Disappointed

[rusty1]

In theoty it sound good to hold the packers to a maximum of 10%. There is a least 2 - problems with that.
1. How many "packer cops" - "meat cops" is it going to take to examine suspect feedlots who "MIGHT" be feeeding packer cattle. You put yourself into the shoes of a feedlot owner say a 12,000 head feedlot feeding some custom cattle and some (sh) who cattle are those in alley "B". PROVE IT. Can't be done. There are feedlot now who cattle are owned by the feedlot while they are in the pens, bough and paid for by the packer, but "owned" by the feeder while they are in the pen. This plan is unenforcable.
2. The packers only need too have around 15% of the cattle on feed at the right time to control the market. And because they are privie to a long range future look at demand, they don't carry cattle on feed when it's best not to.

The only answer is to prevent them from owning any cattle. Yeh they wine about a consistant supply, that's 2/3 BSE. All they have to do is pay for the cattle and the supply will be their.

[ValueChainFX]

Industry leadership is just not there at the moment, the government is lost in their own shadow, and the producers are just now seeing the fact that if it is going to be done they are going to do it!

Cattle ownership is hard to work with as there are so many ways to cheat the system, and these boys are good at that!

But as a producer I believe you will need to take advantage of the supply chain by owning more of it. As you own more of the supply chain it is more difficult for the government to brush you off, or offer the so called trickle down funding plans!

[cowman]

johnnyboy: I believe the ACC became the ABP? I think it was basically just a name change so they actually do collect the checkoff?
I heard the other day that some of the feedlot owners, putting money into Sunterras venture, are being pressured(gently) by Cargill to rethink their committment! You know...if you go ahead with this don't expect Cargill to be buying your cattle?
I also heard that the recent rise in feeder cattle prices was mostly due to Cargill wading into the market? I would think they might know something?

[cowman]

This is just a thought...Why couldn't the whole fat cattle situation be set up like the "marketing board" they used to have for hogs in Alberta? All market hogs were listed for the day and the packers tendered their bids on them? I believe the marketing board set a floor price by what they could get for the hogs in the USA.
So here is how it would work(this only works if the border is open). You, the feedlot have 1000 fats ready to go this week. You are required to list them with the marketing board. The marketing board determines they can get 90 cents net in Washington so sets the floor price at 90 cents plus the freight...say 92 cents? So that is where the bidding starts. The packers bid on the daily or weekly offering and if they don't like the floor they don't need to kill...the cattle go to Washington.
The brand inspector at every plant would require paper work that showed the cattle were submitted to the marketing board before they would be allowed to enter the plant.
This system worked quite well for the Alberta hog producer, until the packers and some very large producers conspired with Tory politicians to get it scrapped(and incidently it worked well for the smaller packer). It was a fair system where everyone got a kick at the can.

[johnboy555]

ABP = alberta cattle feeders ass. alberta auction markets alberta packers alberta orders buyers = no check off

ACC = alberta cattle com. = check off

do you now understand? cowman

[wbrower]

johnboy 555: Maybe you are confusing ABP (Alberta Beef Producers) which is the old ACC, they changed their name last year, but they still collect a non refundable check-off, that they recently decided to raise by $1.00, starting this coming June.

If you are referring to the 1,000 or so cattle people that gathered in Red Deer last week, then you are referring to the Alberta Beef Industry Council.

[johnboy555]

thank u wbrower