would you rather haveThe final offer,or the highest bid.

[HAY MAKER]

Some analysts estimate the packer monopoly's use of captive supplies costs farmers and ranchers $1.4 billion a year, which explains why so many ranchers are going out of business during a time of strong consumer demand for beef.

The big three meat packers – Tyson/IBP, Cargill, and ConAgra – control 80 percent of the cattle that end up as steaks on American dinner tables. The packer monopoly uses its concentrated power to manipulate markets through the use of captive supplies – livestock that are tied to one packer and are therefore not subject to normal supply and demand market forces.

Over the last three decades, the packer monopoly's increased use of captive supplies has corresponded with an increase in market concentration and a decrease in the rancher's share of each dollar spent by consumers on beef:

· In 1975, ranchers like our family were rewarded for our hard work and quality product with 65 cents of every retail beef dollar. Back then, four meatpacking companies slaughtered less than 40 percent of U.S. cattle. Less than 20 percent of those cattle were acquired through the use of captive supplies.

· Today, the packer monopoly includes just three firms that together slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle. Half of these cattle are acquired through captive supplies. The rancher's share of the beef dollar, meanwhile, has dropped to just 40 or 45 cents – down 25 percent since 1975.

In Pickett v. Tyson/IBP, the jury confirmed what the Northern Plains Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Councils have been saying for years: Tyson/IBP and other packers use captive supplies to depress prices paid to ranchers in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. In this case, they depressed prices to the tune of $1.28 billion.

The Captive Supply Reform Act – sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) – would restore competition to the livestock industry by preventing the non-competitive, unfair use of captive supplies and requiring an open and public bidding process for cattle and hogs.

Specifically, the bill would:

1. Require a fixed base price in contract and marketing agreements; and

2. Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets.

The bill would not prevent the use of forward contracts – an important means of coordinating supply and reducing risk for the meat packers. Rather, it would simply require such contacts to be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers and sellers have access. We need meat packers as much as we need cattle ranchers. We just need packers to play fair.

Passage of the Captive Supply Reform Act would reduce market manipulation, restore market competition, and enable our markets to do what they do best – establish fair prices between buyers and sellers. This would in turn help keep ranchers on the land and bolster state economies.

 

[Anonymous]

Quote: "In this case, they depressed prices to the tune of $1.28 billion."

Another bold faced lie. That is more than ibp's profits for that period of time. Another glaringly obvious leap of stupidity from the packer blamers.

We just had the highest cattle prices ever recorded and the packing industry has never been more concentrated.

So much for that baseless argument.


~SH~

 

[Aztumbleweed]

what would the prices be without concentration? Everybody should make a living. But when hamburger is $3 a pound somebody is still taking a bigger piece of the pie than they they should.

 

[Anonymous]

AZtumbleweed: "what would the prices be without concentration?"

LOWER!

More efficient packers have tighter margins than the less efficient packers they replaced.

AZtumbleweed: "Everybody should make a living. But when hamburger is $3 a pound somebody is still taking a bigger piece of the pie than they they should."

Simply looking at the price of hamburger tells you nothing about profits. What about "featured prices" to move product? What about discarded product that is not sold by expiration date? What about transportation costs? Shelf space?

If you think there is so much profit in the retail beef business, invest in it.



~SH~

 

[agman]

Some analysts estimate the packer monopoly's use of captive supplies costs farmers and ranchers $1.4 billion a year, which explains why so many ranchers are going out of business during a time of strong consumer demand for beef.

The big three meat packers – Tyson/IBP, Cargill, and ConAgra – control 80 percent of the cattle that end up as steaks on American dinner tables. The packer monopoly uses its concentrated power to manipulate markets through the use of captive supplies – livestock that are tied to one packer and are therefore not subject to normal supply and demand market forces.

Over the last three decades, the packer monopoly's increased use of captive supplies has corresponded with an increase in market concentration and a decrease in the rancher's share of each dollar spent by consumers on beef:

· In 1975, ranchers like our family were rewarded for our hard work and quality product with 65 cents of every retail beef dollar. Back then, four meatpacking companies slaughtered less than 40 percent of U.S. cattle. Less than 20 percent of those cattle were acquired through the use of captive supplies.

