Why R-Calf Threatens the Packer led NCBA

[Econ101]

Conman: "So why don't you want your neighbors to know the price fat cattle sold on the market?"

Another spin job!

Never said I didn't want my neighbors to know the price fat cattle sold on the market at you deceptive, lying !@$%^@!$&!

Voluntary price reporting always worked prior to your "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES AGAIN" ^@!%*!@ mandate.

Nebraska cattlemens have a perfect, give data to get data situation without another stupid flawed government mandate.


~SH~

Let us see, 1:10 to 1:59. Now thats 49 minutes before you put your foot in your mouth.

Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 3421
Location: South Western SD

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Conman: "Packers always have the opportunity of reporting that information voluntarily, SH."


They did report that information voluntarily negating the need for the stupid socialistic price reporting law.

It's none of your damn business what I get paid for fat cattle unless I choose to tell you. Damn socialist!


Quote:
Sandbag: " When did USDA admit they made the reporting error in this case?"


Shortly after the error was discovered.


Quote:
Sandbag: "I asked a question. I asked it twice. Are you going to answer it or do a chicken dance?"


Can't you come up with anything original ("chicken dance", "gopher trapper", etc. etc.)? You're such a mindless follower.

I have no way of knowing whether the packers read those reports or not and my speculation is irrelevant.

Now if you think you have a point, MAKE IT!


~SH~



_________________
The phony who calls himself Econ 101 actually said, "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down".

So, now your not considering me your neighbor, SH?

Only you and the packers have the right to know if they are paying you off and any law on manditory reporting is socialist but MID is not?

So I guess you have your own definition of socialism, eh, SH?

I want to see your packer glossary handout.

 

[agman]

Another empty statement from the king of diversion.

Any predictions on the case Conman?

Do you even know anything about the case?

Oh, I get it, that's why you are doing the circus chicken dance again. Silly me!


~SH~

What do you know about the case, SH? You didn't know the reporting requirements. Do you think the packers read those reports from the USDA?

The way I see it. The trial should last about 15 minutes.

1-Look at the Boxed Beef Reports.

2-Look at what the packers reported.

3-Look at what the usda reported.

4-If there is a difference, someone is lying.

No Mike, your versions is short sighted. All packers entered data into a blind pool. No packer knew what the other packer was entering. Therefore, no packer had any means to validate their own entered data for comparison. Even if a packers value did gain on the USDA cutout they had no way of knowing what the other packers entered. As such some other packer's internal value may have been below the USDA reported value. Packer internal values can be above or below the USDA quoted value. That difference is not static, it is fluid. Packers determine their purchase price from their internal values, not the USDA reports which are for sales in a twenty-one day window.

You are right, this should only take 15 minutes as the USDA admitted it was an error in their formulation-case over. In the midst of that admission by the USDA the packer blamers want a payoff from packers. No one lied except the packer blamers who, in a demonstration of their lack of knowledge, want to blame packers.

 

[Sandhusker]

What do you know about the case, SH? You didn't know the reporting requirements. Do you think the packers read those reports from the USDA?

The way I see it. The trial should last about 15 minutes.

1-Look at the Boxed Beef Reports.

2-Look at what the packers reported.

3-Look at what the usda reported.

4-If there is a difference, someone is lying.

No Mike, your versions is short sighted. All packers entered data into a blind pool. No packer knew what the other packer was entering. Therefore, no packer had any means to validate their own entered data for comparison. Even if a packers value did gain on the USDA cutout they had no way of knowing what the other packers entered. As such some other packer's internal value may have been below the USDA reported value. Packer internal values can be above or below the USDA quoted value. That difference is not static, it is fluid. Packers determine their purchase price from their internal values, not the USDA reports which are for sales in a twenty-one day window.

You are right, this should only take 15 minutes as the USDA admitted it was an error in their formulation-case over. In the midst of that admission by the USDA the packer blamers want a payoff from packers. No one lied except the packer blamers who, in a demonstration of their lack of knowledge, want to blame packers.

Are we to believe the packers were unaware of any errors?

 

[Econ101]

What do you know about the case, SH? You didn't know the reporting requirements. Do you think the packers read those reports from the USDA?

The way I see it. The trial should last about 15 minutes.

1-Look at the Boxed Beef Reports.

2-Look at what the packers reported.

3-Look at what the usda reported.

4-If there is a difference, someone is lying.

No Mike, your versions is short sighted. All packers entered data into a blind pool. No packer knew what the other packer was entering. Therefore, no packer had any means to validate their own entered data for comparison. Even if a packers value did gain on the USDA cutout they had no way of knowing what the other packers entered. As such some other packer's internal value may have been below the USDA reported value. Packer internal values can be above or below the USDA quoted value. That difference is not static, it is fluid. Packers determine their purchase price from their internal values, not the USDA reports which are for sales in a twenty-one day window.

You are right, this should only take 15 minutes as the USDA admitted it was an error in their formulation-case over. In the midst of that admission by the USDA the packer blamers want a payoff from packers. No one lied except the packer blamers who, in a demonstration of their lack of knowledge, want to blame packers.

