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

[Econ101]

nice diversion tam. a real good sh tactic. whether it's otm or utm real competition is needed. your fabled level playing field disappeared when cargill opened up it's plant in high river and was only a myth when ibp bought lakeside. if we don't set up an alternative to cargill and tyson we are in an even worse position than we were may 20, 2003 when we were completely vulnerable to american political and business interests. i don't see why you keep on arguing for the status quo; pretending it is what works is delusional. if r-calf disappears somebody else will raise hell with us on an ongoing basis. look for a solution that will enable us to expand our markets (maybe testing!) and yes we need the american market but let them come and buy our animals and our beef instead of being held hostage by them. if r-calf would tend to business at home and fight the battles that might get them ahead they would have strong allies up here. r-calf will only succeed when it straightens out the domestic situation re: cool, packer concentration and captive supplies. the canadian influence on their market has been shown to be miniscule (look at prices since the border opened) and is merely a diversion by unscrupulous r-calf leaders.

Good post Don. I agree with most of what you said. To a point, I agree with your last statement. From my point of view, and I am not an r-calfer, the strategy was to make U.S. corps. stick with the same "objective" policy that closed the Canadian border in the first place, even if it hurt the Tyson's and Cargills. The Japanese don't seem to believe the U.S. on its BSE testing and telling. With the recent snafu on the type of test by the USDA and Johanns, who could blame them? To make matters worse, the USDA proved this point by not allowing some companies to BSE all cattle going through their plants. It is going to take both sides of the border to deal with Tyson and Cargill, not just one.

Keep posting.

 

[Bill]

A couple of things.

Randy, I am not sure what figures you are using but you have to go all the way back to 1990 to find over 70% of our production consumed in Canada and in 2002 only 40% of our Beef was eaten by Canadians.

Tam, although not perfect by any means BIG-C's proposal in 2003 was the only plan out there to build a plant large enough to compete with the big US corps. Will the plants under construction or still in on the drawing board survive? Not without support of CCA and some significant changes made within CFIA. Will this happen? I truly doubt it. The sink or swim attitude will not make for many success stories within the new plants.
While CCA kept it's thumb on the provincial producer groups such as SSGA and ABP and any ideas they may have had, BIG-C had already stepped outside the box and was actually trying to do something. As I said not perfect but at least there were some not willing to buy into the "all will be well.....the US will look after us......" line CCA was spouting.

I see you were confused about who BIG -C was planning on competeing with TOO. As BIG-C's plan that was so sarcasticly pointed out by Randy was all about OTM. BIG-C would process OTM cattle for export markets of which we have few, and the Big US corps are producing UTM for export of which they are shipping just about all into the US. Can you maybe explain how BIG-C was planning on competeing with the Big US corps?

Big C's C plan was not just all about OTMs.

Tam are you trying to tell us that Cargill and Tyson will only be processing UTMs once the border re-opens to OTMs as well?

 

[rkaiser]

Rather than see the BIG C picture (so to speak), Tam has chosen to find nothing but fault because Randy the packer bwamer pissed her off.

Tam

And I'm not arguing for that stats quo I'm saying I want the other plants that have taken the time to write good business plan and find investors that believe in that plan to have a fair change in the OTM cattle sector so we don't have just one or two big plants running the whole show like we do in the UTM cattle sector.

What on earth are you talking about Tam. Who are the two big plants running the whole show? Never have I heard such packer bwamer rhetoric in all my life. Prove it Tam. Prove that these two big plants are running the whole show. :roll:

I would also like to say that Randy Kaiser and BIG C support any and all plant proposals who have taken the time to write good business plans and find investors for OTM and UTM plants. We have offered each of these proposals assistance through some type of share/levy idea and all have declined up til now. Most like the idea at the grassroots level, but the high dollar investors don't.

 

[rkaiser]

Bill - Cargill at High River is set up for UTM cattle only. It would be very hard for them to switch to OTM. Tyson however could and will switch at the drop of a hat. Almost all new plants are setting up for UTM and OTM. Do you know of any that are strictly OTM Tam?

