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

What Were the Forces Behind the Canadian Cattle Subsidy(BSE)

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
rkaiser, what is that article you mentioned? How would I google it? Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Econ101 said:
rkaiser, what is that article you mentioned? How would I google it? Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?

Are you claiming or trying to claim that the Canadian Government would not have come up with any money to save the Beef industry in Canada if Tyson and Cargill had lobbied to them? The Whole industry plus the Provincial governments had a bit to do with the money that was handed over. Yes in the Federal Governments hast to help save the industry out of a disaster Tyson and Cargill did get a pretty fair chunk of the first money but the feeding sector of the industry was the hardest hit when the border closed so that was the first sector to recieve money. Tyson and Cargill had feeders they qualified for payment just like everyone else that owned feeders. As if that sector went broke who would the producers sell their calves to. After things calmed down a bit and the government had time to think about who to help next the Packers didn't see much of the money. You are so quick to want to tag the packers with whatever that you don't even stop to think that just Maybe the Government saw that if they didn't step in and help a large part of the Canadian economy was going to down the toilet. Some Economist you are.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
The fact of the matter is the Canadian Government's intentions of the bailout was to help an industry that desperately needed a hand before capsizing. Can we agree there?

Another fact is that Tyson and Cargill were not in danger of capsizing as they had access to the very lucrative US boxed beef market. Can we agree there?

Clearly, Tyson and Cargill were in a much different situation than the vast majority of Canadian feeders. Can we agree there?

The question then arises, why were Tyson and Cargill lumped with everybody else? When you consider what the intentions of the bailout were, it makes no sense. Was it just the government tossing money away foolishly again, or were there other reasons?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
rkaiser, what is that article you mentioned? How would I google it? Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?

Are you claiming or trying to claim that the Canadian Government would not have come up with any money to save the Beef industry in Canada if Tyson and Cargill had lobbied to them? The Whole industry plus the Provincial governments had a bit to do with the money that was handed over. Yes in the Federal Governments hast to help save the industry out of a disaster Tyson and Cargill did get a pretty fair chunk of the first money but the feeding sector of the industry was the hardest hit when the border closed so that was the first sector to recieve money. Tyson and Cargill had feeders they qualified for payment just like everyone else that owned feeders. As if that sector went broke who would the producers sell their calves to. After things calmed down a bit and the government had time to think about who to help next the Packers didn't see much of the money. You are so quick to want to tag the packers with whatever that you don't even stop to think that just Maybe the Government saw that if they didn't step in and help a large part of the Canadian economy was going to down the toilet. Some Economist you are.

Don't be so jumpy Tam. I don't know very much about this situation and that is why I asked. I don't have an opinion. I am just asking questions.

Please do not judge me especially when I don't even have an opinion and I just want to learn. I will put it in a little context so you will know what I am getting at:

In the northwestern part of the U.S., there are a lot of sugarbeet farmers. They had problems with their processor, a man from Dallas owned the company, and over a period of time ended up buying the processing plants themselves. Just this last year Congress passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. To make a long story short, that agreement essentially sold out the interests of those sugarbeet farmers and allows more world sugar into the U.S. thus hurting the beet producers.

My question is: Does it take the type of wheeler dealer big companies lobbying Congress (or Canada) to protect industries in our current political climate? It seems to me the sugar industry was outmanuvered on their deal when farmers owned it and not when a rich American owned it. rkaiser has pointed out that the packer owned cattle already had what the pork people call "shackle space" so they really didn't need a subsidy but got one from the taxpayers of Canada.

Where is the article on this?
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
Econ101 said:
....... How would I google it? Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?

Actually Econ I do think you already have an "opinion". How or why do I think this? The form of your question: Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
S.S.A.P. said:
Econ101 said:
....... How would I google it? Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?


Actually Econ I do think you already have an "opinion". How or why do I think this? The form of your question: Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?

It is my question. I am still open. The answers, if we really get any, might shed light on the whole BSE border closing. It might not. I am still open.

This is the evidence gathering stage. SH will give the spin when he comes on.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker said:
The fact of the matter is the Canadian Government's intentions of the bailout was to help an industry that desperately needed a hand before capsizing. Can we agree there?