You are betting on the USDA incompetence defense I see, Agman. A REAL INVESTIGATION WOULD FIND OUT IF THAT INCOMPETENCE WAS ON PURPOSE.

It is funny how the U.S. can only interrogate foreign terrorists and not government employees run amiss.


There are many producers who find the continual incompetence at the USDA to be all for packer interests and all against producer interests. Funny how that works. Who is getting the political money?

Some of us would like to see this administration connect the dots a little better than their track record shows. Don't we deserve a competent government? Who is paying for it anyway----oh, I forgot, China-- because we have a low personal savings rate!!!!

 

[fedup2]

First I will admit that I haven't been following this case. I am now looking at it and have a couple of questions. When it is said that the fault is the USDA's, what share of the blame are they taking? In the GAO report it states: {"About 64 percent of 844 USDA audits of packers—conducted over 36 months ending in April 2005—identified packers' transactions that were inaccurately reported, unsupported by documentation, or omitted from packers' reports. Moreover, some packers have not promptly corrected problems."} Is the USDA taking the blame for not enforcing their laws?

Here is one example from the GAO report. An audit on one packer.
Audits 6/12/02
• Incorrectly submitted base price for hogs purchased on a live weight basis
• Incorrectly reported the net price for formula cattle
• Incorrectly reported cattle premiums and discounts for daily and weekly formula purchase reports
• Submitted estimates for grade, dressing percent, and weight when actual information was available
• Improperly reported premiums as negative and discounts as positive for weekly cattle report
• Submitted cattle base prices instead of net prices on weekly report due to error in recordkeeping system not accounting for premiums and discounts
Corrections completed by 3/11/04

Two years to comply! Is that enforcement? I don't consider myself a packer blamer but I don't see the lily white hands that I keep reading about. Seems whenever they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they are portrayed as victims! :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Let's just set aside your post until the facts of the trial come out, SH. We'll just see how smart and factual you are."

Hahaha! Like all the rest of the court cases that R-CULT has supported and lost???? You bet Sandbag!

I'll take that as your admission that you don't want to make any predictions you might be held accountable for. At least you're learning who NOT to bet on. Can't say I blame you.

Sandbag: "As far as that $100 bet goes, my offer is still on the table for a double or nothing deal on the original statement you cling to. Heck, I'll even double that. You want it?"

You wouldn't accept the proof that proved you wrong, only the proof that proved me wrong. LOL! True to your deceptive, hypocritical ways.

Sandbag: "You've done a stellar job of tarnishing your own integrity, SH."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

That would explain why your beloved R-CULT can't win a court case right? LOL!

You bet Sandbag, keep playing for that losing team. Better to be a part of a "popular blaming organization" than to be able to support your position with facts huh?

My reputation is a hell of a lot more solid than to hinge on "MORE BASELESS OPINIONS" from packer blamers who need someone or something else to blame.

You on the other hand have proven just how incompetant a person can be and still hold a banking job.

Conman: "Let us see, 1:10 to 1:59. Now thats 49 minutes before you put your foot in your mouth."

Talk is cheap liar.

Conman: "So, now your not considering me your neighbor, SH?"

No, you're just the village idiot. Everyone knows what to expect from you. More lies!

Conman: "Only you and the packers have the right to know if they are paying you off and any law on manditory reporting is socialist but MID is not?"

True to your deceptive nature, when you can't argue anything from a factual merit you resort to your typical one-nutted discrediting attempts (packer pay offs). TYPICAL of the "factually void".

I don't support Mandatory ID either you idiot, I support voluntary ID in source verified branded beef programs. I don't trust the government's ability to enforce laws that are written by idiots like you.

Sandbag: "Are we to believe the packers were unaware of any errors?"

WE?

Still thinking you speak for anyone but you and the sheep turd in your pocket?

How the hell would one packer know what another packer reported for retail beef prices??? This isn't rocket science.

What's absolutely amazing is that a Judge would even allow this trial to continue.

Conman: "You are betting on the USDA incompetence defense I see, Agman. A REAL INVESTIGATION WOULD FIND OUT IF THAT INCOMPETENCE WAS ON PURPOSE.

It is funny how the U.S. can only interrogate foreign terrorists and not government employees run amiss.


There are many producers who find the continual incompetence at the USDA to be all for packer interests and all against producer interests. Funny how that works. Who is getting the political money?

Some of us would like to see this administration connect the dots a little better than their track record shows. Don't we deserve a competent government? Who is paying for it anyway----oh, I forgot, China-- because we have a low personal savings rate!!!!"

How can anyone be so incredibly conspiracy oriented that they can't even reason the political ramifications of such an action as "INTENTIONALLY FALSIFYING PRICE REPORTING"???

The consumer out numbers the packers 99.99% to .10%, WHERE THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE LIES YOU MORON?

Fedup: "Two years to comply! Is that enforcement? I don't consider myself a packer blamer but I don't see the lily white hands that I keep reading about. Seems whenever they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they are portrayed as victims!"

That's one side of the argument. What about GIPSA's position or the packer who falsly reported information. PERHAPS IT'S THE CONFUSION IN WHAT REPORTS ARE REQUESTED.

