Rcalf has a point here

[rkaiser]

Did not make a difference in 2004 farmers_son? Maybe you could consider the multi millions of dollars that were pumped in to Lakeside farms from Federal and Provincial aid payments. Is that a difference? Had producers owned those cattle - those aid dollars would have gone to producers. If Lakeside farms had not been able to bid on those cattle - would the prices to the cow calf changed much. Not in the theory of trickle down that Shirley and your ABP gang talked of in those years. And in fact some of those millions may have trickled down more the next year had producers received those dollars rather than shareholders of a company who could give a rats ass if this industry survives or not.

Just as they could truly give a rats ass right now. Do you see Tyson or Cargill coming up with any game plans as to how to make things work? Hell no. Just threaten to leave ---

You say that market manipulation will occur whether they own cattle or not. Fine then - taking away the right to own cattle should not hurt them or our system then. A replacement buyer will be found. It may actually create more competition as the fear from private feeders will be less.

How is it that you know more than the feedlots on this issue farmers_son. Why is it that resolutions about packer ownership at the ABP AGM come from the feedlot sector? Do you think they can think for themselves or do you feel like so many other issues that ABP executive needs to decide.

Once again one of the problems with ABP structure. In no way does the current ABP structure allow for sharing of concepts within all aspects of our industry. There is more than ample division at the ABP AGM between sectors of the industry.

The system is out of control like I said on the other thread and a lot of it has to do with leadership from folks like farmers_son who will not find ways for all sectors of our industry to work together.

[wd40]

Boy what planet do you get off at. FmSon

Whats not mentioned in this concept is the timing. The packers only need to have cattle in their ownership at the RIGHT TIME.
They have a microscopic view of retail needs (which they totally control) [fact] Therefore they only (as was the case is Canada) get into the market in a significant way at THE RIGHT TIME.

Packer ownership in Canada is not as big an issue now as they now have renched control from producers anyhow.

When Northwest Cattle Producers packing plant proposal (Alberta)was working on our business plan our 5 consultants who were ex-CFO's, CEO's, and COO's from Tyson and Excel(Cargil)including a independent packing plant GM would give you a sever change of mind FarmSon.

A typical board room meeting consisted of "Well we've keep the beef industry on it's knees long enough it's time to let them up for air". One member mad it clear that Cargill will not build a significant capital project without being sure it can capatilize it out in 3 to 4 years.


"If packing plants were prohibited from owning cattle that would instantly end any prospects for producer owned packing plants".

You better pull out the plug to your light bulb and reverse the current.

Packer owned cattle is the reverse of producer owned packing plant.

[farmers_son]

I understood that Grassfarmer had moved resolutions about packer ownership. It was a good resolution and packer ownership is an important issue.

So is the right of backgrounders and the cow calf producers to sell calves whenever we want to whoever is willing to pay the highest price. That is an important issue too.

Laws on packer ownership just plain do not work. There are too many laws besides making more that will do nothing. We will be far more successful taking our limited resources and lobbying government for reduced trade barriers with the United States. Maintaining and improving market access with the United States will do more to improve our live cattle prices than any attempts we could make to fall into bed with R-Calf.

[rkaiser]

Talk aboput sqirming you way out of this one FS.

Which trade barriers are you talking about now? There are more feeder cattle moving into the USA right now than we have ever seen in history.

Nobody is talking about getting in to bed with anyone. In fact it is time to get out of bed with the Uncle Sam.

Time to work with the Americans with some dignity for one.

You know FS - I am starting to think that Tyson and Cargill may be willing to make changes before you and the gang at ABP/CCA.

WD 40's quote - "Well we've keep the beef industry on it's knees long enough it's time to let them up for air".

Guess who is talking with the B41/4 group these days farmers_son.......

