• 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

A

Anonymous

Guest
One of the biggest fear mongering topics is the threat of vertical integration.

It is a fact that vertical integration can come from the bottom up or from the top down.

With that in mind, which side of the industry do you suppose the most equity lies?

Do you think there is more equity tied up in the packing and retail sector of the cattle/beef industry or do you think there is more equity tied up in the livestock side of the industry in land, livestock and machinery?

Do you think it is easier for the ranchers to invest in the packing and retail sectors or the retail and packer sectors to invest in the ranching sector?

You always hear the comparison to large scale pork and poulty farms. Can someone provide me with a legitimate example of where packers and retailers are investing in the land, livestock, and machinery necessary to run a large scale cattle operation?

Hmmmm???

Just a simple question!

Now don't throw out the argument that the packers and retailers can control the industry without owning the land, livestock, and machinery when so many producers are already feeding cattle to fat, processing the beef, and selling the beef. How does the large corporate packers and retailers have a strangle hold on them?

Here's another question, what happens to the salebarns when producers control their product from pasture to plate? Perhaps that would explain why so many salebarn managers have taken it upon themselves to become spokespersons for the cattle industry. Not saying salebarns don't provide a valuable service because they do. I'm simply saying, they have an inherant bias and financial stake in the future of this industry and that bias screams.



~SH~
 

Kato

Well-known member
The packers have no interest in actually owning land and facilities, but having those who do tied into contracts where they are raising livestock for them would be something I bet they wouldn't say no to. It worked in the poultry and hog business, so the precedent has been set. The model works, for the packers, anyway.

Over time there have been things developed that have been designed to "keep em honest", like sale barns. What it comes down to is that we need competitioin for our cattle, and without that, it doesn't matter what else happens.

The system we have now is not that bad, assuming there are more than one or two bidders for the cattle. That's the rub. In our country, at least, having two big players running things is not working. In the past, access to the American market has been the alternate that has kept these guys in line, but our good friends (I won't say who, but everyone knows) are doing their best to shut that off, and really finish us off.

I was talking to our trucker today, and he says that almost everyone he has talked to lately is planning on dumping their cows this fall. It's been six years of bad news, and they've had enough. And we don't live in a drought area either.

Vertical or horizontal or no integration won't mean a thing if there are no cattle left, and at the rate things are going in Canada, it's a real possibility.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "when so many producers are already feeding cattle to fat, processing the beef, and selling the beef. "

"So many producers" is an interesting choice of words. About what percentage of the nation's total beef sales come from those producers? I would bet that it is a very, very small percentage of the total which would mean those producers are really no major threat to the big boys.

Packers and retailers don't need to own ranches and cows. They just need to own the bottleneck, the packing plants, which they do. Every beef has to eventually go through a packing plant. It's just like any military man will tell you; They don't need control of the 100 miles of roads, they just need control of the 100 yards of bridge.
 

mwj

Well-known member
Sandhusker since you have an in at the bank, just float a loan and build you a packing plant.
You can buy cattle close so frieght should not be to big of a factor and you have the added bonus of being a hero with the bank board 8)
You will have a captive supply and and no limits on upside pricing you will be wealthy in just a month or so.
You can give all of your friends a few cents a pound extra and you will be te king of cow country! See how easy it is,and to my surprise you never came up with the idea on your own :shock:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mwj said:
Sandhusker since you have an in at the bank, just float a loan and build you a packing plant.
You can buy cattle close so frieght should not be to big of a factor and you have the added bonus of being a hero with the bank board 8)
You will have a captive supply and and no limits on upside pricing you will be wealthy in just a month or so.
You can give all of your friends a few cents a pound extra and you will be te king of cow country! See how easy it is,and to my surprise you never came up with the idea on your own :shock:

I take it that you haven't seen what happens to any competition to the big boys.
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
SH, I think you are trying to compare apples to watermelons. The real thing is capital to invest. All producers combined may have more assets, but that means little. From what I can see, for every producer who has money he could invest in feedlots or interst in packing plants, there are three or four who's assets are tied up to get money to cover operation expenses and land payments.