If the "Mandatory Price Reporting" is anything like that stupid "M"COOL law, it's no wonder nobody can comply. The law, as written, is not even enforceable.

Typical of emotionally driven government mandates.


~SH~

 

[ranch hand]

Voluntary price reporting always worked prior to your "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES AGAIN" ^@!%*!@ mandate.

I recall this was NCBA led too, they bragged about getting it through even after they watered it down to what R-calf wanted.

 

[Anonymous]

How ironic that R-CALF also sang the praises of watered down "M"COOL to the point where the law is absolutely worthless from an enforcement standpoint. ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS! The packers they supposedly didn't trust were let off the hooks with "signed affidavits" because the "M"COOL proponents really didn't want consumers to know where their beef came from if it required a traceback system. DAMN HYPOCRITES!

If NCBA supported Mandatory Price Reporting, they were wrong to do so. Voluntary price reporting was working just fine and is being improved upon as we speak. The Nebraska Cattlemen's Association currently has a "REAL TIME" price reporting system of giving price information in turn for getting price information AND THEY REPORT VALUE ALONG WITH IT making the pricing information far more relevant. The bids come right to your cell phone as they are being placed. Anyone that can see the bids between Tyson, Excel, and Swift as they are occuring and still believe there is no competition between the major packers proves there is no hope for a packer blaming conspiracy theorist.

The blamers in this industry are always looking to BIG BWADDA GOVAHMENT to solve all their "PERCEIVED" problems for them. It's absolutely sickening.


~SH~

 

[fedup2]

SH:[PERHAPS IT'S THE CONFUSION IN WHAT REPORTS ARE REQUESTED.]

Are you saying that the packer in the cited case could have been confused for the 3 yrs prior to the audit? :shock: And that it took them an additional 2 years after the audit before they got it right? :shock:

SH: [If the "Mandatory Price Reporting" is anything like that stupid "M"COOL law, it's no wonder nobody can comply. The law, as written, is not even enforceable.
Typical of emotionally driven government mandates].

I believe you are correct as far as the Mandatory Price Reporting law, it sure doesn't appear anyone made any attempt to enforce it. :roll:

As far as the emotionally driven mandate, ranch hand is correct.


WHEREAS, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) adopted policy at its 1999 annual convention to require that any U.S. packer controlling or slaughtering 50,000 head or more annually report price and terms of purchase of all cattle purchased within 24 hours of purchase, and
WHEREAS, the NCBA's mandatory pricing policy which will report prices without regard to product performance conflicts with NCBA's value-based marketing initiative which relies on rewarding producers for consistency and quality in livestock performance.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NCBA adhere strictly to the policy resolution passed by the membership for packer reporting of livestock prices, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCBA support continuation of the current voluntary reporting system for price reporting to enhance and augment any mandatory price reporting system that may be instituted and initiate educational efforts to inform its membership about the information that is currently available.

 

[ranch hand]

The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) said today that it was disappointed that the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) is continuing to disregard the directives of its members by defending the 3/60
rule imposed by USDA on the Mandatory Price Reporting system. The Mandatory Livestock Price Reporting Act passed by Congress one and one-half years ago was a victory for independent farmers and ranchers seeking full information on livestock pricing. However, when USDA implemented the law, it adopted a policy known as the 3/60 rule which results in less information for farmers and ranchers than they had before.

"The 3/60 rule requires that USDA's Market News Service may not report prices for livestock in a region unless there are at least three buyers and none of them purchases more than 60% of the livestock bought in open market trading," said Michael Stumo, general counsel of OCM. "This rule never existed in the previous voluntary price reporting system. The perverse
result is that the USDA imposes a black-out on price information in areas where little packer competition exists and the need for farmers and ranchers to have full information is greatest."

"The 3/60 rule was a back room deal between USDA and meat packers after the dust settled on the Mandatory Price Reporting legislation," stated Fred Stokes, president of OCM. "It shows that the USDA is more interested in
protecting meat packers than farmers. It also shows that the USDA is not interested in open, transparent and competitive markets with full information to inform decision making."

OCM's latest comments on the 3/60 debacle came after the NCBA distributed a May 7, 2001 press release defending the 3/60 rule and its protection of confidentiality for meat packers. "The members of NCBA passed a resolution at their last annual meeting calling for the organization to work diligently to eliminate that provision," said Keith Mudd, vice president of OCM. "I am astounded that NCBA is so blatantly disregarding that directive and revealing its bias against producers and for the meat packing industry."

Full text copies of the NCBA member resolution and the May 7 NCBA press release are set forth below.