[vagabonddreamer]

i laugh when i think back to the start of the BSE thing...a VERY good friend who ranches in wyoming...told me that the US burried (literal and figurative) MANY cases of BSE that were never made public...at that time...he told me..and i quote ..."its not the BSE or the US cattle market that will cause problems....its the packers...they will manipulate this BSE thing in their favour...guaranteed"...i have been reflecting on this...because with the US border open...the prices have actually gone DOWN...we have all been waiting impatiently for the border to open???....so what were we all waiting for in actuality??? vs

[grassfarmer]

That's very true - I farmed in the UK from the start of the BSE cases in 1985/6 through until 2000 and there were huge BSE problems for the beef industry. Consumer confidence collapsed - beef was not saleable at any price. Export markets were severely affected for 15 years and totally closed for 10 of those years. This was a real case of BSE caused disaster.
What we have seen in North America is totally different - consumer confidence and consumption was never affected. Exports off this continent have been affected but this is only a drop in the bucket relative to North American domestic consumption. So I would suggest the problems we have experienced were not caused primarily by BSE but by the packers, politics and to a lesser extent fools like R-CALF.

[kato]

The way I see it, with the limited number of packers in Western Canada right now they can manipulate the prices quite nicely without using packer owned cattle to do it, with their ability to maneuver the market by killing or not killing cull cows.

Not that they don't own cattle too. Their own cattle are just the frosting on the cake. .

Now that is a sad state of affairs.

Packer ownership is just one item that should be on the agenda. We need to address industry concentration as well, and the lack of competition that comes with it.

In a perfect world, cattle should go straight from farm to plant with the profits being shared up the line equally, and there should be honest competition for those same cattle.

If only we lived in a perfect world eh?

[grassfarmer]

"We need to address industry concentration as well, and the lack of competition that comes with it." DING DING you get the prize Kato - right on the money!!
Unfortunately this crucial issue is ignored or swept under the carpet by ABP/CCA, the Provincial and Federal Governments and most other commodity groups. This is the true cause of the farm crisis for beef, pork and sheep producers.
Most ag producers don't even believe this is the problem they have been fed so many lies - blame drought, BSE, the high dollar, high grain prices, oversupply, undersupply, cost of fuel etc etc.
A simple question for anyone who doubts that corporate concentration is the main cause of our problems: How does the price of beef in the store compare with 2002 levels?? is it higher or lower. The answer is considerably higher. So why are cow/calf and feedlot operators going out of business in big numbers currently?? It's not simply the high dollar, high feed cost or BSE it's because the processors and retailers have virtually eliminated competition in their sectors and can pay a low price for live cattle, sell them as record high priced beef and pocket the proceeds. Given the price beef is bringing in the stores what justification is there for paying under $80/cwt for fat cattle? sheer greed.
Time for some proper anti-competition laws and these should include packer ownership laws.

[Willowcreek]

Right on Kato and Grassfarmer--and they are taking this money they are making-putting into their reasearch, development, and expansion budget so it doesn't show as a profit and shipping it off to Argentina, Australia, and Brazil, to build new feedlots and plants- thereby to get a way to get cheaper beef/meat to compete with yours not only in the global market but in the Canadian and US markets....
I think last year Tyson invested $600 plus Million in Argentina alone in cattle ranchs, feedlots and slaughter plants...

Thats the reason the Packers are fighting the M-COOL law so hard in the US-- so they can keep passing off cheap imported generic beef as product of the country they are selling it in- while they are able to go around all the enviromental, health, industry concentration, and packer ownership laws of the United States or Canada- while operating outside of each's jurisdictional boundaries..

One of the reasons the Packer industry has been compared to- and often called The Multinational Mafia...

[wd40]

I am glad to finally hear some common Sen$e in this thread. Another huge re-direction would be an effort to move into the EU martket which is begging for our beef and which the US arm wreseled us out of, whilest the market place there has a distain for US beef and is begging for our CDN beef. And Asia is another huge oportunity while they got forced into Auzi beef because we accepted our position like wimps and put our hand up and said "look world we have BSE". And as the CFIA held us at ransom on a "theory".