When meat packers own their own cattle

[Econ101]

Nightcalver, in the Pickett case, the plaintiffs had to prove to the jury that the cash market was being discriminated against. This discrimination had to be shown not to be just on quality differences between the cash and the captive supply. The packers had a strategic interest of doing this so that they could pay less for the cattle over all and depress the cattle markets. They proved that to the jury.

The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was written to stop the abuses of market power. It does not limit the contracts that cattlemen can enter into in any way except to limit the ability of packers to use market power to influence markets instead of normal supply/demand factors. The Act regulates the packers, not the cattlemen. The cattlemen do not have market power. If there was a contract that you entered into that broke the law, it would be the packer in trouble, not you.

 

[agman]

[/code]

These points were proven in the recent Pickett versus Tyson Fresh Meats case in Montgomery, Alabama. The jury saw Tyson data showing packer had 180% of their plant capacity locked in through captive supplies in some weeks. In other words, Tyson had all its cattle committed for one week plus 80% of the next week's cattle. This access grants the ability to stay out of the cash market for weeks at a time and drive down the cash market.

Or they had 20% locked in for the next five weeks. This article was written by whom?

[/quote]


What the Pickett case revealed is precisely opposite the claim. Tyson was in the market every week and during the prescribed period when they were supposedly absent they were more agressive than normal with their levlel of cash purchases. The plaintiff's claims got destroyed with facts - actual cash purchase records. It is all in the testimony. That is just one more reason the jury verdict was correctly voided by the presiding judge.

 

[Econ101]

[/code]

These points were proven in the recent Pickett versus Tyson Fresh Meats case in Montgomery, Alabama. The jury saw Tyson data showing packer had 180% of their plant capacity locked in through captive supplies in some weeks. In other words, Tyson had all its cattle committed for one week plus 80% of the next week's cattle. This access grants the ability to stay out of the cash market for weeks at a time and drive down the cash market.

Or they had 20% locked in for the next five weeks. This article was written by whom?

What the Pickett case revealed is precisely opposite the claim. Tyson was in the market every week and during the prescribed period when they were supposedly absent they were more agressive than normal with their levlel of cash purchases. The plaintiff's claims got destroyed with facts - actual cash purchase records. It is all in the testimony. That is just one more reason the jury verdict was correctly voided by the presiding judge.[/quote]

Agman, if you were depressing the cash market, you could still be buying in it. You would just buy all the low ballers. No one but you made up that argument. If you wish to continue to argue with yourself, as SH is prone to do, then you are welcome to win every time.

The only bargaining power that comes out of the market for the cattle feeders is the fact that the packing plants may not be operating "efficiently" without their cattle and the packers would not have enough to fill their orders and some smaller packer may get those orders (competition is good for packers too).

I am sorry you do not want packers to compete, but that is the way it is, Agman. You would rather they have a collusive depressed(possibly depressed--it depends if they discriminated against the cash market the week before) formula price that is based off of supply and demand factors from a different week that gives packers more bargaining power than they already have. SH has eloquently pointed out the fact that the supply and demand factors for the formula price were based on a former week's cash price.

Why do you always take the packer side of this issue, Agman?

 

[mwj]

Econ where do you sugest that I direct my cattle to so that I can deprive the big packers? How much money is it apropriate for me to lose when I do this. Would you tell me the best way to explain this to my wife and banker. Where do you mkt. your cattle to keep them out of the hands of the evil packers?

 

[Econ101]

Econ where do you sugest that I direct my cattle to so that I can deprive the big packers? How much money is it apropriate for me to lose when I do this. Would you tell me the best way to explain this to my wife and banker. Where do you mkt. your cattle to keep them out of the hands of the evil packers?

mwj, The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 does not limit you in any way with any way you want to market your cattle. It limits the packers from using their market power to gain advantages. It does not limit cattle sellers.

The market frauds are not employed by those who(cattlemen) do not have market power. They are employed by the packers because they have the market power to play these economic games. The act in no way restricts cattlemen. I see no reason why you can not market your cattle any way that you want. If the packers are using you to break the law on agreements they make with you, it is not your fault, it is theirs. They have the market power. They are the only ones restricted by law in this regard, not you. Don't be fooled by some on this board that the actions of the cattlemen are limited in any way by the Packers and Stockyards Act. They may be limited by some of the other legislation that is being offered because the courts don't have the nuts to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. That is truely a loss to legislative, legal, and economic efficiency.

As a matter of fact, the Capper Volstead Act gives cattlemen(and farmers) the right to bargain together and "collude" for their own interests and the interests of their part of the industry. That is why there was a big push by giant agribusiness within the USDA by their agents to put a clamp on this avenue of relief.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Hey Econ you didn't answer mwj on where and how you market your cattle to avoid giving the packer a advantage.

 

[Jason]

Big Muddy, conman says there is no restrictions on cattle sellers but he wants to restrict the buyers. If all my buyers are restriced then by default as a seller I am restricted. But watch this, conman will say he never made that claim.