Another fact is that Tyson and Cargill were not in danger of capsizing as they had access to the very lucrative US boxed beef market. Can we agree there?

Clearly, Tyson and Cargill were in a much different situation than the vast majority of Canadian feeders. Can we agree there?

The question then arises, why were Tyson and Cargill lumped with everybody else? When you consider what the intentions of the bailout were, it makes no sense. Was it just the government tossing money away foolishly again, or were there other reasons?

A good analogy, and one you might understand, Sandhusker. Say there were the worst drought in history of the Sandhills; the government declares a disaster and payments are available to cattle growers. Except in the case of those with jobs who are raising just a few cattle for the "club calf" market because that was deemed to be a hobby type operation and not necessary for the health of the working ranchers of the area. And not truly harmful to the hobby rancher because of your job and the fact that you run your cattle with your cousin, so you aren't the sole support of the ranch. This is just a little "what if" story based on what you have said about your "ranching" operation......and not intended as fact, but to demonstrate why it would not be right to single out some producers in a disaster induced subsidy situation. Just an "Americanized" perspective of the situation for consideration.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But Canadians did single out individuals.....How about the US ranchers, that because of their political and fraternal involvement were singled out by Canadians and were hindered or prevented from slaughtering the cattle they owned in Canada?

More good old Canadian foreplay :???: :wink:
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Oldtimer said:
But Canadians did single out individuals.....How about the US ranchers, that because of their political and fraternal involvement were singled out by Canadians and were hindered or prevented from slaughtering the cattle they owned in Canada?

More good old Canadian foreplay :???: :wink:

By "fraternal involvement " do you mean the R-calf members that owned CDN cattle, Oldtimer??? You know, the same CDN cattle that R-calfers were calling "diseased and deadly"?? Would those be the "individuals" you are talking about?? :D :D :roll:
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Sandhusker said:
The fact of the matter is the Canadian Government's intentions of the bailout was to help an industry that desperately needed a hand before capsizing. Can we agree there?

Another fact is that Tyson and Cargill were not in danger of capsizing as they had access to the very lucrative US boxed beef market. Can we agree there?

Clearly, Tyson and Cargill were in a much different situation than the vast majority of Canadian feeders. Can we agree there?

The question then arises, why were Tyson and Cargill lumped with everybody else? When you consider what the intentions of the bailout were, it makes no sense. Was it just the government tossing money away foolishly again, or were there other reasons?

Tyson and Cargill had no markets other than domestic Canadian markets from May 20/03 until the end of August. The lines were almost at zero many of those weeks. They had thousands of cattle under contract at pre BSE prices and they honored evryone of those contracts at huge losses to themselves.

Their own cattle that were ready were worthless. So they were in the same boat as other feeders.

When the gov't made the money available, it was $56 to $80 per head (they didn't know how many cattle there were) owned before Dec 23/02 cattle that would be ready for slaughter during the time there was no market for beef.

There was talk that we could lose those 2 companies if things went like they did in Britian.

Cargill and Tyson wound up with 11% of the cattle paid for under the program.

The next subsidy was based on who owned the cows that produced calves. Cargill and Tyson got nothing on that one. They were also banned from bidding to hold fat cattle from the market for 90 day periods. Feedlots could take 1100 pound cattle and get paid their bid per day for feed to stall them or delay them from slaughter for 90 days. Some I know of got $1.35-$1.55 per day per head.

The US boxed beef market wasn't as lucrative as it might appear. Brokers offered 20% less than US prices because they knew they had a captive seller. End meats and ground beef were huge surpluses. Canadians ate more beef, but many ate more steaks already in tight supply. SRM removal and disposal fees ate up another $200 plus per head.

Other than the first statement about the gov't giving a hand to an industry on the brink of capsize, there is nothing to agree with in your post Sandhusker.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason, what would have happened if Tyson and Cargill were not subsidized? Would all of those facilities have just disappeared?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Not much need for any reply to that nonsense is there Oldtimer.