BIG C sees the OTM situation as the most dire for the producers of this country. Thus the push for the first plant to start with OTM. Did I say "for the producers of this country?" I guess I did. Funny how all of this arguement is about investors and companies and businesses. Got any ideas how to help the producers of this country Tam?

 

[Tam]

A couple of things.

Randy, I am not sure what figures you are using but you have to go all the way back to 1990 to find over 70% of our production consumed in Canada and in 2002 only 40% of our Beef was eaten by Canadians.

Tam, although not perfect by any means BIG-C's proposal in 2003 was the only plan out there to build a plant large enough to compete with the big US corps. Will the plants under construction or still in on the drawing board survive? Not without support of CCA and some significant changes made within CFIA. Will this happen? I truly doubt it. The sink or swim attitude will not make for many success stories within the new plants.
While CCA kept it's thumb on the provincial producer groups such as SSGA and ABP and any ideas they may have had, BIG-C had already stepped outside the box and was actually trying to do something. As I said not perfect but at least there were some not willing to buy into the "all will be well.....the US will look after us......" line CCA was spouting.

I see you were confused about who BIG -C was planning on competeing with TOO. As BIG-C's plan that was so sarcasticly pointed out by Randy was all about OTM. BIG-C would process OTM cattle for export markets of which we have few, and the Big US corps are producing UTM for export of which they are shipping just about all into the US. Can you maybe explain how BIG-C was planning on competeing with the Big US corps?

Big C's C plan was not just all about OTMs.

Tam are you trying to tell us that Cargill and Tyson will only be processing UTMs once the border re-opens to OTMs as well?

Quote from Randy

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

:wink:

this is from the BIG-C plan

Expansion of UTM capacity and markets will likely develop more repidly than OTM, therefore, we view the plight of producers regarding cull cattle salvage value and market creation to be the highest priority.

So how long will it be before they do something about the UTM?

As to the Tyson and Cargill OTM I would say they will be slaughtering some of our OTM cattle as will any other big US plant because when the border opens it will be openning to both meat and live according to the USDA. wheither they will be slaughtering it here is another story.

Do you know of any that are strictly OTM Tam?

Randy did you forget that the Nillsen plant in Calgary lost their ability to ship UTM to the US so they are now slaughter OTM. But even before that the Moose Jaw plant was slaughtering only OTM which was switched to UTM when the Calgary plant had to go to OTM. So yes there is at least one good sized exsisting plant that you will be competeing with.

Did I say "for the producers of this country?" I guess I did. Funny how all of this arguement is about investors and companies and businesses.

If the levy is nationwide just how much good will a plant in Alberta or Sask do the producers on the East coast that are also paying the levy? And what good will the shares be if the dividend are forgiven because of the high prices the producer in the west are recieving are considered enough reward for their investment? and If the plant is in Alberta and it puts a Sask plant out of business what good it it to the producer that were using the plant your just put out of business? To get the cattle from Sask to the plant in Alberta it will just cost more trucking. And again if the trucking eats up the higher prices and because the better price we don't get dividends what good are the shares. By the Way Randy Are the producers entitled to the profits of a plant if it is leased out to an operator?

 

[rkaiser]

I asked if you knew of any NEW plants palnning to kill only OTM cattle Tam.

Tam

If the levy is nationwide just how much good will a plant in Alberta or Sask do the producers on the East coast that are also paying the levy? And what good will the shares be if the dividend are forgiven because of the high prices the producer in the west are recieving are considered enough reward for their investment? and If the plant is in Alberta and it puts a Sask plant out of business what good it it to the producer that were using the plant your just put out of business? To get the cattle from Sask to the plant in Alberta it will just cost more trucking. And again if the trucking eats up the higher prices and because the better price we don't get dividends what good are the shares. By the Way Randy Are the producers entitled to the profits of a plant if it is leased out to an operator?

Don't know if the levy will be nation wide, haven't had a vote yet. If it were to be nation wide, I would suggest a plant in the east as well.
The first plant was always proposed for Sakatchewan Tam. If it put a plant down the road out of business, it would have been dead before it started. Your real competitor is and will be Tyson and or Cargill for a very long time. I would say yes to your last question Tam, after all the producers are the owners. Owners share profits in any other business venture, do they not?

 

[Tam]

I asked if you knew of any NEW plants palnning to kill only OTM cattle Tam.