· Today, the packer monopoly includes just three firms that together slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle. Half of these cattle are acquired through captive supplies. The rancher's share of the beef dollar, meanwhile, has dropped to just 40 or 45 cents – down 25 percent since 1975.

In Pickett v. Tyson/IBP, the jury confirmed what the Northern Plains Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Councils have been saying for years: Tyson/IBP and other packers use captive supplies to depress prices paid to ranchers in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. In this case, they depressed prices to the tune of $1.28 billion.

The Captive Supply Reform Act – sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) – would restore competition to the livestock industry by preventing the non-competitive, unfair use of captive supplies and requiring an open and public bidding process for cattle and hogs.

Specifically, the bill would:

1. Require a fixed base price in contract and marketing agreements; and

2. Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets.

The bill would not prevent the use of forward contracts – an important means of coordinating supply and reducing risk for the meat packers. Rather, it would simply require such contacts to be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers and sellers have access. We need meat packers as much as we need cattle ranchers. We just need packers to play fair.

Passage of the Captive Supply Reform Act would reduce market manipulation, restore market competition, and enable our markets to do what they do best – establish fair prices between buyers and sellers. This would in turn help keep ranchers on the land and bolster state economies.

The mere fact that the author resorts to using the farm-to-retail price spread as the basis of his position shows how truly lacking this person is of any knowledge of the marketing chain. That spread tells you nothing about profits-period.

If a cattlemen could not make it in this business the past three years, unless a victim of mother nature, then he deserves to go out of business as he is a hindrance to progress. To cite the Pickett case as proof of price manipulation is simply a joke. They lost the case. The case was so shallow that the jury verdict was dismissed and Judge Strom's decision was just affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Haymaker, until you can fully understand and explain the farm-to-retail price spread you should do everyone a favor and stop posting this nonsense.

 

[agman]

Some analysts estimate the packer monopoly's use of captive supplies costs farmers and ranchers $1.4 billion a year, which explains why so many ranchers are going out of business during a time of strong consumer demand for beef.

The big three meat packers – Tyson/IBP, Cargill, and ConAgra – control 80 percent of the cattle that end up as steaks on American dinner tables. The packer monopoly uses its concentrated power to manipulate markets through the use of captive supplies – livestock that are tied to one packer and are therefore not subject to normal supply and demand market forces.

Over the last three decades, the packer monopoly's increased use of captive supplies has corresponded with an increase in market concentration and a decrease in the rancher's share of each dollar spent by consumers on beef:

· In 1975, ranchers like our family were rewarded for our hard work and quality product with 65 cents of every retail beef dollar. Back then, four meatpacking companies slaughtered less than 40 percent of U.S. cattle. Less than 20 percent of those cattle were acquired through the use of captive supplies.

· Today, the packer monopoly includes just three firms that together slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle. Half of these cattle are acquired through captive supplies. The rancher's share of the beef dollar, meanwhile, has dropped to just 40 or 45 cents – down 25 percent since 1975.

In Pickett v. Tyson/IBP, the jury confirmed what the Northern Plains Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Councils have been saying for years: Tyson/IBP and other packers use captive supplies to depress prices paid to ranchers in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. In this case, they depressed prices to the tune of $1.28 billion.

The Captive Supply Reform Act – sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) – would restore competition to the livestock industry by preventing the non-competitive, unfair use of captive supplies and requiring an open and public bidding process for cattle and hogs.

Specifically, the bill would:

1. Require a fixed base price in contract and marketing agreements; and

2. Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets.

The bill would not prevent the use of forward contracts – an important means of coordinating supply and reducing risk for the meat packers. Rather, it would simply require such contacts to be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers and sellers have access. We need meat packers as much as we need cattle ranchers. We just need packers to play fair.

Passage of the Captive Supply Reform Act would reduce market manipulation, restore market competition, and enable our markets to do what they do best – establish fair prices between buyers and sellers. This would in turn help keep ranchers on the land and bolster state economies.

Haymaker, what is the difference between the highest offer and the final bid? No cut and paste please.

 

[CattleCo]

If a cattlemen could not make it in this business the past three years, unless a victim of mother nature, then he deserves to go out of business as he is a hindrance to progress. To cite the Pickett case as proof of price manipulation is simply a joke. They lost the case. The case was so shallow that the jury verdict was dismissed and Judge Strom's decision was just affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Haymaker, until you can fully understand and explain the farm-to-retail price spread you should do everyone a favor and stop posting this nonsense.

