mike said:
I was with a feedlot buyer just a few weeks ago and ran into a Cargill buyer bidding on the same calves we were.

Packers are already cutting out some of the middlemen for good calves.

Should they pass on to the producer some of the profits gained from going direct to the weaning pen?

Come on Mike, don't you know nuthin? The more Cargill saves from buying calves and feeding them themselves, the more they can pay you for your calves! Didn't you get no learnin in Auburn? Mebbe you shoulda went to 'Bama!
 
Mike said:
Should they pass on to the producer some of the profits gained from going direct to the weaning pen?
If they're the high bidder, don't you think that's good enough?
 
Texan said:
Mike said:
Should they pass on to the producer some of the profits gained from going direct to the weaning pen?
If they're the high bidder, don't you think that's good enough?

Maybe you should pose that question to the folks who USED to independently raise chickens or hogs.
 
If you don't want to sell cattle to the high bidder, don't sell them. If you want to share in company profits, buy stock.
 
Texan said:
If you don't want to sell cattle to the high bidder, don't sell them. If you want to share in company profits, buy stock.

Lets see, Tyson has at least 2 classes of stock which is one of the ways the family maintains control of the company. Then they use its resources for themselves much as many other higher management does. Tyson was caught doing it and had to pay over a million dollar fine. Then they voted themselves 20 million dollar bonus. Where was the board oversight you say? Tyson controlled the board.

So, Texan, when a company is run like that, little class B shareholders are just going to be holding the bag.

Is that how you envisioned it? You have just been sold a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge.

I don't know why you think you can sell it to your friends. Your own folly should be paid for by yourself without the bragging.
 
Texan said:
If you don't want to sell cattle to the high bidder, don't sell them. If you want to share in company profits, buy stock.

If you don't want your kids to have the option of being an independent rancher, don't do anything.
 
To completely vertically integrate the beef business will take more capital than anyone is willing to set aside I think. I do think (and I'll be alone here) that some amount of integration will be good for the beef industry. When competing against chicken and pork, beef is a very loose run industry without much direction. I've seen changes of frame, muscling, and type in a fairly short period of time. Too short of a time to stay current in every trend. I don't know what part I personally would be willing to submit control to if promised more money but from a business aspect, it makes better sense to be able to predict your income based on your inputs instead of your income based on someone's bid. In two months time feeders have lost 150 dollars or so. Forward contracting would have helped those caught with weaned calves but what is different about forward contracting the next 10 calf crops for X dollars if I raise a certain type and sell them to a certain company? Like it or not , I think it's coming and we better have a plan for it or against it.
 
Red Robin, "To completely vertically integrate the beef business will take more capital than anyone is willing to set aside I think."

Compare the captal Tyson has in their chicken growers. Tyson didn't have to buy the land the barns are on, they didn't have to buy the barns, they didn't have to buy any of the equipment. They simply dictate what their growers have to supply out of their own pocket. I ask the question; Why would the packers need any great amount of capital in integrating beef?
 
Red Robin said:
Smithfield is pushing into the beef and turkey industries



By JEREMIAH MCWILLIAMS, The Virginian-Pilot

November 25, 2006



"Y'all know Smithfield," drawls Southern food personality Paula Deen in a radio commercial. "They're the ham people."



True: Smithfield Foods Inc., which recently hired Deen to push its spiral-sliced hams and other signature products, is the world's largest hog-raiser and pork processor. And it plans to further fatten its pork portfolio. But the company, with sales of $11.4 billion in its fiscal year ended April 30, also is growing aggressively beyond its roots in hogs and ham.



A recent deal gave Smithfield a 49 percent stake in Butterball LLC, the nation's largest turkey producer. And a planned Oklahoma beef plant will make the Smithfield-based company the fourth-largest beef processor in the United States.



Smithfield, which appears to be testing antitrust limits with growth in its core pig and pork business, is trying to buy or build its way into bigger positions in nearly every type of meat except chicken, which it has avoided so far.



