Stressed-Out Cowboy When:

[rkaiser]

Well GFW producer packing ownership is certainly a hope, and we don't realy know what kind of rules may be adjusted for packer ownership of cattle.
The current situation is about all I can go on, and it is a complete and utter farce.
For anyone to say that packers are not mainpulating price with huge ownership numbers is out to lunch.
For years price has been influenced by packer ownership and this in turn has been a diadvantage for those feeders who are in competition for packer hooks.

I simply have no idea how things could, or will change if more Canadian plants are built, but what would really be wrong with packers staying out of the feeding industry and allowing more competition from feeders?

Good business maybe - unfair rules to protect the big guys maybe as well?

[gwf]

The number of cattle that may be owned by the packers is a function of our present day marketplace. They may own a large number of cattle on feed now, but the cattle will finish and if the marketplace remains as it is now, they will replace the cattle for another turn, and so the cycle continues. You cannot blame the feedlots for feeding for the packers or anyone else that is prepared to pay the feed bills and keep them in business. If there are more ‘packer hooks’ than there are cattle to hang, is the reason for this imbalance in the ownership, or is it the ‘number of hooks’ available?

When Lakeside started, they had more cattle that they had kill space for and so their process of vertical integration started a long time ago. Lakeside/IBP/Tyson have always had a lot of cattle on feed both in their yard and in custom yards. In years past, they always had their own cattle to fall back on if the prices they had to pay were too high.

The number of hooks (and markets) available for our fat cattle, in my opinion has more to do with the prices of our fat cattle than the ownership.

Randy, I do understand your point, but in the real world we will never see a restriction on packer ownership of cattle., but we can make more hooks.

[farmers_son]

Limiting packer ownership of live cattle will not offer the solution that I believe is needed. The solution we need involves creating a mechanism whereby primary producers can have access to the value added market, boxed beef and beyond. At present producers have no significant access to that market other than on a small scale through provincially inspected butcher shops. Access to the value added market in a meaningful way is denied this country’s primary producers. Presently this country’s 13 federally inspected plants will not let a producer process his live cattle and retain ownership of the carcass thereby creating a government setup monopoly for the federally inspected plants. Cargill and Tyson have achieved effective control over the federally inspected packing industry by virtue of their scale and position as price leaders.

For some time now I have taken the view that there is little point attempting to fix the live cattle market, whether by restricting who owns live cattle or by other means. We need to create alternatives to the live cattle market to break the packer’s monopoly. To this end a number of producers, within the ABP and without such as BIG have been working to see producer packing plants established.

I would offer another solution if I may. That legislation be put in place that would require federally inspected packers to process live cattle for the primary producer while allowing that primary producer to retain ownership of the carcass which he/she would then market themselves, provincially, nationally and internationally if they so desire.

It is very wrong that when a producer sends his animals to Cargill to be slaughtered in a federally inspected plant that he is forced to sell Cargill his animals in order to do market them. That has to change. One way to create that change is to build your own federally inspected plants. Perhaps another is to require Cargill to slaughter your animal for a prescribed fee without the producers having to actually give up ownership of their production.

Just an idea.

[cowman]

The only problem with that idea is: Who prescribes the fee? Is it Cargill/IBP? Or the government? Cargill/IBP sure aren't going to let the government run the show...that you can count on!
And do we really want more government in our lives?
Packers have always owned cattle. Pat Burns probably owned more cattle than any individual in western Canada? And he used them to manipulate prices!
I believe packers are not complete idiots. They need the peasants to raise cheap cattle. If, by price manipulation, they can keep the cost down they have achieved the desirable result?
Rather than ripping the hell out of the packers, we should ask ourselves why we continue to invest our money and time into an industry that pays so poorly? We should approach this in an honest fashion and admit we are addicts to a way of life! And realize every "pleasure" in life comes with a cost?
Now the only real question you have to ask is "Am I prepared to pay that cost?"
I also believe BIGC has a "maybe" solution. Perhaps the best one I've heard so far...although I still struggle with parts of it!

[rkaiser]

In reply to GWF. I would agree that restricting packer ownership is probably a pipe dream. But something so blatently criminal simply makes me mad enough that I still want to keep it on the burner. Everyone likes to say "We did it to ourselves" bull shit. WE did not do anything, that was the problem. These pirates saw opportunity in our government rules and economic situation and used their immoral business practices to take advantage of every situation. If you call this good business, then I don't want to be a businessman. I am all for getting ahead in a free market world, but do it with a bit of respect and compassion.

Was thinking of the word capitalist the other day. To be a capitalist, do you HAVE to capitalise on someones misfortune.

By the way cowman, do you have to do the "I give up thing" when things look down. I am glad you support BIG C and please, don't give up on us.

We are making bigger and bigger waves with government these days. Good meeting with Horner and his deputy minister, who we all agreed could be a benebfit to BIG C. Cam sat with Wayne Easter in Brandon last week for a great one on one, and is heading for Ottawa to meet with Mitchell on Feb. 3. BIG C is certainly a buzz word in Ottawa, and our group has a fair sized honey comb to work with yet.