Agman,
I am with you all the way on this one!!!

 

[HAY MAKER]

Some analysts estimate the packer monopoly's use of captive supplies costs farmers and ranchers $1.4 billion a year, which explains why so many ranchers are going out of business during a time of strong consumer demand for beef.

The big three meat packers – Tyson/IBP, Cargill, and ConAgra – control 80 percent of the cattle that end up as steaks on American dinner tables. The packer monopoly uses its concentrated power to manipulate markets through the use of captive supplies – livestock that are tied to one packer and are therefore not subject to normal supply and demand market forces.

Over the last three decades, the packer monopoly's increased use of captive supplies has corresponded with an increase in market concentration and a decrease in the rancher's share of each dollar spent by consumers on beef:

· In 1975, ranchers like our family were rewarded for our hard work and quality product with 65 cents of every retail beef dollar. Back then, four meatpacking companies slaughtered less than 40 percent of U.S. cattle. Less than 20 percent of those cattle were acquired through the use of captive supplies.

· Today, the packer monopoly includes just three firms that together slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle. Half of these cattle are acquired through captive supplies. The rancher's share of the beef dollar, meanwhile, has dropped to just 40 or 45 cents – down 25 percent since 1975.

In Pickett v. Tyson/IBP, the jury confirmed what the Northern Plains Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Councils have been saying for years: Tyson/IBP and other packers use captive supplies to depress prices paid to ranchers in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. In this case, they depressed prices to the tune of $1.28 billion.

The Captive Supply Reform Act – sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) – would restore competition to the livestock industry by preventing the non-competitive, unfair use of captive supplies and requiring an open and public bidding process for cattle and hogs.

Specifically, the bill would:

1. Require a fixed base price in contract and marketing agreements; and

2. Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets.

The bill would not prevent the use of forward contracts – an important means of coordinating supply and reducing risk for the meat packers. Rather, it would simply require such contacts to be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers and sellers have access. We need meat packers as much as we need cattle ranchers. We just need packers to play fair.

Passage of the Captive Supply Reform Act would reduce market manipulation, restore market competition, and enable our markets to do what they do best – establish fair prices between buyers and sellers. This would in turn help keep ranchers on the land and bolster state economies.

The mere fact that the author resorts to using the farm-to-retail price spread as the basis of his position shows how truly lacking this person is of any knowledge of the marketing chain. That spread tells you nothing about profits-period.

If a cattlemen could not make it in this business the past three years, unless a victim of mother nature, then he deserves to go out of business as he is a hindrance to progress.

To cite the Pickett case as proof of price manipulation is simply a joke. They lost the case. The case was so shallow that the jury verdict was dismissed and Judge Strom's decision was just affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Haymaker, until you can fully understand and explain the farm-to-retail price spread you should do everyone a favor and stop posting this nonsense.

agman be careful making statements like this............remember the Canadians?or do you not believe them to be cattle men?.................good luck

 

[HAY MAKER]

Some analysts estimate the packer monopoly's use of captive supplies costs farmers and ranchers $1.4 billion a year, which explains why so many ranchers are going out of business during a time of strong consumer demand for beef.

The big three meat packers – Tyson/IBP, Cargill, and ConAgra – control 80 percent of the cattle that end up as steaks on American dinner tables. The packer monopoly uses its concentrated power to manipulate markets through the use of captive supplies – livestock that are tied to one packer and are therefore not subject to normal supply and demand market forces.

Over the last three decades, the packer monopoly's increased use of captive supplies has corresponded with an increase in market concentration and a decrease in the rancher's share of each dollar spent by consumers on beef:

· In 1975, ranchers like our family were rewarded for our hard work and quality product with 65 cents of every retail beef dollar. Back then, four meatpacking companies slaughtered less than 40 percent of U.S. cattle. Less than 20 percent of those cattle were acquired through the use of captive supplies.

· Today, the packer monopoly includes just three firms that together slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle. Half of these cattle are acquired through captive supplies. The rancher's share of the beef dollar, meanwhile, has dropped to just 40 or 45 cents – down 25 percent since 1975.