"This is the most active period in Smithfield's history," chief executive C. Larry Pope told analysts at a Boston conference in September. "In virtually every segment of our business today, something very significant is going on.... Smithfield is not just in the pork business."





Smithfield is betting that the vertically integrated model it honed in pork - controlling production from animal-raising to meat-packing - will translate well to beef.



Smithfield has just 6 percent of the U.S. beef-processing market. But the company is dwarfed by the top four players, which together control 83 percent, according to its estimates.



"We need to get bigger - we're still too small in beef," Pope said Monday as Smithfield donated turkeys to a Norfolk food bank. "Our customers, like Farm Fresh... want to deal with fewer and fewer suppliers."



For example, Tyson Foods Inc. is more than twice Smithfield's size. "We need to be of size to match," Pope said.



U.S. beef packers have struggled in recent years, largely because of high cattle prices and restrictions on exported U.S. beef in Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea, which blocked such imports after a case of mad cow disease was discovered in Washington state in December 2003. At Smithfield, for instance, beef yielded about 23 percent of its sales last year, but the division lost $2.8 million.



Several analysts believe that U.S. beef plants don't stay busy enough to make a profit.



Smithfield's new plant, announced Oct. 18, could further weaken the industry and hurt Smithfield's earnings per share, said JPMorgan analyst Pablo Zuanic.



Construction on the $200 million plant in Texas County, Okla., is scheduled to begin in January. A 50-50 joint venture with ContiGroup Companies Inc., the plant will be able to slaughter as many as 5,000 cattle daily.



Zuanic suggested last month that Smithfield might be using "gamemanship" - the threat of tougher competition in an already battered industry - to force private equity firm HM Capital Partners to sell Swift & Co., a major beef and pork processor and longtime Smithfield target.



Pope denied that.



Because the Japanese market reopened this summer and Korea is loosening restrictions, "those markets will be alive and well" in two years, Pope said. The Oklahoma plant could help Smithfield target the export markets.



"There's a real opportunity to grow on the beef side," said Bill Chappell, an equity analyst in Atlanta with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey. Although beef is a secondary project for Smithfield, "they want to make a go of it."



The new plant will draw from Smithfield's cattle-feeding joint venture with ContiGroup, which can feed 811,000 cattle at its 10 feed lots in Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Texas and Oklahoma. It is the largest cattle-feeding operation in the country.



"We do have the cattle," Pope said at Smithfield's annual meeting in Richmond three months ago. "We could put together an integrated model that would be pretty compelling."



Smithfield's ability to trace cattle from feed lots to meat-packing lines - similar to its "traceability" in hog slaughtering, which the company touts as a safety benefit - could pay dividends, said Andrew Wolf, a managing director in Richmond with BB&T Capital Markets, which is seeking investment banking work from Smithfield Foods.



"They'll have control of the animal the whole time," Wolf said. So Smithfield will be able to get "a deserved premium on the export market."



The Butterball purchase, at least in name recognition, is one of Smithfield's most eye-catching moves.



Pope has said Butterball is "the national brand - it is almost synonymous with the word 'turkey.' "



This fall, Carolina Turkeys, of which Smithfield already owned 49 percent, shelled out $325 million for ConAgra Foods Inc.'s Butterball turkey operations. Renamed Butterball LLC, the Mount Olive, N.C.-based turkey producer is a joint venture with Maxwell Farms Inc.



Butterball gives the former Carolina Turkeys, and its owners, a stronger cache among consumers. Butterball's products command premium prices, Pope said. That matches a key Smithfield strategy - shifting the business into more profitable products such as pre-cooked sausages and bacon, and capitalizing on the higher prices consumers will pay for convenience.



In addition to the Butterball acquisition, Smithfield paid $246 million in cash for the rest of ConAgra's branded meats business, which included Armour and LunchMakers.



Convenience products such as precooked ribs can command prices eight or 10 times higher than unprocessed, fresh meat, Pope said in September.



It's "a gigantic move up the value chain," Pope said. "You can do the simple math on this, and the math is pretty darn explosive."