Tam

If the levy is nationwide just how much good will a plant in Alberta or Sask do the producers on the East coast that are also paying the levy? And what good will the shares be if the dividend are forgiven because of the high prices the producer in the west are recieving are considered enough reward for their investment? and If the plant is in Alberta and it puts a Sask plant out of business what good it it to the producer that were using the plant your just put out of business? To get the cattle from Sask to the plant in Alberta it will just cost more trucking. And again if the trucking eats up the higher prices and because the better price we don't get dividends what good are the shares. By the Way Randy Are the producers entitled to the profits of a plant if it is leased out to an operator?

Don't know if the levy will be nation wide, haven't had a vote yet. If it were to be nation wide, I would suggest a plant in the east as well.
The first plant was always proposed for Sakatchewan Tam. If it put a plant down the road out of business, it would have been dead before it started. Your real competitor is and will be Tyson and or Cargill for a very long time. I would say yes to your last question Tam, after all the producers are the owners. Owners share profits in any other business venture, do they not?

That is the problem with your IDEA no body including you Randy really knows what BIG-C is asking for. Will it be National or the four Prairie provinces levied ? How many plants are we talking about? If only one plant is built Will it be a plant in the West? or will it be a plant in the East? Will it slaughter OTM or UTM or both? and will you have export markets for the meat if the government refuses to test for market access?

If it put a plant down the road out of business, it would have been dead before it started.

Gee Randy are you telling us the the HUGE advantage the BIG-C plant would have over the other plant wouldn't have an affect on the success of the second plant? That on a level playing field it would have surely died anyway? :roll: If that is true then why do you need such a huge advantage over the competition if just your presents is enough to kill the plant?

And Randy do you lease land on a fixed payment? if you do does your landlord also expect to recieve part of the profits that you make on the land?

Rather than see the BIG C picture (so to speak), Tam has chosen to find nothing but fault because Randy the packer bwamer p****d her off.

Randy you put way to much focus on what a few people think of you when it comes to a plan that generates more question than it answers and there doesn't seem to be anyone to answer those question including the BIG-C web site. Now it you want anyone including me to vote on this, you had better develop a PLAN and not just and IDEA. So we all KNOW what you are asking of us. :roll:
I'm I really that sneaky Randy when all it took to prove you wrong was the BIG C website. maybe you should have read it before you made your claim about the percentage of productions exported. :lol:

 

[rkaiser]

Every time I answer your questions Tam, you come up with 10 more. Is it because you are interested, or are you simply trying to discredit. Have you any answers Tam? Do you ever offer anything? No. You discredit Rcalf, you discredit BIG C, you discredit Randy, and you follow the your fearless leader SH, in your quest for ????????What????

Tam

That is the problem with your IDEA no body including you Randy really knows what BIG-C is asking for. Will it be National or the four Prairie provinces levied ? How many plants are we talking about? If only one plant is built Will it be a plant in the West? or will it be a plant in the East? Will it slaughter OTM or UTM or both? and will you have export markets for the meat if the government refuses to test for market access?

Yes - I'm so confused Tam, that yes is all I can come up with.

Tam -

Gee Randy are you telling us the the HUGE advantage the BIG-C plant would have over the other plant wouldn't have an affect on the success of the second plant? That on a level playing field it would have surely died anyway? If that is true then why do you need such a huge advantage over the competition if just your presents is enough to kill the plant?

What's the HUGE advantage Tam. A loan paid for by the investors over time. Investors who won't receive a return until their loan is paid off. Sounds like a good plan rather than a HUGE advantage to me.

Tam -

And Randy do you lease land on a fixed payment? if you do does your landlord also expect to recieve part of the profits that you make on the land?

When did you decide that BIG C should lease the land Tam. Did you sneak in and grab a directors seat when I wasn't looking?

I know you'll have more questions Tam. That's the only way someone with your mentality can survive on this site. Keep em coming sweetie.

Are you ever going to answer any of my questions Tam? Like how many NEW plants are planning on killing only OTM cattle? Or how do you propose to help the producers of this country from, in your words

just one or two big plants running the whole show like we do in the UTM cattle sector.

