R-CALF Leader Says Cattlemen
Need To Change Industry Drift
By David Bowser
NORTH PLATTE, Neb. — The most prominent issue facing the cattle industry today is the Canadian border issue, said Bill Bullard, head of R-CALF. But the border is only part of the bigger picture.
"The fact of the matter is that understanding and supporting the efforts regarding the border don't even compare to the importance of understanding its origins," added Bullard, who was in North Platte recently to speak to a gathering of the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska.
"It's the reason that organizations like R-CALF USA are on the scene and the reasons that ICON has been developed. It's important for us to understand the direction that this industry is presently headed and to talk about the solution and a more appropriate course that we may want this industry to follow."
The beef business is an extremely profitable industry, and has been for decades if not centuries here in the United States, Bullard said.
"It's a $70 billion industry," he said, "but it's important for you to understand that this is a very complicated industry. You have at the foundation the cow-calf producer, the stocker, and the feeder. The foundation of the industry. The large cattle producer."
"But as you move downstream in the this industry, you hit the other segments," Bullard continued. "You hit the packers, the processors, the importers, the exporters, the wholesalers and the retailers and restaurateurs. It's a very involved, comprehensive industry."
Some of the packers have been sitting down and planning long-term for the direction of the industry, Bullard contended.
When packers hold their board meetings, Bullard said, they look out 11 years and discuss the challenges that will affect the profitability of their industry and the strategies they will put in place to deal with those challenges so they remain profitable.
Their goal, he explained, is to be more competitive than their competitors. They want to win the competition on a global scale.
Bullard said the first thing packers realize is that the cattle industry is cyclical.
"We have lows and highs over a period of time," Bullard said, "and as the result of that, there's volatility in the market, and volatility is difficult to manage."
Since it's difficult to manage, he said, at some point the packers are going to pay more than they want to for their input costs.
Much of that comes back to inventory availability for their packing plants, he said.
They don't limit themselves to a single country like the United States, Bullard said. They look beyond U.S. borders to cattle-producing nations like Canada and Mexico. Eventually, he said, they look at the entire Western Hemisphere. That includes Argentina and Brazil.
"It's in the packer's interest to expand their access to more cattle supplies and increase their ability to better manage inventories," Bullard explained.
One of their strategies, he continued, might be to combine the herds of the United States, Canada and Mexico into one seamless herd.
It's a good business strategy on the packer's part, he admitted.
Bullard said the packer wouldn't want the U.S. consumer — the consumer in the largest beef consuming market in the world — to think that cattle from any one of these countries is superior to cattle in any other country.
"They want the consumer to believe that all cattle are the same," he said.
Consequently, Bullard said the packer is more willing to compromise the health and safety standards that one country might have for another country.
A packer, he claimed, would be willing to compromise health and safety standards to level the playing field, bring it down to a lower common denominator, so the packer can access those cattle for wider source availability as well as ensuring consumers don't perceive that cattle produced in the United States are superior to cattle produced in Mexico, Uruguay, Argentina, or any other cattle-producing country.
"The first thing you know is that to be competitors on a global scale, we're going to have to be able to differentiate our product," Bullard said. "We're going to want consumers to seek our products out in the marketplace. That's how we're going to be more competitive in this global market. We want to be the largest provider of protein in the world."
While a packer may want to differentiate his product, Bullard said it won't be with a country of origin label.
If consumers were able to discern and differentiate products based on the country of origin, Bullard opined, the packer would have just contradicted his strategic moves.
Consumers would have the ability to perceive cattle produced under one production regime as being superior to cattle produced under another production regime.
That's not in the best interest of a packer, Bullard insisted.
"It's not in the interest of a packer to have mandatory country of origin labeling," Bullard said. "They want consumers to be loyal to their brand regardless of where they obtained the cattle for use in that product."
A packer would not want 792,000 producers left in the United States, he said. The packer would not want the producers to have the ability to interfere with or obstruct his ability to access those inventories he just gained by combining the national herds into one international herd.
Producers could ask for trade remedy laws, like countervailing duty laws and anti-dumping laws, Bullard said.
A packer would want to restrict the actions an independent producer could take that would interfere with the packer's abilities, he said.
Consequently, a packer would work with Congress to restrict independent producers’ ability to seek trade remedies.
"That's a reasonable, justifiable, legitimate business strategy," Bullard said, at least from the packer’s viewpoint.