The figues that I quoted were simply publicly available numbers from Ag Canada, not an article Econo.

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/fin8687

There certainly should have been a few more articles. The packers had no right to government money at that time. They were bailed out for the containers of beef that were held up due to the intial BSE BS, but why on earth would they have needed the money for cattle inventory when they had sales for it both in Canada, and very soon after, the USA as a boxed product.

The talk of the block was that the money was spent back into the marketplace by way of decent calf prices. Why wouldn't they offer decent calf prices. They once again had a boxed beef market, and a lucrative one at that. They were actually able to forcast their own lucrative profits.

As far as Cargill and Tyson having an influence on government policy, including how and where and when subsidies are paid...... Of course they do. If not in positions like the Vice Chairman (Cargill) and second Vice Chairman(Tyson) of CBEF (one of our checkoff funded industry groups), the economic pressure on individuals is tremendous. I could give you name after name of feedlot operators who said that they needed to stay away from the limelight (unlike Randy Kaiser) for fear that Cargill or Tyson would simply ignore their fat cattle on any certain week. Try standing up at a ABP/CCA meeting and challenging the need for Cargill to participate in a bailout program for producers AND own a few thousand fat cattle that were not contracted to Cargill or Tyson. :wink:

This was the largest Power Move ever played out in the Canadian Cattle industry and we still have folks like Tam with their head in the sand, and in fact defending and cheering this debacle on.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Oh my goodness Jason. This is an amazing post.

Jason
Tyson and Cargill had no markets other than domestic Canadian markets from May 20/03 until the end of August. The lines were almost at zero many of those weeks. They had thousands of cattle under contract at pre BSE prices and they honored evryone of those contracts at huge losses to themselves.

No markets but their domestic Canadian markets. Can you tell us all how they would have to bring their lines down to "almost zero" to deal with a loss of less than 30% of their sales. Canada accounts for at least 70% of all beef produced in Canada.

I sure would have liked to see Cargill and Tyson back out of those contracts Jason. Would you have sued them?

Huge losse to themselves..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Once again I guess you forgot that Canadians eat beef, and in fact increased consumption while "THE LINES WERE ALMOST AT ZERO". Doesn't that mean they were trying to match supply and demand? :roll:

Sounds to me by the rest of your post that you think the Canadian public should have doled out even moe to your hero's. Is that true, or did you simply borrow SH's packer defender suit for a day or two.

Amazing post; as I said before. :roll: :oops: :roll: :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
S.S.A.P. said:
Econ101 said:
....... How would I google it? Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?

Actually Econ I do think you already have an "opinion". How or why do I think this? The form of your question: Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?

I have to agree with you on the way Econ slipped in the Tyson and Cargill I have to wonder why he didn't use the Canadian cattle producers and the Association that represent them lobbied or the MLA's lobbied on behalf of the people in Agriculture that they represent. But No Tyson and Cargill lobbied.

Oldtimer
But Canadians did single out individuals.....How about the US ranchers, that because of their political and fraternal involvement were singled out by Canadians and were hindered or prevented from slaughtering the cattle they owned in Canada?
.
Just who are you talking about Oldtimer could these guys be the R-CALFers the LEO said DID NOT OWN CATTLE IN CANADA on RFD-TV. IF they are then are you saying LEO LIED ON TV to the viewing public?

Sandhusker After the first money, that was hastily handed out to the feeders to shore up that part of the industry from certain disaster because the border slammed shut when cattle were ready for market and the price bottomed out, (which Tyson and Cargill were a part of because they owned feeder cattle), the rest of the programs were set up so they would not get any further money as it went to the sectors that Tyson and Cargill were not a part of.