We fed out our own cattle here for 17 years, but that has been years and years ago. Cattle have changed now, so have the way we market cattle. Over the years I suppose we made a little profit, at least were paid for our time. We were real small operators, starting out with only a few head up to some less than 200 head. We quit because we could make better use of our time and better use of our money. The way we operated then, with the type of cattle we raised, turn over was to slow.

A few years back,again this has been some years past, I put cattle in a comercial feedlot. This was with a feeding club. I didn't do it for a profit, but as an opportunity to learn. I wanted to see how my program, and my catle compared to others and to learn something about selling on the grid. I had 30 head in the first year and 50 in the second. The first year, I lost $22 a head. The second year there was a profit of $40 a head according to the feeders figures. By my figures it was somewhat less. The feeders used the average cost of all cattle put in as the starting cost. I would have received more then that at our local sale barn. The feeder himself admited that he didn't buy form our sale barn because cattle cost to much there.

Some see sale barns as an un-needed middle man. I see them as providing a service. They offer an opportunity for more buyers to see your cattle, and a way to compare cattle of different quality. This helps to place a real value on cattle. I do not want to lose the sale barn. I see what has happened to the implement dealers, and the services we have lost.

Back when I started out there was an implement dealer in just about every town selling one brand or another. They didn't have a complete line of parts, dealers today still don't. They didn't have a show room full of the latest tractors or equipment but they were close by. Today, the town I go to is 30 miles away, it only has one dealer that sells new tractors. There are three John Deere dealers I can go to, but they are all about 80 miles from my home. It takes me 5 hours or more to go there for parts, buy them and return home. I don't know what value to place on my time or the other costs of down time
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Clarence Quote;Some see sale barns as an un-needed middle man. I see them as providing a service. They offer an opportunity for more buyers to see your cattle, and a way to compare cattle of different quality. This helps to place a real value on cattle. I do not want to lose the sale barn. I see what has happened to the implement dealers, and the services we have lost.

We sure need our Gaylord sale barn as the drive to the next one is South three hours away. If you go west it is five hours away in WI.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
SH, which way does the money flow? Would you rather be first in line or last?

The 'bottleneck' and 'value adding' point is in turning a live animal into meat...that's where the "strangle hold" is...5 largest packers killing over 90% of fed cattle. And, contrary to your "sell it or smell it" mantra, meat can be frozen!

People like me are a very small percent of the industry. But I know we agree on bottom up vertical integration. If 30-40% of cattle were processed through bottom up vertical integration, producers would get fair market prices.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
Clarence Quote;Some see sale barns as an un-needed middle man. I see them as providing a service. They offer an opportunity for more buyers to see your cattle, and a way to compare cattle of different quality. This helps to place a real value on cattle. I do not want to lose the sale barn. I see what has happened to the implement dealers, and the services we have lost.

We sure need our Gaylord sale barn as the drive to the next one is South three hours away. If you go west it is five hours away in WI.

From experience I agree- you sometimes don't recognize the importance of having a local or regional sale barn until its gone....Then 200 mile hauls to sell a few culls or a couple of bulls wakes you up quickly...
Luckily the local barn that went under- reopened under new management and is doing a great job....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Activist group battles agricultural giants

OCM opposes market tactics of meatpackers, seed industry leader




By Steve Tarter

of the Journal Star - Illinois

Posted Aug 10, 2009



The Organization for Competitive Markets is not your typical farm group.



Among those attending the group's annual meeting at the Westin Hotel in St. Louis last Friday was A.T. Terry, who has fought Tyson Fresh Meats in court for more than three years to keep his Lynchburg, Tenn., chicken operation.



Also in attendance was Mike Callicrate, OCM vice president and a Colorado rancher who, with other ranchers, went all the way to the Supreme Court over the issue of the manipulation of beef prices by major meatpackers - and lost.



But Callicrate and other OCM members aren't giving up the fight. "Meatpackers feeding or controlling their own inventories of livestock is a huge problem and facilitates their ability to stay out of the market for extended periods, forcing the market prices lower. We need a ban on packer ownership and control of livestock," said Callicrate.