In Pickett v. Tyson/IBP, the jury confirmed what the Northern Plains Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Councils have been saying for years: Tyson/IBP and other packers use captive supplies to depress prices paid to ranchers in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. In this case, they depressed prices to the tune of $1.28 billion.

The Captive Supply Reform Act – sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) – would restore competition to the livestock industry by preventing the non-competitive, unfair use of captive supplies and requiring an open and public bidding process for cattle and hogs.

Specifically, the bill would:

1. Require a fixed base price in contract and marketing agreements; and

2. Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets.

The bill would not prevent the use of forward contracts – an important means of coordinating supply and reducing risk for the meat packers. Rather, it would simply require such contacts to be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers and sellers have access. We need meat packers as much as we need cattle ranchers. We just need packers to play fair.

Passage of the Captive Supply Reform Act would reduce market manipulation, restore market competition, and enable our markets to do what they do best – establish fair prices between buyers and sellers. This would in turn help keep ranchers on the land and bolster state economies.

The mere fact that the author resorts to using the farm-to-retail price spread as the basis of his position shows how truly lacking this person is of any knowledge of the marketing chain. That spread tells you nothing about profits-period.

If a cattlemen could not make it in this business the past three years, unless a victim of mother nature, then he deserves to go out of business as he is a hindrance to progress. To cite the Pickett case as proof of price manipulation is simply a joke. They lost the case. The case was so shallow that the jury verdict was dismissed and Judge Strom's decision was just affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Haymaker, until you can fully understand and explain the farm-to-retail price spread you should do everyone a favor and stop posting this nonsense.

Ok you are the bean counter,educate me,start with the farm to retail price spread in canada,better yet give us the last 3 year average :wink: .............good luck

 

[HAY MAKER]

Some analysts estimate the packer monopoly's use of captive supplies costs farmers and ranchers $1.4 billion a year, which explains why so many ranchers are going out of business during a time of strong consumer demand for beef.

The big three meat packers – Tyson/IBP, Cargill, and ConAgra – control 80 percent of the cattle that end up as steaks on American dinner tables. The packer monopoly uses its concentrated power to manipulate markets through the use of captive supplies – livestock that are tied to one packer and are therefore not subject to normal supply and demand market forces.

Over the last three decades, the packer monopoly's increased use of captive supplies has corresponded with an increase in market concentration and a decrease in the rancher's share of each dollar spent by consumers on beef:

· In 1975, ranchers like our family were rewarded for our hard work and quality product with 65 cents of every retail beef dollar. Back then, four meatpacking companies slaughtered less than 40 percent of U.S. cattle. Less than 20 percent of those cattle were acquired through the use of captive supplies.

· Today, the packer monopoly includes just three firms that together slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle. Half of these cattle are acquired through captive supplies. The rancher's share of the beef dollar, meanwhile, has dropped to just 40 or 45 cents – down 25 percent since 1975.

In Pickett v. Tyson/IBP, the jury confirmed what the Northern Plains Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Councils have been saying for years: Tyson/IBP and other packers use captive supplies to depress prices paid to ranchers in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. In this case, they depressed prices to the tune of $1.28 billion.

The Captive Supply Reform Act – sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) – would restore competition to the livestock industry by preventing the non-competitive, unfair use of captive supplies and requiring an open and public bidding process for cattle and hogs.

Specifically, the bill would:

1. Require a fixed base price in contract and marketing agreements; and

2. Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets.

The bill would not prevent the use of forward contracts – an important means of coordinating supply and reducing risk for the meat packers. Rather, it would simply require such contacts to be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers and sellers have access. We need meat packers as much as we need cattle ranchers. We just need packers to play fair.

Passage of the Captive Supply Reform Act would reduce market manipulation, restore market competition, and enable our markets to do what they do best – establish fair prices between buyers and sellers. This would in turn help keep ranchers on the land and bolster state economies.

Haymaker, what is the difference between the highest offer and the final bid? No cut and paste please.

I have explained this to your packer buddy once already I suppose you either missed it or have a lil problem understanding reality,so once again.lets say you and ~SH**~ have a pen of scawny steers two packer employee's that work as buyers for two differnt packers,are thru having lunch together,time to work gotta price your scrawny steers,are you starting to get the message? Same scrawny steers hauled to the sale barn where true price discovery lives,puts your steers in front of a dozen buyers,now you tell me "which would you rather have?the final offer or the highest bid?.....................good luck PS agman you really need to get away from the desk more ,get some cow sh*t on your boots,I'LL be damned if you don't believe this crap you post.