While it expands in beef and turkey, Smithfield is running into opposition as it tries to complete a strategic buy in its core business: the planned $810 million deal for Premium Standard Farms, a Kansas City-based hog raiser and processor.



The proposal, announced in September, sparked protests from farming groups and Midwest politicians who argued that the merger of the nation's top two hog-raisers would give Smithfield too much power over small hog farmers.



"It makes no anti trust sense to allow Smithfield to buy Premium Standard Farms," said Michael Stumo, an attorney for the Lincoln, Neb.-based Organization for Competitive Markets. "It is a 100 percent power grab."



The Department of Justice this month asked Smithfield and Premium Standard for more information on the merger - a move that will delay the deal until the companies comply. Such requests occurred in only 3.1 percent of transactions in fiscal 2005, according to a Department of Justice report.



"It indicates that you're much higher on the radar of the Justice Department than you'd like," said Thane Scott, co-chair of the antitrust practice group at Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge in Boston. "If you get a second request, you're in the danger zone."



Smithfield expected the additional scrutiny and would clear anti trust hurdles, Pope said. "We not trying to dominate the industry. We're trying to secure our future."



Still, if the deal goes through, Smithfield will have "probably grown as big as it can in the U.S. pork business," said SunTrust analyst Chappell, who added that it can still expand its European pork business.



Pope, who was promoted to chief executive on Sept. 1, seems to relish adding new brands and looking for new opportunities. Smithfield makes no apology for being one of the most opportunistic companies in the meat industry.



"We are committed to global expansion," Pope said.





content.hamptonroads.com

And you still vote Republican.
 
Sandhusker said:
Red Robin, "To completely vertically integrate the beef business will take more capital than anyone is willing to set aside I think."

Compare the captal Tyson has in their chicken growers. Tyson didn't have to buy the land the barns are on, they didn't have to buy the barns, they didn't have to buy any of the equipment. They simply dictate what their growers have to supply out of their own pocket. I ask the question; Why would the packers need any great amount of capital in integrating beef?
I guess it depends on what you envision. The growers are sent chickens and paid of feed conversion mostly as I understand. I can't envision that working well on the ranch. If they continue the large western feedlot tradition they need another method of enticing "me" to participate. I guess they could send brood cows and buy the calves back but that is capital intensive because of the genetic interval of beef and the ROI of the brood cows. How do you envision them implementing the process?
 
Red Robin said:
Sandhusker said:
Red Robin, "To completely vertically integrate the beef business will take more capital than anyone is willing to set aside I think."

Compare the captal Tyson has in their chicken growers. Tyson didn't have to buy the land the barns are on, they didn't have to buy the barns, they didn't have to buy any of the equipment. They simply dictate what their growers have to supply out of their own pocket. I ask the question; Why would the packers need any great amount of capital in integrating beef?
I guess it depends on what you envision. The growers are sent chickens and paid of feed conversion mostly as I understand. I can't envision that working well on the ranch. If they continue the large western feedlot tradition they need another method of enticing "me" to participate. I guess they could send brood cows and buy the calves back but that is capital intensive because of the genetic interval of beef and the ROI of the brood cows. How do you envision them implementing the process?

Let me peer into my crystal ball......

First of all, you'll have to sign an agreement where you deal only with them. You will still own all the cattle on the place, but I see them dictating bloodlines via making you use certain bulls at first, and then taking the next step to the maternal side. You'll have to buy the bull/semen and the replacements. You'll get hosed on that - there's a chance to make a buck that they won't let get by.

You will have to adhere to the company vaccination regimen, and will have to buy your vaccine from the company. You won't use any medicines not OKed by the company. If your calves get sick and die, it's too bad for you.

You'll have a target weight to hit in a certain window of time, with penalties for being off. You'll take the penalties and not grumble because you can't sell to anybody else. If you're a grumbler, you lose your contract. The "competition" won't sign you up because "grumblers" lists are shared. You have no option left but to sell out or try to use your land for something other than ranching.

You may have to do your financing with a certain bank. You can bet those bankers are "friendly" with the company.