The OCM leadership called for the federal government to take action to help the nation's farmers and ranchers. "Competition is vital. The deck has been stacked for some time now, and the mission of OCM is to unstack it," said Fred Stokes, the 73-year-old executive director whose white hair and courtly manner belie his mission.



The chief mission on Friday was to highlight the tactics of agribiz giant Monsanto, the St. Louis-based company that dominates the U.S. seed industry.



Monsanto thwarted competition through the purchase of smaller firms and eliminating research efforts at those firms, said Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety. He added that Monsanto harrasses U.S. farmers over misuse of its patented biotech seed. "Monsanto investigates roughly 500 farmers a year, hiring private detectives to do so," he said.



Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles said the company "remained committed to earning the farmer's business" and accused OCM of taking part in a smear campaign funded by DuPont. Monsanto and DuPont, the country's two largest seed companies, have each filed lawsuits this year charging the other with patent infringement.



In a front page story Friday, the St. Louis Post Dispatch noted that DuPont acknowledged its support of OCM.



"It's sad that DuPont is slinging mud at hard-working farmers by aligning itself with OCM," said Quarles, adding that DuPont recently filed suit against a group of farmers in southern Illinois over patent infringements.



Stokes wouldn't confirm or deny DuPont's support of OCM but said he welcomed the help of any company that supported OCM's mission of "a truly fair marketplace."



The issue of agricultural concentration - where a handful of firms control a different ag sector - is increasing, according to a recent study released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office presented at the OCM meeting by GAO analyst Quindi Franco.



"Most experts we spoke with said that concentration is likely to increase, leading to fewer, larger beef, pork and dairy procesors and retail outlets,"
he said.



Concentration is even reaching out to new sectors like organic food, said Mary Hendrickson of the University of Missouri Extension. "Organic was supposed to be the savior for farmers but Dean Foods is now the largest producer of organic milk," she said.



Auburn University professor Bob Taylor told the OCM audience that "referees, rules and penalties" are needed to police today's agribusiness scene.



Taylor also called for greater transparency to identify what companies are doing. "Through research, I have identified 67 subsidiaries of Archer Daniels Midland but, in actuality, I could only find two or three of them," he said of the giant Decatur-based grain processor.



pjstar.com
 

Tex

Well-known member
SH, the Pickett case was one where the plaintiffs proved to a jury that packers were suppressing cattle prices through a market manipulation scheme that was clearly spelled out at trial.

While you go touting the "low" margins for beef, you neglect to mention that the suppression in beef supplies, the meats leader, ended up helping to contract the supply and eventually drive up prices.

While the cattle industry ranchers did see some of this run up in prices, the poultry industry, of which Tyson was the largest, saw the greatest profitability when prices went from around 52 cents per lb. to prices in the 90 cent per lb. range. This was huge amounts of money. It would be like cattle going from 82 cents per lb. to $1.20 and all of that increase going to the packers, not the ranchers (kinda what happened with the Canadian captive supply isn't it?).

The packers were put under a consent decree because of these kind of market abuses of suppliers when the Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act which kept them from messing with the substitute meats.

We just have a few too many people like you who didn't pay attention in class to know what they are talking about.

You packer boy, you.

Tex
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Tex, SH sees nothing wrong with 5 packers processing 90% of fed cattle and being able to buy commodity market contracts with the inside knowledge of supply and demand! Certainly there is no way to manipulate cattle markets in their position!!!!
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The Department of Justice and USDA are interested in receiving comments on the application of antitrust laws to monopsony and vertical integration in the agricultural sector, including the scope, functionality and limits of current or potential rules.


The Department and USDA are also inviting input on additional topics that might be discussed at the workshops, including the impact of agriculture concentration on food costs, the effect of agricultural regulatory statutes or other applicable laws and programs on competition, issues relating to patent and intellectual property affecting agricultural marketing or production, and market practices such as price spreads, forward contracts, packer ownership of livestock before slaughter, market transparency, and increasing retailer concentration.


The public and press are invited to attend the hearings. Additional information about the date, time and location of the workshops will be provided at a later date. Interested parties should submit written comments in both paper and electronic form to the Department of Justice no later than Dec. 31, 2009. All comments received will be publicly posted.