 

[Anonymous]

Haymaker,

The final offer is the highest bid you fool.

To suggest that there is no competition between the large packers ("having dinner together") is another stroke of ignorance on your part.

The better question is would you rather have 12 less efficient packers bidding on your cattle that needed a $40 per head margin to keep their doors open or would you rather have 4 larger more efficient packing companies that needed a $10 margin per head to keep their doors open?

Which do you suppose would pay you more for your cattle?

More bidders does not necessarily equate to more money.

You'll discover a price in the sale barn all right but it might not be the price you wanted. At least with the video auctions your cattle are still in your pastures. I've watched many a good bunch of cattle get "price discoveried" in my time.



~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

Haymaker,

The final offer is the highest bid you fool.

To suggest that there is no competition between the large packers ("having dinner together") is another stroke of ignorance on your part.

The better question is would you rather have 12 less efficient packers bidding on your cattle that needed a $40 per head margin to keep their doors open or would you rather have 4 larger more efficient packing companies that needed a $10 margin per head to keep their doors open?

Which do you suppose would pay you more for your cattle?

More bidders does not necessarily equate to more money.

You'll discover a price in the sale barn all right but it might not be the price you wanted. At least with the video auctions your cattle are still in your pastures. I've watched many a good bunch of cattle get "price discoveried" in my time.



~SH~

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA,here we go with this less equals more BS theory of yours,the less packers there are the more efficent they become ,so the more they will gimme for my cattle ................you sell that theory,"Whiskeys on me" :wink: ...........good luck

 

[CattleCo]

Speaking of Video Sales..............just saw a bunch of calves that had cost of gain records and carcass info from last years calf crop.....guess what ....they sold for over a $160+ in the 4 wt range. Take at least 15 bucks off for those calves that did not have any performance info.

 

[agman]

Some analysts estimate the packer monopoly's use of captive supplies costs farmers and ranchers $1.4 billion a year, which explains why so many ranchers are going out of business during a time of strong consumer demand for beef.

The big three meat packers – Tyson/IBP, Cargill, and ConAgra – control 80 percent of the cattle that end up as steaks on American dinner tables. The packer monopoly uses its concentrated power to manipulate markets through the use of captive supplies – livestock that are tied to one packer and are therefore not subject to normal supply and demand market forces.

Over the last three decades, the packer monopoly's increased use of captive supplies has corresponded with an increase in market concentration and a decrease in the rancher's share of each dollar spent by consumers on beef:

· In 1975, ranchers like our family were rewarded for our hard work and quality product with 65 cents of every retail beef dollar. Back then, four meatpacking companies slaughtered less than 40 percent of U.S. cattle. Less than 20 percent of those cattle were acquired through the use of captive supplies.

· Today, the packer monopoly includes just three firms that together slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle. Half of these cattle are acquired through captive supplies. The rancher's share of the beef dollar, meanwhile, has dropped to just 40 or 45 cents – down 25 percent since 1975.

In Pickett v. Tyson/IBP, the jury confirmed what the Northern Plains Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Councils have been saying for years: Tyson/IBP and other packers use captive supplies to depress prices paid to ranchers in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. In this case, they depressed prices to the tune of $1.28 billion.

The Captive Supply Reform Act – sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) – would restore competition to the livestock industry by preventing the non-competitive, unfair use of captive supplies and requiring an open and public bidding process for cattle and hogs.

Specifically, the bill would:

1. Require a fixed base price in contract and marketing agreements; and

2. Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets.

The bill would not prevent the use of forward contracts – an important means of coordinating supply and reducing risk for the meat packers. Rather, it would simply require such contacts to be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers and sellers have access. We need meat packers as much as we need cattle ranchers. We just need packers to play fair.

Passage of the Captive Supply Reform Act would reduce market manipulation, restore market competition, and enable our markets to do what they do best – establish fair prices between buyers and sellers. This would in turn help keep ranchers on the land and bolster state economies.