[grassfarmer]

Cowman why are quitting or "hobby farming" the only options? Beef is a huge industry worldwide, consumption is huge and will continue. Producers will continue to raise beef - why shouldn't we be fighting to earn a living in this industry? There is plenty money in the long production chain from a calf being born on the Prairies to quality beef being served to customers somewhere in the world. We need to get a fair return for our investment and the work that we put in. Just as western ranchers overcame rustlers generations ago so this one needs to overcome a similar kind of thievery - by transnational corporations. That is why I am fighting anyway.

[grassfarmer]

rkaiser, sorry I haven't been on the site since the weekend but I do take exception to your question about what Darcy has done for me or put dollars in my pocket. I know Darcy and feel that he is a much better choice to head ABP than Arno Doerksen. Arno has a feeding operation as well as cow/calf, and from what I heard from producers around this area, the feeling was that he was not as concerned about the plight of the cow/calf operator as he should have been.
As far as dollars in my pocket go, I haven't made a cent on cattle since the ABP elections, sold my calves before that time and haven't sold any yearlings as yet, so any comments I made about the current Chair of ABP certainly were not based on his having helped put dollars in my pocket.
I have certainly supported many of your comments and ideas on this site, so your cheap shot at me was uncalled for.
If we as cattle producers can't comment to one another on this site about ideas and opinions without being the brunt of personal comments, then its no wonder that the industry is in such a mess.

[cowman]

Randy: I don't think I was saying "give up"...just be realistic? The fact is practically everyone involved in agriculture would be better off(financially) if they could get their assets into something else? Now I will admit land appreciation can be another story, but then is that really agriculture?
I also believe agriculture can be a very satisfying way of life as long as a person realizes they need to run a very tight ship and keep their costs in line. Let's face it, if you don't have any debt or expensive tastes you can still live pretty darned cheap? The old idea where the farm supplied a good part of the cost of living comes to mind? Raising your own food, providing some of your energy can really cut down the cost of living. Learning some basic electrical,plumbing, welding, mechanical skills can save anyone a pile of money? And basically learning the difference between what you need and what you want can be a very valuable asset!
Now while I am fairly tight I also have some extravagant tastes...I like to own really good tools and I like a new pickup and I like to eat out a lot!
I suspect if people would realize what they could afford and live within their means they wouldn't be facing this cash crisis?
I do realize many young guys have had to borrow big time to get into farming and that is a shame. I don't have a solution for that but surely the government could have come up with something if they expect any kind of future for agriculture in this country.
I am not saying IBP/Cargill didn't make some hay while the sun shone but lets not forget so did every other little packer and abbatoir in the country? The feedlots took one good hit for sure but I can't see that they are losing money right now with these cheap feeders and really cheap feed? I would think the profit on these steers might be fairly good? I hope they don't make so much that you might consider them immoral pirates, too?
I do support BIG C because they offer to put some checks and balances back into the marketplace. The only problem I have is in my experience, human nature can take over and a positive action can turn into a monster! For example they build a cow plant with a checkoff and the people running the show start to get ambitious and think they'll rule the world. They start to believe the checkoff is their right forever! Sort of like the people at the ABP? Or our various governments?

[rkaiser]

Good comments cowman, and I apologize to you emerald for taking that shot at support for Darcy Davis. Darcy is a big boy and can stand up for himself. He has also proven that he is a loose cannon once in a while, labeling people when he sees it will be to his advantage, and now coming out with a statement about testing for export markets when the delegate body says otherwise.

Don't worry about this smart ass ever feeling the power and using it cowman, I have my own business to tend to. My drive to become a founding member of BIG C was to try to help an industry in dire needs. All the while seeing an industry leadership living like they don't really want any sort of change.
My efforts will probably never end up as more than a bunch of talk, and never have or will end up with personal gain. I have already risked business by speaking out against those who are accepted, and expect to risk more before I am done. However, I still believe this industry needs some changes to survive, and kissing the ass of the USDA has to stop.

I do repect both of your points of view and expect to be criticised as anyone who speaks out should, including yourselves.

[rkaiser]

It would be a very boring world if everyone agreed on everything. I certainly support good iniatives within the beef industry, and hopefully some of your hard work rkaiser will make the industry a better place for all of us.
I do feel that a forum such as this is best utilized to promote good initiatives and ideas, and not to critize those who do put those opinions forth. There aren't many of us that are regulars on this site, but those that are, and I include everyone, have certainly given an indication of leadership, common sense and one hell of a lot of good ideas. While I may not agree with all of what is put forward here, I do recognize that those who participate are making suggestions that they feel will be beneficial to the industry as a whole.