All one has to do is look at what they've done in the chicken and pork industry. They can do the same with beef with a few adjustments.
 
You could be right , if so , I'm not in and neither are you and neither is anyone else I know. I doubt they could control much just by dipin' their toe in the water like that . I think it'll take more investment. I really have no idea. Smithfield is sharper and more on the edge than tyson. It won't be tyson . You need to look to smithfield for your model and I don't know how they work the sow deal. Do you?
 
Sandhusker said:
All one has to do is look at what they've done in the chicken and pork industry. They can do the same with beef with a few adjustments.

Exactly Sandhusker. I'm not sure why most ranchers keep their heads in the sand over these topics. "Oh, it can't work in beef" "It'll never happen" "Beef is different than pick 1 or more: chicken, pork, turkeys, grain, vegetables"

Currently, I see a great deal of custom feeding going on up here. Packer owned feeders make up about 1/4 of all the feeder calves in my area (ag rep estimate), and that number is increasing each year. How long until packers simply buy sufficient calves to ensure they have enough product to keep their lines going year round? Once this happens, the feedlots will effectively be turned into custom feeders, then the packers will realize its much more cost effective to simply buy them or build their own and cut out the middle man. Once they do their own backgrounding and finishing, its not going to be difficult to require producers to deliver a certain type of stock, or force producers to be contracted through them. And if all the major players are utilizing the same business rules, it makes no difference if the producer decides to abandon a contract since they'll have the exact same one elsewhere.

Rod
 
Econ101 said:
Lets see, Tyson has at least 2 classes of stock which is one of the ways the family maintains control of the company. Then they use its resources for themselves much as many other higher management does. Tyson was caught doing it and had to pay over a million dollar fine. Then they voted themselves 20 million dollar bonus. Where was the board oversight you say? Tyson controlled the board.

So, Texan, when a company is run like that, little class B shareholders are just going to be holding the bag.

Is that how you envisioned it? You have just been sold a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge.

I don't know why you think you can sell it to your friends. Your own folly should be paid for by yourself without the bragging.
Let's see, Econ. I'm not really too sure that I can help you, but I'll sure try...

You seem to be disappointed with your Tyson stock? Is that it? You feel like you're not being treated fairly? I don't hold any TSN, so I would suggest that you get with your broker and try to find something else that works better for you. If there's some reason that you don't want to involve your broker, if you'll tell me some of your personal financial goals, I'd be glad to try to help.

As I indicated, I don't personally own Tyson (but I don't hold it against you), but I think it would serve you well to become better informed about them since you are an investor in the company. You mentioned the "little class B shareholders"...

Econ101 said:
So, Texan, when a company is run like that, little class B shareholders are just going to be holding the bag.

Would that be "little" ones like Don Tyson? Maybe John Tyson? Because almost all of the TSN Class B shares are owned by the Tyson family. Those are supervoting shares, so even though Class B stockholders don't represent a majority of the financial interest, they represent a super majority of the voting shares in Tyson.

Maybe this is why you feel like you're being mistreated? Maybe you're just jealous? There's no doubt that Tyson is a dirty dog...we can agree on that. I guess I just don't really understand why you have them in your portfolio?

Anyway, I'm sorry that you're not happy with your TSN. If you don't like the way that someone does business, just don't do business with them. That's my motto.

Thanks for asking. Hope this helps.
 
They are the largest buyer of cattle. You say on one hand sell to the highest bidder. On the other you say invest in the highest bidder if you don't like the way they treat producers with market manipulation and breaking the law--making the assumption that they are raking in the dough and shareholders could benefit from it.

You can't have it both ways, Texan. Which one is it?

Much of corporate america is taking the average shareholder to the bank. There is a club of corporate elites that play this game and they are getting away with it to the extent they are allowed to. Tyson got their hand slapped for it. Tyson wanted the corporate veil without the corporate responsibility to other investments. I wonder what the average joe would get in prison term had he stolen from a corporation the amount Tyson did. The backdating of options is just one example hitting the headlines.

You can't have it both ways unless, of course, you are a hypocrite.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top