The mere fact that the author resorts to using the farm-to-retail price spread as the basis of his position shows how truly lacking this person is of any knowledge of the marketing chain. That spread tells you nothing about profits-period.

If a cattlemen could not make it in this business the past three years, unless a victim of mother nature, then he deserves to go out of business as he is a hindrance to progress.

To cite the Pickett case as proof of price manipulation is simply a joke. They lost the case. The case was so shallow that the jury verdict was dismissed and Judge Strom's decision was just affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Haymaker, until you can fully understand and explain the farm-to-retail price spread you should do everyone a favor and stop posting this nonsense.

agman be careful making statements like this............remember the Canadians?or do you not believe them to be cattle men?.................good luck

I am quite certain my Canadain friends understand my statement was addressing U.S producers.

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed,

Packer profit information is available through GIPSA. You don't want to believe it because you are a packer blamer. You will believe what you want to believe whether you have anything to support it or not.


"BWAME DA PACKAH"


~SH~

 

[agman]

Some analysts estimate the packer monopoly's use of captive supplies costs farmers and ranchers $1.4 billion a year, which explains why so many ranchers are going out of business during a time of strong consumer demand for beef.

The big three meat packers – Tyson/IBP, Cargill, and ConAgra – control 80 percent of the cattle that end up as steaks on American dinner tables. The packer monopoly uses its concentrated power to manipulate markets through the use of captive supplies – livestock that are tied to one packer and are therefore not subject to normal supply and demand market forces.

Over the last three decades, the packer monopoly's increased use of captive supplies has corresponded with an increase in market concentration and a decrease in the rancher's share of each dollar spent by consumers on beef:

· In 1975, ranchers like our family were rewarded for our hard work and quality product with 65 cents of every retail beef dollar. Back then, four meatpacking companies slaughtered less than 40 percent of U.S. cattle. Less than 20 percent of those cattle were acquired through the use of captive supplies.

· Today, the packer monopoly includes just three firms that together slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle. Half of these cattle are acquired through captive supplies. The rancher's share of the beef dollar, meanwhile, has dropped to just 40 or 45 cents – down 25 percent since 1975.

In Pickett v. Tyson/IBP, the jury confirmed what the Northern Plains Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Councils have been saying for years: Tyson/IBP and other packers use captive supplies to depress prices paid to ranchers in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. In this case, they depressed prices to the tune of $1.28 billion.

The Captive Supply Reform Act – sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) – would restore competition to the livestock industry by preventing the non-competitive, unfair use of captive supplies and requiring an open and public bidding process for cattle and hogs.

Specifically, the bill would:

1. Require a fixed base price in contract and marketing agreements; and

2. Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets.

The bill would not prevent the use of forward contracts – an important means of coordinating supply and reducing risk for the meat packers. Rather, it would simply require such contacts to be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers and sellers have access. We need meat packers as much as we need cattle ranchers. We just need packers to play fair.

Passage of the Captive Supply Reform Act would reduce market manipulation, restore market competition, and enable our markets to do what they do best – establish fair prices between buyers and sellers. This would in turn help keep ranchers on the land and bolster state economies.

The mere fact that the author resorts to using the farm-to-retail price spread as the basis of his position shows how truly lacking this person is of any knowledge of the marketing chain. That spread tells you nothing about profits-period.

If a cattlemen could not make it in this business the past three years, unless a victim of mother nature, then he deserves to go out of business as he is a hindrance to progress. To cite the Pickett case as proof of price manipulation is simply a joke. They lost the case. The case was so shallow that the jury verdict was dismissed and Judge Strom's decision was just affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Haymaker, until you can fully understand and explain the farm-to-retail price spread you should do everyone a favor and stop posting this nonsense.

Ok you are the bean counter,educate me,start with the farm to retail price spread in canada,better yet give us the last 3 year average :wink: .............good luck

If I had even slightly optimistic that you would understand and more importantly regurgitate the facts to those who do not know I would spend the time to explain. I have zero faith in your ability to understand the issue. You can do the research on your own. The USDA-ERS published and excellent article per this matter. You can start there.

 

[Beefman]

Some analysts estimate the packer monopoly's use of captive supplies costs farmers and ranchers $1.4 billion a year, which explains why so many ranchers are going out of business during a time of strong consumer demand for beef.