 

[Econ101]

Jason, you show you don't know what you are talking about every time you post. Go read the definitions of livestock dealers under the Packers and Stockyards Act. You can google it. Yes, the livestock dealers, and that would be the packers, are restricted. They are restricted because they have market power due to their size and influence on the market that varies from the competitive market solution.

I don't think as a bull seller you would have any restrictions or be considered a livestock dealer.

BMR, the only thing you can do as a seller (where there are many sellers) is to do what is in your best interest. You should realize, however, that due to the market power of the packers, their best interest moves may mean market inefficiencies and they some of those moves break the economic protections the Packers and Stockyards Act gives to producers. They are illegal. Producers should be compensated when the packers break these laws and it hurts them and they should have an efficient means of getting these damages rectified. The 11th circuit has not allowed this to happen. It is hurting operations like rkaiser's and robert macs because it is allowing the packers breaking these laws to remain the low cost packers-- even if they cheat that out of producers. It should not happen.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Hey Econ you didn't answer mwj on where and how you market your cattle to avoid giving the packer a advantage.

 

[Econ101]

Hey Econ you didn't answer mwj on where and how you market your cattle to avoid giving the packer a advantage.

BMR, you don't have the economic market power to do anything different except things like what rkaiser and robert mac are doing. That still doesn't mean you have to support the market abuses by the packers. It still doesn't mean you have to be silent about these abuses. It still doesn't mean you have to brown nose the big players as some on this forum are apt to do.

I personally don't think rcalf would be a big issue with Canada if the supply in Canada wasn't being used to help manipulate the cattle markets in the U.S. As long as this is the case, you will have trouble with U.S. producers and their organizations. It is not good for your business in the long run. I think rkaiser understands this as should you. Market power hurts everyone in the long run. Do you not see beef's market share being taken by poultry?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Hey Econ you didn't answer mwj on where and how you market your cattle to avoid giving the packer a advantage.

 

[Econ101]

Hey Econ you didn't answer mwj on where and how you market your cattle to avoid giving the packer a advantage.

Pete and repeat were sitting on the fence. Pete fell off and who was left?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Hey Econ you didn't answer mwj on where and how you market your cattle to avoid giving the packer a advantage.

Pete and repeat were sitting on the fence. Pete fell off and who was left?

Gee I thought that was a simple question that you would enjoy answering to enlighten us poor folk.

 

[Econ101]

Hey Econ you didn't answer mwj on where and how you market your cattle to avoid giving the packer a advantage.

Pete and repeat were sitting on the fence. Pete fell off and who was left?

Gee I thought that was a simple question that you would enjoy answering to enlighten us poor folk.

BMR, with your history in the cattle business in Canada, if you wanted to do something better you would have supported Big C or some other group that would stop the concentration of the market in the hands of two tightly held American families. I guess you just can't come up with your own solutions. You want someone to do your thinking for you.

Guess what, the packers will gladly do that for you. You may not be so happy with the result.

 

[Econ101]

I'll give you a hint, BMR, it is not by giving the ones abusing market power on the U.S. markets Canadian tax money. I don't care what the reason. Those who have the power to give tax money away have the power to take it back. Think about that one, BMR. Are your politicians "captive" to the packers at the expense of all Canadian taxpayers? Brown nosing only goes so far. Sometimes you have to count on integrity.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Guess you can't answer the question. Guess i shouldn't be surprised as you haven't answered one yet.

You seem real concerned abut the money that the government gave the packers. Would we have been better off to have let them shut down? That money was a knee jerk reaction to a looming disaster. In formulating further relief the reaction of the market was taken into consideration avoiding lining the packers pockets.
Maybe you could explain Big C's plan as Randy never really could with out getting kinda nasty. As far as I know they had no bussiness plan to support all they did was collect $100 dollars from people to put on more meetings. The SSGA put on a meeting for four different packing plant proposals but as yet only one has come to fruitationof any amout. The big plant has so much efficency that scale make it very hard to compete.
So are you goping to answer the question of how you market your cattle to avoid giving the power to the packers?

 

[rkaiser]

BMR

Maybe you could explain Big C's plan as Randy never really could with out getting kinda nasty. As far as I know they had no business plan to support all they did was collect $100 dollars from people to put on more meetings.

That's right BMR, that's all we were out for. A hundred bucks from your pocket to travel around the country and waste our time and OUR own money trying to show ranchers that their were alternatives to kissing Cargill's ass. Some of the SSGA members were very supportive of BIG C BMR, but just like ABP and CCA, the ones who kissed ass to the top kept kissing ass and made out that BIG C had nothing.

Nasty enough for you BMR. Or should I simply make asinine remarks like the one you just made and then make Randy out to be the only bad guy on the board?

Oh, by the way BMR, BIG C is still actively working on marketing plans from contacts made mostly with our own gas and our own time. And have dropped the plant ownership idea. We would truly like for the new packing plants to be able to survive as we always did, and have not given up on finding ways to move beef off of this continent, Contract Slaughtered by any group other than Cargill or Tyson.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

BMR

Maybe you could explain Big C's plan as Randy never really could with out getting kinda nasty. As far as I know they had no business plan to support all they did was collect $100 dollars from people to put on more meetings.