What I would like to know is why Randy is posting what Tyson and Cargill got but he says nothing about the big Canadian family owned packing plant? They belong to every sector of the beef industry including the commission sales yard end of it, and they were the only large Federally inspected plant slaughtering cull cattle. They took every advantage they could including making producers pay a fee for arrangment of loads that were to be hauled to their plant for slaughter. One rancher told me he arranged for the truck to come and pick up his cattle at his ranch. He loaded them, the trucker were hauled to their plant and the rancher got charged a fee by the packing plant for arranging the loads. This at a time while Cull cattle were selling for maybe 30 cents if you were lucky. This packing plant was supplying most of the beef eaten in Canada as Tyson and Cargill were slaughtering UTM cattle for export. But Randy doesn't want to compete with these guys in a market that really needs the competition so we don't hear about what they are doing to the Canadian producers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer
But Canadians did single out individuals.....How about the US ranchers, that because of their political and fraternal involvement were singled out by Canadians and were hindered or prevented from slaughtering the cattle they owned in Canada?
.
Just who are you talking about Oldtimer could these guys be the R-CALFers the LEO said DID NOT OWN CATTLE IN CANADA on RFD-TV. IF they are then are you saying LEO LIED ON TV to the viewing public?

Tam- Leo said that R-CALF owned no calves- which was true...He said he had no way of knowing which R-CALF members owned cattle in Canada or for that matter anywhere else-- which is also true...

You have become a true Canadian- cry and whine about following the law- but then be one of the first to support discrimination and violating the law.....Same as I've seen for years--Remember the first shot fired in the Beef Wars was by Canada and their Anaplas-Bluetongue artificial trade barriers which were put up as a health issue and then shown to be scientifically full of holes- even completely backpeddled and dropped by Canada when a little pressure was put on.... Shows their importance :???: :wink:
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I'm sorry if I have been leaving out the Nielsens Tam. Just like Tyson and Cargill, they were in the right spot at the right time. They must be even better than Cargill at hiding their cattle in nubered companies as their is nothing showing in the list for how much their cheque is.

I don't have anything good to say about them either Tam. They took advantage as much as their big brothers. The only reason Cargill hasn't bought them out yet is because that old $hithole plant in Calgary wouldn't be worth ten bucks to the next guy.

Tam -
This packing plant was supplying most of the beef eaten in Canada as Tyson and Cargill were slaughtering UTM cattle for export. But Randy doesn't want to compete with these guys in a market that really needs the competition so we don't hear about what they are doing to the Canadian producers.

I see Tam. The plant in Moose Jaw was supplying Canadians with MOST of their beef. :lol: :lol:

Still showing how little you are able to read hey Tam. BIG C is all about killing OTM cattle.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Tam said:
S.S.A.P. said:
Econ101 said:
....... How would I google it? Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?

Actually Econ I do think you already have an "opinion". How or why do I think this? The form of your question: Would the Canadian subsidy have been granted without the lobbying of Tyson/Cargill/ whoever else?

I have to agree with you on the way Econ slipped in the Tyson and Cargill I have to wonder why he didn't use the Canadian cattle producers and the Association that represent them lobbied or the MLA's lobbied on behalf of the people in Agriculture that they represent. But No Tyson and Cargill lobbied.

Oldtimer
But Canadians did single out individuals.....How about the US ranchers, that because of their political and fraternal involvement were singled out by Canadians and were hindered or prevented from slaughtering the cattle they owned in Canada?
.
Just who are you talking about Oldtimer could these guys be the R-CALFers the LEO said DID NOT OWN CATTLE IN CANADA on RFD-TV. IF they are then are you saying LEO LIED ON TV to the viewing public?

Sandhusker After the first money, that was hastily handed out to the feeders to shore up that part of the industry from certain disaster because the border slammed shut when cattle were ready for market and the price bottomed out, (which Tyson and Cargill were a part of because they owned feeder cattle), the rest of the programs were set up so they would not get any further money as it went to the sectors that Tyson and Cargill were not a part of.

What I would like to know is why Randy is posting what Tyson and Cargill got but he says nothing about the big Canadian family owned packing plant? They belong to every sector of the beef industry including the commission sales yard end of it, and they were the only large Federally inspected plant slaughtering cull cattle. They took every advantage they could including making producers pay a fee for arrangment of loads that were to be hauled to their plant for slaughter. One rancher told me he arranged for the truck to come and pick up his cattle at his ranch. He loaded them, the trucker were hauled to their plant and the rancher got charged a fee by the packing plant for arranging the loads. This at a time while Cull cattle were selling for maybe 30 cents if you were lucky. This packing plant was supplying most of the beef eaten in Canada as Tyson and Cargill were slaughtering UTM cattle for export. But Randy doesn't want to compete with these guys in a market that really needs the competition so we don't hear about what they are doing to the Canadian producers.