 

[Bill]

I see you were confused about who BIG -C was planning on competeing with TOO. As BIG-C's plan that was so sarcasticly pointed out by Randy was all about OTM. BIG-C would process OTM cattle for export markets of which we have few, and the Big US corps are producing UTM for export of which they are shipping just about all into the US. Can you maybe explain how BIG-C was planning on competeing with the Big US corps?

Big C's C plan was not just all about OTMs.

Tam are you trying to tell us that Cargill and Tyson will only be processing UTMs once the border re-opens to OTMs as well?

Quote from Randy

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

:wink:

this is from the BIG-C plan

Expansion of UTM capacity and markets will likely develop more repidly than OTM, therefore, we view the plight of producers regarding cull cattle salvage value and market creation to be the highest priority.

So how long will it be before they do something about the UTM?

As to the Tyson and Cargill OTM I would say they will be slaughtering some of our OTM cattle as will any other big US plant because when the border opens it will be openning to both meat and live according to the USDA. wheither they will be slaughtering it here is another story.

Do you know of any that are strictly OTM Tam?

Randy did you forget that the Nillsen plant in Calgary lost their ability to ship UTM to the US so they are now slaughter OTM. But even before that the Moose Jaw plant was slaughtering only OTM which was switched to UTM when the Calgary plant had to go to OTM. So yes there is at least one good sized exsisting plant that you will be competeing with.

Did I say "for the producers of this country?" I guess I did. Funny how all of this arguement is about investors and companies and businesses.

If the levy is nationwide just how much good will a plant in Alberta or Sask do the producers on the East coast that are also paying the levy? And what good will the shares be if the dividend are forgiven because of the high prices the producer in the west are recieving are considered enough reward for their investment? and If the plant is in Alberta and it puts a Sask plant out of business what good it it to the producer that were using the plant your just put out of business? To get the cattle from Sask to the plant in Alberta it will just cost more trucking. And again if the trucking eats up the higher prices and because the better price we don't get dividends what good are the shares. By the Way Randy Are the producers entitled to the profits of a plant if it is leased out to an operator?

Tam, with your apparent complete understanding of expansion in the Canadian packing industry could you please update us on the progress various plants are making and which ones are at a standstill. I have heard that Natural Valley has encountered significant changes in management and that a couple of others are on hold (dead). Just wondering if there will be any new plants come to fruition outside Alberta. Thanks.

 

[don]

that's the problem; tam knows everything she's against but doesn't have any positive proposals to put forward. that will be the killer attitude that will hold back this industry in the future. we're in worse shape now than we were may 20, 2003 and people like her are just happy to see calf prices recover. look at the basis from one side of the border to the other and you know we're being held hostage. time to move on to the next stage and take advantage of mcool if r-calf ever gets its act together and expand our markets by testing to customer standards.the japanese may never have told tam personally that they would open the border if we tested everything but i know how much beef we've exported over there by not testing.

 

[Econ101]

Don, you bring out an inherent problem with markets that are dominated by a few on one side and many on the other. Companies like Tyson and Cargill can make strategic decisions and execute them. A more competitive side of the market has more difficulty doing this. It is kind of interesting that in the study of economics the latter is more messy but also more efficient. The argument for competitive markets is that they force this efficiency on the market participants whether they like it or not.

 

[Jason]

FYI a few facts.

Tyson Lakeside can kill OTM and UTM cattle not the border is open to live UTM cattle.

Cargill High River cannot kill anything over 1500 pounds live weight. They cannot switch to cows and bulls as the plant was designed for handy weight cattle.

XL Calgary kills both OTM and UTM. Prior to the border opening to live UTM they were shipping everything they processed in Canada only.

The NEW plant in Lethbridge is a hot boning plant for cull cows and bulls ONLY.

 

[Tam]

Every time I answer your questions Tam, you come up with 10 more. Is it because you are interested, or are you simply trying to discredit. Have you any answers Tam? Do you ever offer anything? No. You discredit Rcalf, you discredit BIG C, you discredit Randy, and you follow the your fearless leader SH, in your quest for ????????What????