The Organization for Competitive Markets is a multidisciplinary, nonprofit group of farmers, ranchers, academics, attorneys, business persons and policy makers dedicated to reclaiming the agricultural marketplace for independent farmers, ranchers and rural communities.
****************************************************************************
***************************************

NCBA Member Resolution
3/60 provision
Passed at 2001 NCBA Annual Meeting by membership

WHEREAS, the inclusion of the "3/60" provision for maintaining
confidentiality regarding the identity of buyers and sellers upon
dissemination of price and volume data collected under authority of the
Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 has the potential to greatly
reduce the timeliness and usefulness of the published date for cattle
producers and all other users of the data, and

WHEREAS, there is general agreement in the cattle industry that USDA's
Agricultural Marketing Service is both competent to and capable of
protecting the identity of buyers and sellers without being bound by this
provision.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NCBA work diligently through the proper
channels to remove this provision from the law in an effort to provide more
timely and useful price and volume information for cattle producers and all
other users of the data.

****************************************************************************
***************************************


National Cattleman's Beef Association
Press Release

Contact: Carole T. duBois (202) 347-0228 [email protected]
Walt Barnhart (303)-850-3360 [email protected]

National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Regarding Mandatory Price Reporting Progress

May 7, 2001

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) continues to work with USDA
to improve the mandatory price reporting process in a manner that will
provide producers accurate and timely information. Mandatory price
reporting went into effect April 2, for packers who process 125,000 head of
cattle annually. The reports are available on the Internet at
www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpr/MPRreport.htm

During the first month of reporting, producers in some of the five reporting
regions have expressed concerns that they are receiving less information
than was available under the old voluntary system. The "3/60" provision,
allowing release of information only when at least three packers trade and
no packer supplies 60 percent or more of the market, is often faulted for
this decrease in information. The "3/60" provision is not unique to USDA
mandatory price reporting for livestock and meats. It follows similar
guidelines used by the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, the
Department of Health and Human Services and USDA's Economic Research Service
and National Agricultural Statistics Service.

The "3/60" provision is intended to protect the confidentiality of private
business information and to prevent collusion. By using the "3/60"
provision, USDA avoids a situation where a reporting party could gain a
market advantage by subtracting its information from the aggregated report
and thereby determine prices paid by the competition.

USDA is evaluating data from regions where release of information is
restricted due to the "3/60" provision. One of the options under study is
to reconfigure those regions with other areas so the information can be
released on a regular basis. Before that can be done, USDA must determine
the best way to reconfigure a region so the price reporting data still has
meaning to producers. USDA is also evaluating systems other than the "3/60"
provision that would allow more information to be released while still
protecting confidential information.

Some producers in other areas have complained that daily trade data is not
available. While mandatory price reporting legislation requires daily
morning and afternoon reports to be released, that doesn't mean that there
will always be trade to report. Randy Blach, executive vice president of
Cattle-Fax, points out that the great majority of cattle still trade in a
fairly narrow window -- one or two days a week. Any reporting system
whether mandatory or voluntary can only report trade as it occurs.
Mandatory price reporting did not change the way livestock is traded, it
only defines the transactions that are required to be reported once that
trade occurs.

"The new system is providing much of the information that it was designed to
provide," says NCBA Chief Economist Chuck Lambert. "However, there is still
work to do to increase availability and timeliness of information and NCBA
is committed to working to improve the process.

"We are getting commitment and delivery reports for cash, formula and
contracted cattle. We are also getting prices for formula and contract
transactions and price ranges that reflect the value differences for various
qualities of cattle. And we are getting much more complete information on
boxed beef."

"None of this information was available, or in the case of boxed beef it was
very incomplete, under the voluntary system. Generally, we are getting good
cash cattle prices for the 5-region report, and we will continue to work
with USDA to improve availability and timeliness of regional reports."

NCBA is monitoring the continued development and improvement of the price
reporting system. Once USDA has made all the improvements it can,
technically and from a regulatory standpoint, NCBA will work to pass a
legislative technical corrections package if additional changes are needed.
That package will give USDA further authority to implement the needed
changes to make sure the system provides the most complete, accurate and
timely market information possible.


The Organization for Competitive Markets
P.O. Box 6486
Lincoln, NE 68506
Tel: 662-476-5568
E-mail: [email protected]

 

[ranch hand]

To: US Farm Crisis <[email protected]>
From: [email protected].
Date: 2001-05-21 12:20:55
Subject: Editorial on USDA's Failure to Implement 3/60 price reporting rule; PLEASE POST