Two paper copies should be addressed to the Legal Policy Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 5(th) Street, N.W., Suite 11700, Washington, D.C. 20001. The Department's Antitrust Division is requesting that the paper copies of each comment be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible.

The electronic version of each comment should be submitted to [email protected] Detailed agendas and schedules for the workshops will be made available on the Antitrust Division's web site at www.usdoj.gov/atr.
 

Tex

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Tex, SH sees nothing wrong with 5 packers processing 90% of fed cattle and being able to buy commodity market contracts with the inside knowledge of supply and demand! Certainly there is no way to manipulate cattle markets in their position!!!!

What grade level math was he able to complete in school?

We might have to blame this one on his education and I am a firm believer in self responsibility.

Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex: "SH, the Pickett case was one where the plaintiffs proved to a jury that packers were suppressing cattle prices through a market manipulation scheme that was clearly spelled out at trial."

If this ALLEGED market manipulation scheme was so CLEARLY spelled out in trial, why did the plaintiffs lose their case? Then lose on appeal? Then lose at the supreme court level????

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT????

Oh, let me guess, another conspiracy right? Bought off judges?? Legislating from the bench, yada, yada, yada.

There was no proof of market manipulation period but that's not what you WANT TO BELIEVE is it Tex???

Gotta bwame someone......

The plaintiffs sought a change of venue to Alabama in hopes of finding an anti corporate jury in Tyson's home state because they wouldn't have made it past first base in cattle feeding states where people have a better understanding of fat cattle marketing. Same type of case had already been tried in Kansas and lost.

Hard pressed ranchers throwing their hard earned dollars towards baseless conspiracy theories.....how sad!


Tex: "While you go touting the "low" margins for beef, you neglect to mention that the suppression in beef supplies, the meats leader, ended up helping to contract the supply and eventually drive up prices."

Suppression in beef supplies???? How do they do that Tex??? Send out a telegram to the feedlots asking them to please sell their cattle when they're ripe as opposed to backing them up, putting on more bark, and adding tonnage (increased supplies) to the market???

Forward contracts are producer driven, not packer driven Tex. If you understood anything about the feeding industry you would know that. But thanks to R-CALF, OCM and the like, we have these blame driven organizations to save cattle feeders from their own marketing strategies. How could the cattle feeding industry survive without R-CALF and OCM to point out the errors in their marketing schemes. LOL!


Tex: "While the cattle industry ranchers did see some of this run up in prices, the poultry industry, of which Tyson was the largest, saw the greatest profitability when prices went from around 52 cents per lb. to prices in the 90 cent per lb. range. This was huge amounts of money. It would be like cattle going from 82 cents per lb. to $1.20 and all of that increase going to the packers, not the ranchers (kinda what happened with the Canadian captive supply isn't it?)."

Yeh and I'm sure you are just loaded down with documented proof of all this money being made by the packers aren't you? Just like the Pickett plaintiffs thought they held the winning hand only to find out that ibp's PER HEAD profits during the Pickett era of ALLEGED market manipulation amounted to $16 per head to sell everything on the carcass from the tongue to the rectum while packer blamers would have us go back to the days where smaller packers had to pay someone to haul the ofal away. REAL MEAN OF GENIOUS!!!!


Tex: "The packers were put under a consent decree because of these kind of market abuses of suppliers when the Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act which kept them from messing with the substitute meats."

Yeh and we've had how many investigations now of ALLEGED abuse of the PSA that come up empty handed BUT KEEP LOOKING!! Where there's smoke, there's gotta be arson.....


Tex: "We just have a few too many people like you who didn't pay attention in class to know what they are talking about."

Yup talk certainly is cheap isn't it Tex??? R-CALF, OCM, and company are 0 and 9 in court but I'm the one who isn't paying attention and doesn't know what they're talking about right???

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

When you think you have the facts to back what you WANT TO BELIEVE, ring the doorbell.


Tex: "You packer boy, you."

You factually defenseless packer blamer you!


RM: "Tex, SH sees nothing wrong with 5 packers processing 90% of fed cattle and being able to buy commodity market contracts with the inside knowledge of supply and demand! Certainly there is no way to manipulate cattle markets in their position!!!!"