What kind of answer is I don't know we haven't voted yet. Don't you know what BIG-C is asking for? or are we to vote on something that will be figured out later in your boardroom? I want to know the details if I'm expected to vote on anything. Hasn't your lawyer ever told you to read the fine print before you sign on the dotted line because after you sign you can't get out of it by saying I didn't know, I signed because he said it was a good deal? I'm not going to vote for something that will put a $3 to $5 Checkoff levy on cattle just because you think is a good Idea. You have lots of opinion but some are proven wrong way to eazily for me to trust them (Like the Precentage of Production Opinion.) :wink: That is what happen when you make comment with nothing to back them up but your OPINIONS. Facts Randy that is what is need for Credibility. When it comes to a Checkoff being levied to support something that may or may not be a great business plan we need details before the vote.
Yes Randy I am interested as it is my money you are going to be levying to get the plant up and operational. DUH

Tam

That is the problem with your IDEA no body including you Randy really knows what BIG-C is asking for. Will it be National or the four Prairie provinces levied ? How many plants are we talking about? If only one plant is built Will it be a plant in the West? or will it be a plant in the East? Will it slaughter OTM or UTM or both? and will you have export markets for the meat if the government refuses to test for market access?

Yes - I'm so confused Tam, that yes is all I can come up with.

Again so you can understand
1. Will it be National? or will the levy be nationwide? yes or No
2 or the four Prairie provinces levied? Yes or No
3 How many plants are we talking about? Not a yes or no but state number of plants please.
4. If only one plant is built Will it be a plant in the West? Yes or No
5. or will it be a plant in the East? Yes or No
6. Will it slaughter OTM or UTM or both? multiple choice pick one.
7.will you have export markets for the meat if the government refuses to test for market access? Yes or No

Think of this as a test Randy answer all the questions and maybe we will understand just a bit more about what we are actually voting on. and I don't know is not the answer we are looking for if you except us to vote anytime soon.

Tam -

Gee Randy are you telling us the the HUGE advantage the BIG-C plant would have over the other plant wouldn't have an affect on the success of the second plant? That on a level playing field it would have surely died anyway? If that is true then why do you need such a huge advantage over the competition if just your presents is enough to kill the plant?

What's the HUGE advantage Tam. A loan paid for by the investors over time. Investors who won't receive a return until their loan is paid off. Sounds like a good plan rather than a HUGE advantage to me.

The Huge advantage you said this plant would have by haveing the loans paid back by money from the side and not having to pay them back with the profits from the sale of the meat. That huge Advantage or are you now saying you didn't say that. should we look back.

Tam -

And Randy do you lease land on a fixed payment? if you do does your landlord also expect to recieve part of the profits that you make on the land?

When did you decide that BIG C should lease the land Tam. Did you sneak in and grab a directors seat when I wasn't looking?

Randy I was using land as an example so I'll put in terms you can understand, if you lease out a building (IE the BIG C plant) and someone opens a business in said building do you as the owner of said building have a right to any of the profit once the business turns a profit.????? another Yes or NO and if it is Yes please explain how.

I know you'll have more questions Tam. That's the only way someone with your mentality can survive on this site. Keep em coming sweetie.

If I could get a straight answer to my questions Randy maybe I wouldn't have so many. but I'm looking for something besides I don't know we haven't voted yet. :wink:

Are you ever going to answer any of my questions Tam? Like how many NEW plants are planning on killing only OTM cattle? Or how do you propose to help the producers of this country from, in your words

I'm going to answer the same way you would "I don't Know" that is the answer you expect us to take when you are asked a question.

 

[rkaiser]

Huge advantage or a great idea. I say great idea and any advantage that can be seen in this industry will help any new plant survive against the players that are in place as we speak.

Keep blabbing about BIG C being in competition with other new plants Tam, it diverts from the fact that if any new plant is to survive, they will need to be competitive with Cargill and Tyson.

BIG C would be the owner of the plant, not just the building Tam. You would be an owner as well if this thing would ever get past negativity like yours.

You're running out of ground Tam. And still will not even come close to offering anything back. I have answered about a hundred questions and yes, I have offered a few,"I don't knows".

Come on now Tam, what's your plan? You say it's not status quo, so what is it?