The big three meat packers – Tyson/IBP, Cargill, and ConAgra – control 80 percent of the cattle that end up as steaks on American dinner tables. The packer monopoly uses its concentrated power to manipulate markets through the use of captive supplies – livestock that are tied to one packer and are therefore not subject to normal supply and demand market forces.

Over the last three decades, the packer monopoly's increased use of captive supplies has corresponded with an increase in market concentration and a decrease in the rancher's share of each dollar spent by consumers on beef:

· In 1975, ranchers like our family were rewarded for our hard work and quality product with 65 cents of every retail beef dollar. Back then, four meatpacking companies slaughtered less than 40 percent of U.S. cattle. Less than 20 percent of those cattle were acquired through the use of captive supplies.

· Today, the packer monopoly includes just three firms that together slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle. Half of these cattle are acquired through captive supplies. The rancher's share of the beef dollar, meanwhile, has dropped to just 40 or 45 cents – down 25 percent since 1975.

In Pickett v. Tyson/IBP, the jury confirmed what the Northern Plains Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Councils have been saying for years: Tyson/IBP and other packers use captive supplies to depress prices paid to ranchers in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. In this case, they depressed prices to the tune of $1.28 billion.

The Captive Supply Reform Act – sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) – would restore competition to the livestock industry by preventing the non-competitive, unfair use of captive supplies and requiring an open and public bidding process for cattle and hogs.

Specifically, the bill would:

1. Require a fixed base price in contract and marketing agreements; and

2. Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets.

The bill would not prevent the use of forward contracts – an important means of coordinating supply and reducing risk for the meat packers. Rather, it would simply require such contacts to be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers and sellers have access. We need meat packers as much as we need cattle ranchers. We just need packers to play fair.

Passage of the Captive Supply Reform Act would reduce market manipulation, restore market competition, and enable our markets to do what they do best – establish fair prices between buyers and sellers. This would in turn help keep ranchers on the land and bolster state economies.

Haymaker, what is the difference between the highest offer and the final bid? No cut and paste please.

I have explained this to your packer buddy once already I suppose you either missed it or have a lil problem understanding reality,so once again.lets say you and ~SH**~ have a pen of scawny steers two packer employee's that work as buyers for two differnt packers,are thru having lunch together,time to work gotta price your scrawny steers,are you starting to get the message? Same scrawny steers hauled to the sale barn where true price discovery lives,puts your steers in front of a dozen buyers,now you tell me "which would you rather have?the final offer or the highest bid?.....................good luck PS agman you really need to get away from the desk more ,get some cow sh*t on your boots,I'LL be damned if you don't believe this crap you post.

Haymaker: thought I'd post the bio on the guy who wrote the article you initially posted. This article appeared in only a few places in Ap'04, at the conclusion of the Pickett trial.

"Dan Teigen is a rancher from Teigen, Montana, and member of the Northern Plains Resource Council's agriculture task force. He wrote this for The National Family Farm Coalition (http://www.nffc.net). This column was distributed by Minutemanmedia.org."

Enough holes have already been poked in these theories, and his battleship has sunk. To suggest criticism of this article is taking a swing at Canadian cattle producers is rediculous.

You also posted an explanation to Agman on a pen of "srcawny" steers selling. There's a reason finished cattle sales left the salebarns and stockyards over 30 years ago. Those same dozen buyers you referenced perched in sale barn seats also got in their car and drove to the country. Some survived, some didn't. Your theory that "two buyers eating lunch together, then pricing cattle" is also very unrealistic, and a call to return to the marketing ways of the 1950's. Take your pick of any feedlot in the TX panhandle, and call the manager. Ask him or her if the situation you describe exists today.

True price discovery exists in the feedyard today in a variety of ways. Does the cash market really care how good / not so good your finished cattle are? Prior to value based marketing, the real premiums were paid to those that upgraded mismanaged cattle, kept them alive, and sold them for average. For those that want to explore their marketing opportunities, the cash market doesn't always cut it. Since this rubs LMA / R CALF / OCM the wrong way, they squawk. We can't subsidize buggie whips forever.

The challenge is for YOU to get in the car and travel to feedlot country. Lots to learn out their on how finished cattle are marketed today.

I know you ain't gonna like this. Go ahead and fire away.

Beefman