Are you totally blind to the issue of concentration Robert??? Do you honestly not realize that virtually every major industry in the US is concentrated to the point of 3 - 5 large companies owning the lions share of the industry??? Where have you been???

The very reason the packing industry is concentrated is because smaller less efficient packers could not pay what the larger packers were paying and still keep their doors open. Competition creates concentration. You packer blamers act like industry concentration is some foreign and new concept.

The ironic part of the whole deal is that you would like to see more packers which would be less efficient and pay less for cattle. That's what you'd have the industry go back to because you simply don't know any better.

Contractual arrangements between packers and feeders that lead to captive supplies were initiated by the feeders, not the packers. Nobody has a gun to the feeders head forcing them to sell to any one particular packer under any one particular marketing scheme. Every feeder has numerous marketing alternatives unless you packer blamers force your conspiracy driven marketing laws to save the feeding industry from itself.

You believe with all your heart that industry concentration leads to market manipulation yet you can't provide one stitch of evidence to support it and anyone with any common sense can look at the simple fact of how markets move and know the markets are not controlled. But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of what you want to believe.


~SH~
 

Tex

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Tex: "SH, the Pickett case was one where the plaintiffs proved to a jury that packers were suppressing cattle prices through a market manipulation scheme that was clearly spelled out at trial."

If this ALLEGED market manipulation scheme was so CLEARLY spelled out in trial, why did the plaintiffs lose their case? Then lose on appeal? Then lose at the supreme court level????

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT????

Oh, let me guess, another conspiracy right? Bought off judges?? Legislating from the bench, yada, yada, yada.

There was no proof of market manipulation period but that's not what you WANT TO BELIEVE is it Tex???

Gotta bwame someone......

The plaintiffs sought a change of venue to Alabama in hopes of finding an anti corporate jury in Tyson's home state because they wouldn't have made it past first base in cattle feeding states where people have a better understanding of fat cattle marketing. Same type of case had already been tried in Kansas and lost.

Hard pressed ranchers throwing their hard earned dollars towards baseless conspiracy theories.....how sad!


Tex: "While you go touting the "low" margins for beef, you neglect to mention that the suppression in beef supplies, the meats leader, ended up helping to contract the supply and eventually drive up prices."

Suppression in beef supplies???? How do they do that Tex??? Send out a telegram to the feedlots asking them to please sell their cattle when they're ripe as opposed to backing them up, putting on more bark, and adding tonnage (increased supplies) to the market???

Forward contracts are producer driven, not packer driven Tex. If you understood anything about the feeding industry you would know that. But thanks to R-CALF, OCM and the like, we have these blame driven organizations to save cattle feeders from their own marketing strategies. How could the cattle feeding industry survive without R-CALF and OCM to point out the errors in their marketing schemes. LOL!


Tex: "While the cattle industry ranchers did see some of this run up in prices, the poultry industry, of which Tyson was the largest, saw the greatest profitability when prices went from around 52 cents per lb. to prices in the 90 cent per lb. range. This was huge amounts of money. It would be like cattle going from 82 cents per lb. to $1.20 and all of that increase going to the packers, not the ranchers (kinda what happened with the Canadian captive supply isn't it?)."

Yeh and I'm sure you are just loaded down with documented proof of all this money being made by the packers aren't you? Just like the Pickett plaintiffs thought they held the winning hand only to find out that ibp's PER HEAD profits during the Pickett era of ALLEGED market manipulation amounted to $16 per head to sell everything on the carcass from the tongue to the rectum while packer blamers would have us go back to the days where smaller packers had to pay someone to haul the ofal away. REAL MEAN OF GENIOUS!!!!


Tex: "The packers were put under a consent decree because of these kind of market abuses of suppliers when the Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act which kept them from messing with the substitute meats."

Yeh and we've had how many investigations now of ALLEGED abuse of the PSA that come up empty handed BUT KEEP LOOKING!! Where there's smoke, there's gotta be arson.....


Tex: "We just have a few too many people like you who didn't pay attention in class to know what they are talking about."

Yup talk certainly is cheap isn't it Tex??? R-CALF, OCM, and company are 0 and 9 in court but I'm the one who isn't paying attention and doesn't know what they're talking about right???