Dear Editor,

In your lead article, "Livestock Price Reporting Vanishes Under
3/60 Rule" (Western Livestock Reporter, May 9th edition), Mike Callicrate
hits the nail on the head when he says, "... we now have price reporting
without price information." If any of us still needed proof of the
packers ability to manipulate the system - the 3/60 rule should do the
trick.
There is more to the story. The Montana Stockgrowers (MSGA)
and NCBA advanced mandatory price reporting in order to prevent the WORC
petition on price discovery from being adopted by USDA. In the view of
Jim Peterson, former Executive Vice President of the MSGA, price
reporting would accomplish everything the WORC rule was designed to fix
in the fat cattle market.
This is blatantly not true. Mandatory price reporting, as
important as that is for the industry (and supposing that it actually
delivers information), is still "price history". The WORC rule goes
directly for "price discovery" . Price history and price discovery are
both important if we are to reform the dysfunctional fat cattle market
that has developed under the meat packer monopoly.
The WORC rule would simply require that packers publicly bid for
their fat cattle supply. Those of us selling feeder calves are familiar
with the benefits of public auction when we sell through stockyards,
video, or internet. The New York Stock Exchange is the world's largest
open public market system. This is because open public markets are the
only efficient way to match buyers with sellers in a manner that insures
free and maximum competition. Before 1929 the New York Stock Exchange was
a closed market, subject to insider trading and price manipulation. This
had a lot to do with precipitating the great depression and one of
Franklin Roosevelt's first action was to reform the stock exchange to one
of true price discovery.
The neat thing is that price discovery through open public
bidding automatically results in immediate and complete price reporting.
Furthermore, in the case of the WORC rule, imported cattle and forward
contracted cattle would also be priced and reported. Price reporting by
itself, even when it is done correctly, would still be reporting prices
reached in a closed system controlled and manipulated by the packers. The
fact that the packers deliberately manipulate the market in their favor
is not in doubt. This is a proven fact from two separate economic
studies commissioned by USDA.
I don't know why the NCBA and MSGA are afraid to promote open
public competitive marketing of fat cattle but their opposition to the
WORC rule certainly has bearing on why USDA continues to avoid adopting
the rule. If they have a better idea they should propose it now,
particularly given the bad result from their price reporting efforts.
Perhaps it is time that the MSGA and the NCBA reconsider their opposition
to the WORC rule so we can finally start to fix what is fundamentally
wrong with the cattle market.

Sincerely yours,
Gilles Stockton
Chair, NPRC Ag Taskforce
Grass Range, Mt. 59032

 

[Sandhusker]

The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) said today that it was disappointed that the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) is continuing to disregard the directives of its members by defending the 3/60
rule imposed by USDA on the Mandatory Price Reporting system. The Mandatory Livestock Price Reporting Act passed by Congress one and one-half years ago was a victory for independent farmers and ranchers seeking full information on livestock pricing. However, when USDA implemented the law, it adopted a policy known as the 3/60 rule which results in less information for farmers and ranchers than they had before.

"The 3/60 rule requires that USDA's Market News Service may not report prices for livestock in a region unless there are at least three buyers and none of them purchases more than 60% of the livestock bought in open market trading," said Michael Stumo, general counsel of OCM. "This rule never existed in the previous voluntary price reporting system. The perverse
result is that the USDA imposes a black-out on price information in areas where little packer competition exists and the need for farmers and ranchers to have full information is greatest."

"The 3/60 rule was a back room deal between USDA and meat packers after the dust settled on the Mandatory Price Reporting legislation," stated Fred Stokes, president of OCM. "It shows that the USDA is more interested in
protecting meat packers than farmers. It also shows that the USDA is not interested in open, transparent and competitive markets with full information to inform decision making."

OCM's latest comments on the 3/60 debacle came after the NCBA distributed a May 7, 2001 press release defending the 3/60 rule and its protection of confidentiality for meat packers. "The members of NCBA passed a resolution at their last annual meeting calling for the organization to work diligently to eliminate that provision," said Keith Mudd, vice president of OCM. "I am astounded that NCBA is so blatantly disregarding that directive and revealing its bias against producers and for the meat packing industry."

Full text copies of the NCBA member resolution and the May 7 NCBA press release are set forth below.

The Organization for Competitive Markets is a multidisciplinary, nonprofit group of farmers, ranchers, academics, attorneys, business persons and policy makers dedicated to reclaiming the agricultural marketplace for independent farmers, ranchers and rural communities.
****************************************************************************
***************************************

NCBA Member Resolution
3/60 provision
Passed at 2001 NCBA Annual Meeting by membership

WHEREAS, the inclusion of the "3/60" provision for maintaining
confidentiality regarding the identity of buyers and sellers upon
dissemination of price and volume data collected under authority of the
Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 has the potential to greatly
reduce the timeliness and usefulness of the published date for cattle
producers and all other users of the data, and

WHEREAS, there is general agreement in the cattle industry that USDA's
Agricultural Marketing Service is both competent to and capable of
protecting the identity of buyers and sellers without being bound by this
provision.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NCBA work diligently through the proper
channels to remove this provision from the law in an effort to provide more
timely and useful price and volume information for cattle producers and all
other users of the data.

****************************************************************************
***************************************


National Cattleman's Beef Association
Press Release

Contact: Carole T. duBois (202) 347-0228 [email protected]
Walt Barnhart (303)-850-3360 [email protected]

National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Regarding Mandatory Price Reporting Progress

May 7, 2001

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) continues to work with USDA
to improve the mandatory price reporting process in a manner that will
provide producers accurate and timely information. Mandatory price
reporting went into effect April 2, for packers who process 125,000 head of
cattle annually. The reports are available on the Internet at
www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpr/MPRreport.htm

During the first month of reporting, producers in some of the five reporting
regions have expressed concerns that they are receiving less information
than was available under the old voluntary system. The "3/60" provision,
allowing release of information only when at least three packers trade and
no packer supplies 60 percent or more of the market, is often faulted for
this decrease in information. The "3/60" provision is not unique to USDA
mandatory price reporting for livestock and meats. It follows similar
guidelines used by the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, the
Department of Health and Human Services and USDA's Economic Research Service
and National Agricultural Statistics Service.