 

[Econ101]

Tam,

Why would you taxpayers pay Cargill and Tyson so much money for having captive supplies of cattle and then argue over rkaiser's extra packing plant for producers to take cattle to? Did those two companies share the profits of the difference between the margin when BSE played out? Do you have to save the rich American families of Cargill and Tyson one day and then refuse to back a fellow Canadian?

I don't know why you let the big boys do all the strategic thinking. It will do you in. I am beginning to believe that you were trained at the same trappers school as SH.

 

[don]

tam: The Huge advantage you said this plant would have by haveing the loans paid back by money from the side and not having to pay them back with the profits from the sale of the meat.


tam would you be satisfied if a plant as proposed by big only got the same economic incentives (adjusted for inflation, of course) that cargill got when they built in high river or when tyson bought out lakeside??? i don't know how much they were either but i'll bet those plants got grants or loan guarantees to be where they are.

 

[Bill]

FYI a few facts.

Tyson Lakeside can kill OTM and UTM cattle not the border is open to live UTM cattle.

Cargill High River cannot kill anything over 1500 pounds live weight. They cannot switch to cows and bulls as the plant was designed for handy weight cattle.

XL Calgary kills both OTM and UTM. Prior to the border opening to live UTM they were shipping everything they processed in Canada only.

The NEW plant in Lethbridge is a hot boning plant for cull cows and bulls ONLY.

Cargill harvested a few cows as a test in the past two weeks.

 

[Tam]

Why is it that when I asks for details of something that is suppose to be the saving grace of our industry I get nothing but sarcasic remarks? Why can't anyone of you just answer the questions a person has so just maybe an informed decision can be made about the plant? I have to wonder if this is the way BIG-C answers question while trying to sell their IDEA to the Producers just how will they answer questions after we have bought into their line if we ever do. I and many other have reservations about the plant but SARCASIC REMARKS when asked about the details are not the way to sway those minds to vote yes. Answers backed up by something like a Good Business plan and Feasibility study might do the trick.

As far as the rest of the slaughter capacity expansion in Canada if they were asking for my money like BIG-C is, I would be asking them a few questions too. And it their answer was I don't know I would not be in a big hurry to invest in their plant either. Since BIG-C is wanting me to invest my money via a manditory checkoff it is of MY OPINION that they should have to answer a few questions. If they can't answer them with out saying I DON'T KNOW then maybe the vote is a bit on the hasty side.

Can any of you tell me how many of these other proposed plants had investor back out when the BIGC IDEA hit the coffee shops?

My Opinion on this matter Not that I expect any of you to agree is that when these proposed plants were in the idea and looking for investor stages, Someone should have got all of these groups together to see if they would be willing to work together to built a few good sized regional plants instead of a bunch of small plants. Maybe then we would have something instead of a bunch of good ideas sitting on the table with not enough investors to cover them all. And I said before IF BIG-C's plan was to levy the cattle that they slaughtered to help pay down the debt then fine but I don't see why everyone in the marketing end of the cattle industry should have to hand over the checkoff dollars they collect just so they can be handed to one certain group to help them pay down their loans for a plant that they don't even know where it will be built. Or if a checkoff is levied on all cattle then that money should be available to any plant that proves they have a viable business plan. Then the group or groups that come up with the best possible business/marketing plans will have the backing to get their plan off the ground. And the Checkoff money will not be just going to the groups with an IDEA.

 

[rkaiser]

Tam -

Or if a checkoff is levied on all cattle then that money should be available to any plant that proves they have a viable business plan. Then the group or groups that come up with the best possible business/marketing plans will have the backing to get their plan off the ground. And the Checkoff money will not be just going to the groups with an IDEA.

Sounds like a good plan to me Tam.

 

[Tam]

Tam -

Or if a checkoff is levied on all cattle then that money should be available to any plant that proves they have a viable business plan. Then the group or groups that come up with the best possible business/marketing plans will have the backing to get their plan off the ground. And the Checkoff money will not be just going to the groups with an IDEA.

Sounds like a good plan to me Tam.

If you plan on capitalizing on this, then you had better be able to answer questions with more than a sarcastic I DON'T KNOW. As it says the group or groups with the BEST POSSIBLE BUSINESS/MARKETING PLANS. :wink: