RM: "SH, let's get to the factual basis...
What does Andy's $3.38/head and the $16/head profit include?
Is it just turning live cattle into hanging carcasses or boxed beef?
Does it include fabrication to a case ready product?
Does it include transportation, cold storage, and distribution?
How about packer owned fed calves...their increase in value while on the feedlot?
Profits from packer owned feedlots?
Does it include the profit from when a packer buyer buys calves off a ranch all the way until the product is unloaded on the Wal-Mart dock?
That last question is where I'm talking about $200 to $500 profit.
How can you make any meaningful statements about "packer profits" if you don't already know the answer to these questions? Or are you just blowing smoke?
In case you missed it, the bold is my position on profits...of course I have my accountant minimize taxable profits!"
As I figured, rather than doing any research on your own you stick to your comfort zone of questioning what someone else presents. Same-O you!
I will discuss the $16 per head figure and if you want to question Andy's data on the $3.38 per head for the 5 largest packers in a 9 year period, you'll have to do that research yourself. Since Andy's business relies on accurate information and his clients rely on accurate information, I'm going to trust his data far more than I would trust empty rhetoric from a packer blamer who simply repeats what they want to believe (not necessarily you but those you listen to). That line of thinking will get you 0 & 9 in court.
At the time questioned during the Pickett vs. ibp case, I am quite sure that ibp was not feeding their own cattle and I'm quite sure they were simply marketing boxed beef to retail outlets as opposed to selling case ready products. If that is incorrect, I welcome anything you can provide to the contrary.
At that time the expense vs. profit picture would include transportation, cold storage and distribution to the retail outlets that marketed their beef. If that is incorrect, I welcome anything you can provide to the contrary. I won't hold my breathe.
Does it really matter Robert? Bottom line is the $16 per head figure is not even close to what the ignorant packer blaming pied pipers were saying about "HUGE PACKER PROFITS" of $300 per head ON UP.
Once you get into packer owned cattle, which TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE did not apply in the ibp case, I would want to seperate the feeding profit center from the beef processing and fabrication center.
In regards to packer fed cattle, would you care to make the argument that Excel or JBS can feed cattle more efficiently than the rest of the feeding sector? Care to make the argument that the feeding sector is not competitive? If not, then it's really a moot point isn't it?
Don't waste your time trying to get me to do more research for you. You do your own research and see what you come up with. If I am blowing smoke, you have the right to prove it just as you always have? I don't mind digging up information for someone who wants to learn but I won't waste my time with someone who refuses to do their own research and is looking for anything to discredit the data provided in order to justify continuing to believe in baseless conspiracy theories. An example would be your ridiculous theory that Tyson would subsidize their beef sales with their poultry and pork sectors in order to control the beef market.
The bottom line is this, ibp's $16 PER HEAD profits DURING THE TIME PERIOD IN QUESTION were miniscule in contrast to the service they are providing considering that boxed beef prices drive live cattle prices.
The bottom line is this, in a free market economy, when there is a profit center that is excessive, someone else will seize that opportunity (K-mart vs. Walmart).
The bottom line is this, USPB's patronage dividends were around $25 - $26 per head and Future Beef went broke both proving there was not a "HUGE PROFIT CENTER" to be had.
You have brought nothing to the table that would suggest otherwise.
Since boxed beef prices drive live cattle prices, unless you control every facet of the industry from pasture to plate, it's in the best interests of the entire beef/cattle industry to work together to increase beef consumption. Instead, the packer blamers waste valuable time and energy with their baseless lawsuits and allegations of price fixing and market manipulation which only serve to fracture the industry while competive meats focus on the consumer.
One of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard is "We are in the cattle industry, not the beef industry". My response to that statement is this, "if that's the case, why do you support Country of Origin labeling? Using the logic that you are in the cattle industry and not the beef industry, COOL, if it had any benefits, would only benefit the packers". Another of the many self defeating positions of the packer blamers.
"US BEEF, ASK FOR IT" - R-CALF
WHY? ACCORDING TO THE R-CALF VIEWS OF BEING IN THE CATTLE INDUSTRY AND NOT THE BEEF INDUSTRY, CONSUMERS ASKING FOR US BEEF WOULD ONLY BENEFIT THE PACKING INDUSTRY.
That's the kind of contradictions you get from those driven by blame and emotion rather than facts.
BTW, considering the percentage of retail beef that is US beef, even if consumers ask for US BEEF there is a 90+% chance that's what they are getting anyway.
How about this....
"US BEEF, IT'S WHAT'S FOR DINNER WHETHER YOU ASK FOR IT OR NOT".
That would be a little more accurate.
~SH~