The "3/60" provision is intended to protect the confidentiality of private
business information and to prevent collusion. By using the "3/60"
provision, USDA avoids a situation where a reporting party could gain a
market advantage by subtracting its information from the aggregated report
and thereby determine prices paid by the competition.

USDA is evaluating data from regions where release of information is
restricted due to the "3/60" provision. One of the options under study is
to reconfigure those regions with other areas so the information can be
released on a regular basis. Before that can be done, USDA must determine
the best way to reconfigure a region so the price reporting data still has
meaning to producers. USDA is also evaluating systems other than the "3/60"
provision that would allow more information to be released while still
protecting confidential information.

Some producers in other areas have complained that daily trade data is not
available. While mandatory price reporting legislation requires daily
morning and afternoon reports to be released, that doesn't mean that there
will always be trade to report. Randy Blach, executive vice president of
Cattle-Fax, points out that the great majority of cattle still trade in a
fairly narrow window -- one or two days a week. Any reporting system
whether mandatory or voluntary can only report trade as it occurs.
Mandatory price reporting did not change the way livestock is traded, it
only defines the transactions that are required to be reported once that
trade occurs.

"The new system is providing much of the information that it was designed to
provide," says NCBA Chief Economist Chuck Lambert. "However, there is still
work to do to increase availability and timeliness of information and NCBA
is committed to working to improve the process.

"We are getting commitment and delivery reports for cash, formula and
contracted cattle. We are also getting prices for formula and contract
transactions and price ranges that reflect the value differences for various
qualities of cattle. And we are getting much more complete information on
boxed beef."

"None of this information was available, or in the case of boxed beef it was
very incomplete, under the voluntary system. Generally, we are getting good
cash cattle prices for the 5-region report, and we will continue to work
with USDA to improve availability and timeliness of regional reports."

NCBA is monitoring the continued development and improvement of the price
reporting system. Once USDA has made all the improvements it can,
technically and from a regulatory standpoint, NCBA will work to pass a
legislative technical corrections package if additional changes are needed.
That package will give USDA further authority to implement the needed
changes to make sure the system provides the most complete, accurate and
timely market information possible.


The Organization for Competitive Markets
P.O. Box 6486
Lincoln, NE 68506
Tel: 662-476-5568
E-mail: [email protected]

Looks like this member directive went the same way as the 11 point directive. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) said today that it was disappointed that the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) is continuing to disregard the directives of its members by defending the 3/60
rule imposed by USDA on the Mandatory Price Reporting system. The Mandatory Livestock Price Reporting Act passed by Congress one and one-half years ago was a victory for independent farmers and ranchers seeking full information on livestock pricing. However, when USDA implemented the law, it adopted a policy known as the 3/60 rule which results in less information for farmers and ranchers than they had before.

"The 3/60 rule requires that USDA's Market News Service may not report prices for livestock in a region unless there are at least three buyers and none of them purchases more than 60% of the livestock bought in open market trading," said Michael Stumo, general counsel of OCM. "This rule never existed in the previous voluntary price reporting system. The perverse
result is that the USDA imposes a black-out on price information in areas where little packer competition exists and the need for farmers and ranchers to have full information is greatest."

"The 3/60 rule was a back room deal between USDA and meat packers after the dust settled on the Mandatory Price Reporting legislation," stated Fred Stokes, president of OCM. "It shows that the USDA is more interested in
protecting meat packers than farmers. It also shows that the USDA is not interested in open, transparent and competitive markets with full information to inform decision making."

OCM's latest comments on the 3/60 debacle came after the NCBA distributed a May 7, 2001 press release defending the 3/60 rule and its protection of confidentiality for meat packers. "The members of NCBA passed a resolution at their last annual meeting calling for the organization to work diligently to eliminate that provision," said Keith Mudd, vice president of OCM. "I am astounded that NCBA is so blatantly disregarding that directive and revealing its bias against producers and for the meat packing industry."

Full text copies of the NCBA member resolution and the May 7 NCBA press release are set forth below.

The Organization for Competitive Markets is a multidisciplinary, nonprofit group of farmers, ranchers, academics, attorneys, business persons and policy makers dedicated to reclaiming the agricultural marketplace for independent farmers, ranchers and rural communities.
****************************************************************************
***************************************

NCBA Member Resolution
3/60 provision
Passed at 2001 NCBA Annual Meeting by membership

WHEREAS, the inclusion of the "3/60" provision for maintaining
confidentiality regarding the identity of buyers and sellers upon
dissemination of price and volume data collected under authority of the
Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 has the potential to greatly
reduce the timeliness and usefulness of the published date for cattle
producers and all other users of the data, and

WHEREAS, there is general agreement in the cattle industry that USDA's
Agricultural Marketing Service is both competent to and capable of
protecting the identity of buyers and sellers without being bound by this
provision.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NCBA work diligently through the proper
channels to remove this provision from the law in an effort to provide more
timely and useful price and volume information for cattle producers and all
other users of the data.