[SASH]

rkaiser wrote:
I would agree that restricting packer ownership is probably a pipe dream. But something so blatently criminal simply makes me mad enough that I still want to keep it on the burner. Everyone likes to say "We did it to ourselves" bull shit. WE did not do anything, that was the problem. These pirates saw opportunity in our government rules and economic situation and used their immoral business practices to take advantage of every situation. If you call this good business, then I don't want to be a businessman. I am all for getting ahead in a free market world, but do it with a bit of respect and compassion.

That really sounds like a victim mentality. How can you say to anybody what they can or can't do. How would you feel if the government told you that you couldn't own cattle or feed cattle or whatever. You would be up in arms and rightly so. All this whining about how the Packers are bullying the cow-calf producer and the feedlot operators will get you nowhere. I think BIG C and the other producer owned packing plants are a step in the right direction. However, I also think that we as producers need to limit the opportunities that Packers have to buy our product by funneling it through some sort of marketing board that would assure that everybody on the production side is making money on this venture. Until we as producers take control of our production and our pricing, this is going to be an ongoing problem.

[kpb]

SASH, you are right on the mark with all your comments on this thread. rkaiser and several others on this site have an idea of free enterprise and capitalism that is strange to say the least. They complain like crazy about the feedlots and packers and call them pirates or immoral because these businesses are trying to make the most money they can. But you can bet they always want the most money they can get for their cows and want to pay as little as they can for their inputs.
rkaiser, can you not see how inconsistent your argument is? The packers have as much right to make as much money as they can, legally, as you do. That's just what they have been doing and, in fact, to do less, would be to be irresponsible to their owners (shareholders). When was the last time you took less than you could for a cow you were selling? And when was the last time you went to the hay seller and said you'd pay him an extra $10 a bale? But you think we should regulate the packers to control their profits?
As SASH suggested, a marketing board is the only way we will get control of this if that is really what we want. But I proposed that several times in the last few months and got shot down by guys like rkaiser. And, guess what, these guys don't like the idea of us having a marketing board to control our destiny because it's anti-free enterprise!! So it's no go to a marketing board because it's anti-free enterprise but it's use the government to control the packers because they're making too much money? C'mon you've got to make up your mind--you can't have it both ways. Capitalism isn't just something for the little guy--as I said before it cuts both ways. If you want to be a free enterpriser don't complain when someone else makes as much money as they can off of you.

[grassfarmer]

SASH, You say "How can you say to anybody what they can or can't do. How would you feel if the government told you that you couldn't own cattle or feed cattle or whatever. You would be up in arms and rightly so."
It's a fundamental right in a democracy to express your views and to protect your rights. I feel we have every right to make our case to Government about the abuses going on currently.
If the Government told me I couldn't keep cows I would be upset - how come when the Government told the Packers to open their books they were told to p*** off? - the fact that they are above the law bothers me.
You continue: "However, I also think that we as producers need to limit the opportunities that Packers have to buy our product by funneling it through some sort of marketing board that would assure that everybody on the production side is making money on this venture."
How is that any different from what some of us "whiners" were proposing earlier in the thread?
If you do pursue this idea perhaps you will encounter the frustration we have with ABP and Alberta Government refusal to even consider any type of market intervention. But then again you would be falling into the trap of "How can you say to anybody what they can or can't do. How would you feel if the government told you that you couldn't own cattle or feed cattle or whatever. You would be up in arms and rightly so."
Bottom line, you critizise us but how are your ideas any different?

[grassfarmer]

kpb, I'm a capitalist and businessman but morals and ethics do exist in the world of trade. Some play by the rules, some don't. I think the idea that we are all on a level playing field in Agriculture is naive - if you choose to ignore the influence Corporate monopoly power has on the marketplace and how "legally" that monopoly was achieved you are turning a blind eye to what is really going on. That's your choice but eventually if it continues unchecked it will catch up with all producers - including the ones getting by for now by standing on the heads of others as the tide comes in.

[kpb]

grassfarmer, believe me I am not naive as to the ruthless nature of big business. I just get a little tired of the cow-calf guy complaining about getting taken advantage of by the big bad packers but, at the same time, wanting as much as he can in his own business. The plain facts are that capitalism is for everyone--the big and the little. It's all about making as much as you can and everyone should understand that. The packers have not done anything that is criminal that I've ever seen and have only been faithful to their shareholders. Ethically? I don't know that they've done anything wrong there either--is making the most amount of money possible wrong now? Or is it just wrong for the big boys?
I am in favor of a marketing board for producers for exactly the reasons you discussed in your reply to me--it would give us a large monopoly of our own to give us power to negotiate with other big boys. That's why we need it. A marketing board would not benefit me personally very much. As I've said before I'm quite comfortable making money right now in the current environment. But I agree with you, that the small producer is going to suffer under our current situation. And a marketing board is the only solution that will give them power. Capitalism and free enterprise is what gave me my ranches (from the ground up with nothing inherited)so I'm quite happy under the current scenario. But I also have friends that I would like to see stay in this business and they need to have a marketing board to give them selling power.
Again, if we want free enterprise, fine, but then we can't cry about guys, big or small, making a lot of money. That's what we are all trying to do.