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

When you think you have the facts to back what you WANT TO BELIEVE, ring the doorbell.


Tex: "You packer boy, you."

You factually defenseless packer blamer you!


RM: "Tex, SH sees nothing wrong with 5 packers processing 90% of fed cattle and being able to buy commodity market contracts with the inside knowledge of supply and demand! Certainly there is no way to manipulate cattle markets in their position!!!!"

Are you totally blind to the issue of concentration Robert??? Do you honestly not realize that virtually every major industry in the US is concentrated to the point of 3 - 5 large companies owning the lions share of the industry??? Where have you been???

The very reason the packing industry is concentrated is because smaller less efficient packers could not pay what the larger packers were paying and still keep their doors open. Competition creates concentration. You packer blamers act like industry concentration is some foreign and new concept.

The ironic part of the whole deal is that you would like to see more packers which would be less efficient and pay less for cattle. That's what you'd have the industry go back to because you simply don't know any better.

Contractual arrangements between packers and feeders that lead to captive supplies were initiated by the feeders, not the packers. Nobody has a gun to the feeders head forcing them to sell to any one particular packer under any one particular marketing scheme. Every feeder has numerous marketing alternatives unless you packer blamers force your conspiracy driven marketing laws to save the feeding industry from itself.

You believe with all your heart that industry concentration leads to market manipulation yet you can't provide one stitch of evidence to support it and anyone with any common sense can look at the simple fact of how markets move and know the markets are not controlled. But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of what you want to believe.


~SH~



SH, upon what theory was the jury verdict overthrown by the judges, what was the case that happened that they cited, and do you believe that judges should over throw jury verdicts with judgments after the case is already over while making up a new criteria for prohibitions spelled out by Congress to be ignored by liberal judges who over step their judicial power or is it just for packers paying off the right politicians that they can do this?


Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex: "SH, upon what theory was the jury verdict overthrown by the judges, what was the case that happened that they cited, and do you believe that judges should over throw jury verdicts with judgments after the case is already over while making up a new criteria for prohibitions spelled out by Congress to be ignored by liberal judges who over step their judicial power or is it just for packers paying off the right politicians that they can do this?"

It's really quite simple Tex, the jury bought Taylor's "UNTESTED THEORIES" while the judge did not. The appeals judges did not. The Supreme Court judges did not. The judge in this case knew more about the law than the jury did. Judges overrule when juries get it wrong. Appeals judges overrule when individual judges get it wrong. Supreme courts overrule when appeals judges get it wrong. In this case, the jury clearly got it wrong. "THEORIES" of market manipulation drummed up by some supposed expert is not real evidence, real evidence is hard cold facts proving market manipulation which were not presented. Ironically this same elusive "smoking market manipulation gun" has not been found in countless GAO investigations into the same allegations of PSA violations and allegations of market manipulation.

Did you realize that judge Strom even instructed the jury to ignore Callicrate's testimony because he found it to be untrue. What kind of "expert witness" is that?

How many times have you heard Callicrate say how the packers stepped out of the cash market for 6 weeks or so??? hmmmm??? ibp proved in court that this was a bold faced lie with actual cattle procurement records from both the buyer and seller. Do you think Mike Callicrate has more credibility than the combined procurement records of cattle buyers and cattle sellers where the records match???

Well, ah....gee ah, they didn't buy cattle at my feedlot for 6 weeks .......WELL THAT MUST MEAN THEY DIDN'T BUY CATTLE ANYWHERE FOR 6 WEEKS HUH?????

What a leap.

You keep throwing your hard earned dollars towards these conspiracy theories and "populist opinions" Tex while I continue to base my decisions on facts. I'm not a blind faith follower.



~SH~
 

Tex

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Tex: "SH, upon what theory was the jury verdict overthrown by the judges, what was the case that happened that they cited, and do you believe that judges should over throw jury verdicts with judgments after the case is already over while making up a new criteria for prohibitions spelled out by Congress to be ignored by liberal judges who over step their judicial power or is it just for packers paying off the right politicians that they can do this?"