****************************************************************************
***************************************


National Cattleman's Beef Association
Press Release

Contact: Carole T. duBois (202) 347-0228 [email protected]
Walt Barnhart (303)-850-3360 [email protected]

National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Regarding Mandatory Price Reporting Progress

May 7, 2001

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) continues to work with USDA
to improve the mandatory price reporting process in a manner that will
provide producers accurate and timely information. Mandatory price
reporting went into effect April 2, for packers who process 125,000 head of
cattle annually. The reports are available on the Internet at
www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpr/MPRreport.htm

During the first month of reporting, producers in some of the five reporting
regions have expressed concerns that they are receiving less information
than was available under the old voluntary system. The "3/60" provision,
allowing release of information only when at least three packers trade and
no packer supplies 60 percent or more of the market, is often faulted for
this decrease in information. The "3/60" provision is not unique to USDA
mandatory price reporting for livestock and meats. It follows similar
guidelines used by the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, the
Department of Health and Human Services and USDA's Economic Research Service
and National Agricultural Statistics Service.

The "3/60" provision is intended to protect the confidentiality of private
business information and to prevent collusion. By using the "3/60"
provision, USDA avoids a situation where a reporting party could gain a
market advantage by subtracting its information from the aggregated report
and thereby determine prices paid by the competition.

USDA is evaluating data from regions where release of information is
restricted due to the "3/60" provision. One of the options under study is
to reconfigure those regions with other areas so the information can be
released on a regular basis. Before that can be done, USDA must determine
the best way to reconfigure a region so the price reporting data still has
meaning to producers. USDA is also evaluating systems other than the "3/60"
provision that would allow more information to be released while still
protecting confidential information.

Some producers in other areas have complained that daily trade data is not
available. While mandatory price reporting legislation requires daily
morning and afternoon reports to be released, that doesn't mean that there
will always be trade to report. Randy Blach, executive vice president of
Cattle-Fax, points out that the great majority of cattle still trade in a
fairly narrow window -- one or two days a week. Any reporting system
whether mandatory or voluntary can only report trade as it occurs.
Mandatory price reporting did not change the way livestock is traded, it
only defines the transactions that are required to be reported once that
trade occurs.

"The new system is providing much of the information that it was designed to
provide," says NCBA Chief Economist Chuck Lambert. "However, there is still
work to do to increase availability and timeliness of information and NCBA
is committed to working to improve the process.

"We are getting commitment and delivery reports for cash, formula and
contracted cattle. We are also getting prices for formula and contract
transactions and price ranges that reflect the value differences for various
qualities of cattle. And we are getting much more complete information on
boxed beef."

"None of this information was available, or in the case of boxed beef it was
very incomplete, under the voluntary system. Generally, we are getting good
cash cattle prices for the 5-region report, and we will continue to work
with USDA to improve availability and timeliness of regional reports."

NCBA is monitoring the continued development and improvement of the price
reporting system. Once USDA has made all the improvements it can,
technically and from a regulatory standpoint, NCBA will work to pass a
legislative technical corrections package if additional changes are needed.
That package will give USDA further authority to implement the needed
changes to make sure the system provides the most complete, accurate and
timely market information possible.


The Organization for Competitive Markets
P.O. Box 6486
Lincoln, NE 68506
Tel: 662-476-5568
E-mail: [email protected]

Looks like this member directive went the same way as the 11 point directive. :roll:

And NCBA's M-COOL legislation :roll: :roll: Flipflop- Flipflop- Flipflop :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

OT: "And NCBA's M-COOL legislation Flipflop- Flipflop- Flipflop"

R-CALF on COOL: "Don't consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from"

R-CALF on M ID: "Do'nt burden us with traceback"

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLIP FLIP FLOP


R-CALF when Canada had BSE: "USDA doesn't care about food safety" "Canadian beef is high risk and contaminated"

R-CALF when the US had BSE: "We have the safest beef in the world due to the firewalls we have in place"

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP


R-CULT flips like a live fish in a dry live well.

Fedup: "Are you saying that the packer in the cited case could have been confused for the 3 yrs prior to the audit? And that it took them an additional 2 years after the audit before they got it right?"

I'm saying you packer blamers have only heard one side of this case. The packer blaming side. You haven't heard the details of what information is required and the relevance of the information that was "SUPPOSEDLY" not reported. I want to hear GIPSA's side of this because the packer blamers have lost all credibility with me with their relentless lies and baseless allegations.

Don't you think that if GIPSA was really getting it wrong that the Pickett plaintiffs would have come up with at least one smoking gun?? Didn't happen! They lost and they lost on appeal because they are armed with nothing but a bunch of empty baseless packer blaming allegations.

I'm sick to death of this "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" mentality of the packer blamers.

BRING THE SMOKING GUN not an "ILLUSION OF A SMOKING GUN".



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Careful about being sick to death Scott. If this site is bothering you that much, just stop before you hurt yourself. Talk flip flop all you like when it comes to the level headed ones at Rcalf, but don't forget to consider the empty headed ones at the USDA who started out being led by the mutinationals and can no longer even go to the shithouse without asking John Tyson first.