Tam, You wouldn't be talking about Nillson Brothers(XL Beef, Heartland Sale Barns, Roberge Trucking) would you?? :wink:
Randy's "multi-national big-boy" arguement might have some merit if he could show that Brian and Lee were paying more for cattle than Tyson and Cargill were at the time. Were They???(paying more)??? Did they get any subsidy money??? :wink:
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
Oldtimer said:
How about the US ranchers, that because of their political and fraternal involvement were singled out by Canadians and were hindered or prevented from slaughtering the cattle they owned in Canada?



Oldtimer.. what did you expect ......Welcome Wagon...?



So how much did you lose Oldtimer...?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
rkaiser said:
Oh my goodness Jason. This is an amazing post.

Jason
Tyson and Cargill had no markets other than domestic Canadian markets from May 20/03 until the end of August. The lines were almost at zero many of those weeks. They had thousands of cattle under contract at pre BSE prices and they honored evryone of those contracts at huge losses to themselves.

No markets but their domestic Canadian markets. Can you tell us all how they would have to bring their lines down to "almost zero" to deal with a loss of less than 30% of their sales. Canada accounts for at least 70% of all beef produced in Canada.


I sure would have liked to see Cargill and Tyson back out of those contracts Jason. Would you have sued them?

Huge losse to themselves..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Once again I guess you forgot that Canadians eat beef, and in fact increased consumption while "THE LINES WERE ALMOST AT ZERO". Doesn't that mean they were trying to match supply and demand? :roll:

Sounds to me by the rest of your post that you think the Canadian public should have doled out even moe to your hero's. Is that true, or did you simply borrow SH's packer defender suit for a day or two.

Amazing post; as I said before. :roll: :oops: :roll: :roll:

Randy can you back the statement about "No markets but their domestic Canadian markets. Can you tell us all how they would have to bring their lines down to "almost zero" to deal with a loss of less than 30% of their sales. Canada accounts for at least 70% of all beef produced in Canada"

Because according to
Canadian Meat Council
Presentation to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
February 26, 2004


Export markets represented 70% of the total beef production in Canada prior to the discovery of one case of BSE in May 2003. When international markets slammed shut to Canadian beef over the next few days havoc was created in the marketplace and huge numbers of live cattle were backed up.

Now just who are we to believe the Canadian Meat Counsel or somebody that makes claims with no intentions of backing them with any thing but his OPINION?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer
But Canadians did single out individuals.....How about the US ranchers, that because of their political and fraternal involvement were singled out by Canadians and were hindered or prevented from slaughtering the cattle they owned in Canada?
.
Just who are you talking about Oldtimer could these guys be the R-CALFers the LEO said DID NOT OWN CATTLE IN CANADA on RFD-TV. IF they are then are you saying LEO LIED ON TV to the viewing public?

Tam- Leo said that R-CALF owned no calves- which was true...He said he had no way of knowing which R-CALF members owned cattle in Canada or for that matter anywhere else-- which is also true...

You have become a true Canadian- cry and whine about following the law- but then be one of the first to support discrimination and violating the law.....Same as I've seen for years--Remember the first shot fired in the Beef Wars was by Canada and their Anaplas-Bluetongue artificial trade barriers which were put up as a health issue and then shown to be scientifically full of holes- even completely backpeddled and dropped by Canada when a little pressure was put on.... Shows their importance :???: :wink:
Bull Oldtimer Shae said there were stories in the industry about R-Calf members owning cattle in Canada then she ask him if they was any truth to them and his answer was were No R-Calf members owned cattle in Canada, why would they, they have not market from them so they would be loosing money. Then he laugh.
And Oldtimer why do you keep bring up the Anna and Blue tired old story you must know by now the the CCA in Canada has been working with the NCBA for over a decade to get those regulations change.
 

Latest posts

Top