Stressed-Out Cowboy When:

[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.

[SASH]

It's not a matter of one producer standing on another producer. its a matter of producers working together. I, maybe, have a different point of view than some of those who never left the farm. My parents had registered Herefords when I was growing up. I left the farm and started a business in landscaping and excavation. If you wanted me to work for you, you paid what I asked or you didn't get me working for you. It just seems ludicrous to me that if I'm asking for $100/hr for a man and a machine and you are only offering $50/hr that I would work for you. It wouldn't even cover my fuel and maintenance let alone any profit but that's exactly how the cattle industry in Canada seems to work. Its nice to say that you like the lifestyle but I don't think I should have to pay for the privilege of checking my cows at 3 AM or starting my tractor when its 30 below. We have a commodity that the consumer wants, why can't we get a fair price. Its because of all these producers who accept these lowball prices. We've got to get everybody on the same page and stop undercutting each other so that we can make this into a profitable enterprise.

[gwf]

How would a marketing board change the price you receive for your cattle?

[SASH]

If we had a marketing board, all of the cattle in Canada would be funnelled through it. If the price offered wouldn't cover the producers costs and a reasonable profit, no cattle would be sold. That's why it would be important to have some producer owned plants along with this idea. This would take away all the undercutting and make sure that we weren't running at a loss. This is the same way any corporation runs. We set the price, we control production and marketing and eventually if we get really good we can integrate everything right from birth through feeding, slaughtering and distribution. We eliminate as many middle men as possible and keep those profits for ourselves. This is exactly what Maple Leaf does with its pork but we have to grab the bull by the horns and get this thing under producer control.

[BFW]

Sash, just wondering if you have thought through how this marketing board would determine how to price all the different types, weights,etc. of cattle and how would the flow of cattle to market be controlled?

[gwf]

SASH:
You indicated that if the Board did not like the price offered; the cattle would not be sold. Is that different than the present system. If we don't like the prices, we don't sell them. Or, do you think that a producer owned plant would just pay what you felt you needed?