Do you ask John, Scott. Or has your gopher trapping job led to a bathroom down the hall now instead of the outhouse?

 

[Anonymous]

Randy the Packer blamer: "Talk flip flop all you like when it comes to the level headed ones at Rcalf, but don't forget to consider the empty headed ones at the USDA who started out being led by the mutinationals and can no longer even go to the shithouse without asking John Tyson first."

That's so ridiculous. USDA is accountable to the public, not Tyson. Consumers outnumber packers by a huge margin. Where do you think the political influence is? Don't be an idiot and join the ranks of Sandbag and Conman.

Randy: "Do you ask John, Scott. Or has your gopher trapping job led to a bathroom down the hall now instead of the outhouse?"

Still picking up aluminum cans in the ditches Randy?

Perhaps it's time to make the move to becoming a full time garbage collector?

Do you think you could still lead a complete life if you didn't have the packers to blame for everything wrong in your life?


~SH~

 

[agman]

The way I see it. The trial should last about 15 minutes.

1-Look at the Boxed Beef Reports.

2-Look at what the packers reported.

3-Look at what the usda reported.

4-If there is a difference, someone is lying.

No Mike, your versions is short sighted. All packers entered data into a blind pool. No packer knew what the other packer was entering. Therefore, no packer had any means to validate their own entered data for comparison. Even if a packers value did gain on the USDA cutout they had no way of knowing what the other packers entered. As such some other packer's internal value may have been below the USDA reported value. Packer internal values can be above or below the USDA quoted value. That difference is not static, it is fluid. Packers determine their purchase price from their internal values, not the USDA reports which are for sales in a twenty-one day window.

You are right, this should only take 15 minutes as the USDA admitted it was an error in their formulation-case over. In the midst of that admission by the USDA the packer blamers want a payoff from packers. No one lied except the packer blamers who, in a demonstration of their lack of knowledge, want to blame packers.

Are we to believe the packers were unaware of any errors?

Are we to believe that if data is entered into a blind data pool by many participants that those participants should miraculously know the output? I think not.

Question, if 40 cattle producers place various numbers of cattle into a pen and you only know what you placed how would you know the value of the cattle in the pen cattle without ever seeing the entire pen of cattle?

 

[Econ101]

No Mike, your versions is short sighted. All packers entered data into a blind pool. No packer knew what the other packer was entering. Therefore, no packer had any means to validate their own entered data for comparison. Even if a packers value did gain on the USDA cutout they had no way of knowing what the other packers entered. As such some other packer's internal value may have been below the USDA reported value. Packer internal values can be above or below the USDA quoted value. That difference is not static, it is fluid. Packers determine their purchase price from their internal values, not the USDA reports which are for sales in a twenty-one day window.

You are right, this should only take 15 minutes as the USDA admitted it was an error in their formulation-case over. In the midst of that admission by the USDA the packer blamers want a payoff from packers. No one lied except the packer blamers who, in a demonstration of their lack of knowledge, want to blame packers.

Are we to believe the packers were unaware of any errors?

Are we to believe that if data is entered into a blind data pool by many participants that those participants should miraculously know the output? I think not.

Question, if 40 cattle producers place various numbers of cattle into a pen and you only know what you placed how would you know the value of the cattle in the pen cattle without ever seeing the entire pen of cattle?

Agman, you have set up the question into one that was not asked. This seems to be a persistent problem with you. The packers are responsible for the accurate and timely information they were to provide. If that information was not accurate and timely, the blame can not be put all on those who only used the calculated data, they are just a scapegoat. The source of the problem is not in the lack of knowledge the packers had of other packers as you put it, but on the raw data they did not give in a timely and accurate manner that made the calculations incorrect.

It is these slight of hands that show you to be a packer advocate and one that loses credibility with producers.

Of course that was the strategy that was implemented in the Pickett case also.

Why are you so against producers getting their fair share of the market price?

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Are we to believe that if data is entered into a blind data pool by many participants that those participants should miraculously know the output? I think not."

If I reported that I got paid $10 and the highest price reported was $9.50, I'd have a clue something was amiss.

Agman, ":Question, if 40 cattle producers place various numbers of cattle into a pen and you only know what you placed how would you know the value of the cattle in the pen cattle without ever seeing the entire pen of cattle?"

I wouldn't - but you have presented a straw man. What does your example have to do with reporting incorrect figures? That is what the case is about.

 

[mrj]

I don't have time to read all these most recent posts closely before I have to leave for several hours, but read enough to suggest to ranchhand that he may want to check the CURRENT resolutions for NCBA. They do change occasionally. I believe I recall some problems with the one re. M-Price Reporting, with some feeders believing there could be categories of numbers more useful to them.......but also do not know specifically what was meant.....and it was an independent feeder.

Pardon me if I'm overly suspicious of you ranch hand, but it seems strange you quote a resolution from so far back in NCBA history. Resolutions are automatically updated, maybe ever three or four or fiveyears, forget which, or they are dropped if no longer applicable or desired by THE MEMBERS.

MRJ