It's really quite simple Tex, the jury bought Taylor's "UNTESTED THEORIES" while the judge did not. The appeals judges did not. The Supreme Court judges did not. The judge in this case knew more about the law than the jury did. Judges overrule when juries get it wrong. Appeals judges overrule when individual judges get it wrong. Supreme courts overrule when appeals judges get it wrong. In this case, the jury clearly got it wrong. "THEORIES" of market manipulation drummed up by some supposed expert is not real evidence, real evidence is hard cold facts proving market manipulation which were not presented. Ironically this same elusive "smoking market manipulation gun" has not been found in countless GAO investigations into the same allegations of PSA violations and allegations of market manipulation.

Did you realize that judge Strom even instructed the jury to ignore Callicrate's testimony because he found it to be untrue. What kind of "expert witness" is that?

How many times have you heard Callicrate say how the packers stepped out of the cash market for 6 weeks or so??? hmmmm??? ibp proved in court that this was a bold faced lie with actual cattle procurement records from both the buyer and seller. Do you think Mike Callicrate has more credibility than the combined procurement records of cattle buyers and cattle sellers where the records match???

Well, ah....gee ah, they didn't buy cattle at my feedlot for 6 weeks .......WELL THAT MUST MEAN THEY DIDN'T BUY CATTLE ANYWHERE FOR 6 WEEKS HUH?????

What a leap.

You keep throwing your hard earned dollars towards these conspiracy theories and "populist opinions" Tex while I continue to base my decisions on facts. I'm not a blind faith follower.



~SH~

No, SH, there were no "untested" theories. The math used in either case is a summation equation with causality tested. Taylor did prove this mathematically to the jury, who are supposed to be the ones deciding facts.

The question of "untested" was whether or not the packer's witness used his own mathematical formulas instead of the ones Taylor used, which have been used widespread and accepted by many courts. Thus, the "untested" part comes only from the packer's witness, not reality. Besides, you haven't mentioned the fact that the two mathematical formulas were looking at two different questions, did you?

Yes, I do know that the judge instructed the jury to evaluate Callicrates's testimony and I believe they did that. What evidence do you have that they did not?

If you want to make an argument that packers were treating Callicrate's supply differently than other supplies by not buying his cattle for 6 weeks (or not buying adequate proportions of his cattle for 6 weeks), you have inadvertently just made an argument for packers breaking the Packers and Stockyards Act, depending, of course, on the circumstances a jury has the decision to make.

Did the courts over step their bounds and make a standard of proof that is both circular in reasoning in made up out of thin air? You bet they did. Does the Packers and Stockyards Act require a harm to competition proof for prohibitions to be enforced? It would be the same question as if a police officer has the right to give a speeding ticket because of an erroneous decision by courts that speeding breaks the law only if it actually leads to an accident.

When was the last time you went to court with that one, SH?

Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex: "No, SH, there were no "untested" theories. The math used in either case is a summation equation with causality tested. Taylor did prove this mathematically to the jury, who are supposed to be the ones deciding facts."

When Taylor was asked in court if he had tested his theories, he replied that he had not tested his theories to which the judge even requestioned him in disbelief.

You had no evidence of market manipulation just an ILLUSION of proof.


Tex: "Besides, you haven't mentioned the fact that the two mathematical formulas were looking at two different questions, did you?"

Just like the plaintiffs, when you can provide no evidence, you create the ILLUSION that you can.


Tex: "Yes, I do know that the judge instructed the jury to evaluate Callicrates's testimony and I believe they did that. What evidence do you have that they did not?"

Once again, like your packer blaming buddies, you create the ILLUSION of what the judges instructions were. The judges instructions to the jury was to ignore Callicrate's testimony because he found it to be untrue.

What evidence do I have? THE ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTS!

Care to debate that?


Tex: "If you want to make an argument that packers were treating Callicrate's supply differently than other supplies by not buying his cattle for 6 weeks (or not buying adequate proportions of his cattle for 6 weeks), you have inadvertently just made an argument for packers breaking the Packers and Stockyards Act, depending, of course, on the circumstances a jury has the decision to make."