That's right BMR, that's all we were out for. A hundred bucks from your pocket to travel around the country and waste our time and OUR own money trying to show ranchers that their were alternatives to kissing Cargill's ass. Some of the SSGA members were very supportive of BIG C BMR, but just like ABP and CCA, the ones who kissed ass to the top kept kissing ass and made out that BIG C had nothing.

Nasty enough for you BMR. Or should I simply make asinine remarks like the one you just made and then make Randy out to be the only bad guy on the board?

Oh, by the way BMR, BIG C is still actively working on marketing plans from contacts made mostly with our own gas and our own time. And have dropped the plant ownership idea. We would truly like for the new packing plants to be able to survive as we always did, and have not given up on finding ways to move beef off of this continent, Contract Slaughtered by any group other than Cargill or Tyson.

Good for you Randy.And see you actully said something once you got the nasty out. Maybe if you get enough support you'll be one of the" big boys" someday. I also would truly like these new plants to thrive and survive. Didn't see how they could competing with one paid for by A check off. But more power to you guys if you can help out some of the new plants they are going to need it. I could have supported that concept right from the start.

 

[Econ101]

Guess you can't answer the question. Guess i shouldn't be surprised as you haven't answered one yet.

You seem real concerned abut the money that the government gave the packers. Would we have been better off to have let them shut down? That money was a knee jerk reaction to a looming disaster. In formulating further relief the reaction of the market was taken into consideration avoiding lining the packers pockets.
Maybe you could explain Big C's plan as Randy never really could with out getting kinda nasty. As far as I know they had no bussiness plan to support all they did was collect $100 dollars from people to put on more meetings. The SSGA put on a meeting for four different packing plant proposals but as yet only one has come to fruitationof any amout. The big plant has so much efficency that scale make it very hard to compete.
So are you goping to answer the question of how you market your cattle to avoid giving the power to the packers?

Would it be too much to ask the Canadian government and taxpayers to keep the money in the hands of Canadians that want a free er market instead of lining Cargill and Tyson pockets? Rkaiser's Big C had a little more thought than the bail out. It is too bad it doesn't get as much support.

How about a law that allows producers like rkaiser to get the butchering services at the same margin as the packer operates on but keeping the ownership of the genetics and product he produces under his control to sell to the market he wants to develop and market to?

Awe, shucks, I don't know nothin 'bout Canada. They protect their producers in ways I never dreamed. The most simple solution for a politician is to throw money at a problem. It just might not be the best solution when they throw it at the people who make the problems in the first place.

As far as the plants you talked about going under: Those plants could easily have been bought on the cheap if that had happened. Rkaiser or other Canadians could have had the same sweet deal that Tyson had when buying Hudson. The physical plant would not have disappeared. They may have changed management. That might not have been a bad thing when you think about it.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Guess you can't answer the question. Guess i shouldn't be surprised as you haven't answered one yet.

You seem real concerned abut the money that the government gave the packers. Would we have been better off to have let them shut down? That money was a knee jerk reaction to a looming disaster. In formulating further relief the reaction of the market was taken into consideration avoiding lining the packers pockets.
Maybe you could explain Big C's plan as Randy never really could with out getting kinda nasty. As far as I know they had no bussiness plan to support all they did was collect $100 dollars from people to put on more meetings. The SSGA put on a meeting for four different packing plant proposals but as yet only one has come to fruitationof any amout. The big plant has so much efficency that scale make it very hard to compete.
So are you goping to answer the question of how you market your cattle to avoid giving the power to the packers?

Would it be too much to ask the Canadian government and taxpayers to keep the money in the hands of Canadians that want a free er market instead of lining Cargill and Tyson pockets? Rkaiser's Big C had a little more thought than the bail out. It is too bad it doesn't get as much support.

How about a law that allows producers like rkaiser to get the butchering services at the same margin as the packer operates on but keeping the ownership of the genetics and product he produces under his control to sell to the market he wants to develop and market to?

Awe, shucks, I don't know nothin 'bout Canada. They protect their producers in ways I never dreamed. The most simple solution for a politician is to throw money at a problem. It just might not be the best solution when they throw it at the people who make the problems in the first place.

As far as the plants you talked about going under: Those plants could easily have been bought on the cheap if that had happened. Rkaiser or other Canadians could have had the same sweet deal that Tyson had when buying Hudson. The physical plant would not have disappeared. They may have changed management. That might not have been a bad thing when you think about it.

First of all the "Bail out" was a disaster payment the happens every year in some part of the US. It went to those that owned cattle at the time and the packers owned some cattle as well as some huge cattle feeders that some producers thought shouldn't get it either but fail to remember that they are our market for cattle.

Second what were we to do with the fat cattle in Canada if those plants went under or just closed their doors for six months. You can't feed cattler forever. I will tell you a wreck so big that our industry might have collapsed.
Big C had idea but from what I could tell no bussiness plan. They wanted to test OTM for export. Did they have a commitment from a government that they would take beef? Did they have a investors?

If you want to see what kind of payment the US makes to it's producers just check out the Environmental Working Group site.