Oh, I see, so according to your interpretation of the PSA, packers need to be buying cattle from feeders more often than 6 weeks regardless whether they have been requested by the feeder to bid on the cattle, regardless whether any fat cattle were on the "show list", and regardless whether the packer and feeder can get together on a price huh??

ahhhh.....ok? Glad we cleared that up.

You really need to quit while your behind.


Tex: "Did the courts over step their bounds and make a standard of proof that is both circular in reasoning in made up out of thin air? You bet they did."

Yeh, you keep telling yourself that. Talk is certainly cheap. Maybe you need to take the same allegations to another court and see if you come out any differently. Try cattle feeding country this time.


Tex: "Does the Packers and Stockyards Act require a harm to competition proof for prohibitions to be enforced? It would be the same question as if a police officer has the right to give a speeding ticket because of an erroneous decision by courts that speeding breaks the law only if it actually leads to an accident."

There is nothing illegal about the current system of marketing fat cattle including forward contract pricing, grid / formula pricing, or the cash market. If feeders think there is market manipulation in one form of marketing, they can use another. Pretty hard to make a case of market mainpulation with so many marketing options but hey, this isn't about logic and reason is it? It's about the need to blame.


~SH~
 

Tex

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Tex: "No, SH, there were no "untested" theories. The math used in either case is a summation equation with causality tested. Taylor did prove this mathematically to the jury, who are supposed to be the ones deciding facts."

When Taylor was asked in court if he had tested his theories, he replied that he had not tested his theories to which the judge even requestioned him in disbelief.

You had no evidence of market manipulation just an ILLUSION of proof.


Tex: "Besides, you haven't mentioned the fact that the two mathematical formulas were looking at two different questions, did you?"

Just like the plaintiffs, when you can provide no evidence, you create the ILLUSION that you can.


Tex: "Yes, I do know that the judge instructed the jury to evaluate Callicrates's testimony and I believe they did that. What evidence do you have that they did not?"

Once again, like your packer blaming buddies, you create the ILLUSION of what the judges instructions were. The judges instructions to the jury was to ignore Callicrate's testimony because he found it to be untrue.

What evidence do I have? THE ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTS!

Care to debate that?


Tex: "If you want to make an argument that packers were treating Callicrate's supply differently than other supplies by not buying his cattle for 6 weeks (or not buying adequate proportions of his cattle for 6 weeks), you have inadvertently just made an argument for packers breaking the Packers and Stockyards Act, depending, of course, on the circumstances a jury has the decision to make."

Oh, I see, so according to your interpretation of the PSA, packers need to be buying cattle from feeders more often than 6 weeks regardless whether they have been requested by the feeder to bid on the cattle, regardless whether any fat cattle were on the "show list", and regardless whether the packer and feeder can get together on a price huh??

ahhhh.....ok? Glad we cleared that up.

You really need to quit while your behind.


Tex: "Did the courts over step their bounds and make a standard of proof that is both circular in reasoning in made up out of thin air? You bet they did."

Yeh, you keep telling yourself that. Talk is certainly cheap. Maybe you need to take the same allegations to another court and see if you come out any differently. Try cattle feeding country this time.


Tex: "Does the Packers and Stockyards Act require a harm to competition proof for prohibitions to be enforced? It would be the same question as if a police officer has the right to give a speeding ticket because of an erroneous decision by courts that speeding breaks the law only if it actually leads to an accident."

There is nothing illegal about the current system of marketing fat cattle including forward contract pricing, grid / formula pricing, or the cash market. If feeders think there is market manipulation in one form of marketing, they can use another. Pretty hard to make a case of market mainpulation with so many marketing options but hey, this isn't about logic and reason is it? It's about the need to blame.


~SH~

SH, just what did the judge mean by "test" his theory? Go out and do the market manipulation himself? or run the mathematical formulas to test for causality? or Use the defendant's witness's mathematical formula?

You are basing your blabber on loose information here. Please get it down right.

There is nothing illegal about any form of cattle marketing unless those marketing systems are actually used as a deceptive device which is strictly prohibited under the PSA.

If you only knew how stupid you sound making arguments that were never there.

Face it, SH, you were not on the jury but all 12 of them agreed to damages amounting to over a billion dollars.

Tex
 
Top