Packers are in the business to make a profit, he reminded.
The problem is when that profit comes at the expense of the cow-calf producer, the stocker operator and the cattle feeder, Bullard said.
They are in this business to make a profit, too, he noted.
"This strategy of the packers has been unfolding over the past decade," Bullard said.
Prior to the improved market of the last couple of years, Bullard said, "The last high that you had in your industry was in 1990."
Nebraska direct fed Choice steer prices in 1990 were $77.
By 1996, Bullard said, the industry began liquidating the production capacity.
"Then in 1998, we see a marked increase in consumer demand for our final product."
By 2002, the industry had had seven years of liquidating supplies.
"We'd had five years of increasing demand for our final product," Bullard added.
There were favorable economic indicators for live cattle producers.
In 2002, 12 years after the last high in the cattle market, the average cattle producer lost $10, Bullard said. Nebraska direct Choice steer prices were $67.
According to USDA data, Bullard, said the average return on investment among cow-calf producers in the United States was a negative $30.40 per bred cow per year for each year of the 1990s.
"Your industry suffered staggering losses measured in the billions of dollars," Bullard reminded. "We lost over 10 percent of the total number of beef cattle operators in the United States."
"We've lost over 108,000 producers since 1993," he said.
The effect of that, he contended, has been a hollowing out of rural communities all across America.
Bullard said that while the cow-calf producer, stocker operator and cattle feeder weren't benefiting from these economic indicators, the packer, processor and retailer were.
"In 1998," he said, "the year where we began to see an increase in beef demand, the average retail price of beef in the United States was $2.77."
In 2002, when cattlemen were getting $10 cwt. less than they did a decade before, retail prices were $3.32 a pound.
"The retailer certainly benefited from these very favorable economic indicators," Bullard said, "and the packer did, too."
In 1992, the average packer margin was $62 a head, he noted.
"By 2002," Bullard said, "that more than doubled to $142 a head." All this time, the people who produced, raised and fed the live animals were losing money every year.
It became clear, he said, that what had happened over the last 10 years was that downstream sectors of the industry, the packers in particular, had perfected their ability to capture their full value-added contribution.
"But they did something else," Bullard charged. "In addition to capturing their value-added contribution, they figured out how to capture an ever-increasing share of the producer's contribution."
He said that is revealed in the share of the consumer's beef dollar that goes back to the producer.
In 1994, Bullard said, the producer was the majority recipient of the consumer's beef dollar. The producer received 56 cents for every dollar the consumer spent on beef.
"That makes sense," Bullard opined.
He said producers were the deserving recipients of the majority share, but by 2000, the producer became the minority recipient.
"Your share fell to 49 cents," Bullard said.
By 2002 it had fallen further, to 44 cents.
The producer has been losing his share of the consumer's beef dollar at an alarming rate, Bullard said.
During that period, he claimed, producers were left with a market structure that was too low to sustain the industry.
"That's the systemic problem that caused the formation of organizations like R-CALF," Bullard said, "and organizations like ICON that are starting now."
Producers got together and organized, he said.
"The first thing we realized was that we needed to reverse the trend toward the vertical integration model," Bullard said. "A model not unlike the poultry industry went through in the 1960s and 1970s. A model not unlike the hog industry is going through now."
In the fall of 2002, the American Meat Institute said the demand for a consistent quality supply is leading many firms to exert greater control over the supply chain.
"When one segment of this industry starts exerting greater control over another segment," Bullard said, "that's not a cooperative effort. That's not a beneficial alliance. That's exactly what it said. We have the packing industry attempting to exert greater control over the live cattle industry."
That bodes ill for the cattleman, Bullard warned.
"We believe we need to reverse this trend toward the vertical integration model," he said, "because in this model it is the integrator that's going to determine the terms of your production, the terms of your marketing, as well as to determine the price of your animal."
Bullard said the industry needs to steer a new course, "A course toward open, fair, robust competition."
A course where independent producers continue to have the ability to determine the terms of their production, the terms of their marketing, and have an open, competitive marketplace to establish the value of their livestock.
"This is the direction this industry needs to go," Bullard concluded.
Need To Change Industry Drift
By David Bowser
NORTH PLATTE, Neb. — The most prominent issue facing the cattle industry today is the Canadian border issue, said Bill Bullard, head of R-CALF. But the border is only part of the bigger picture.
"The fact of the matter is that understanding and supporting the efforts regarding the border don't even compare to the importance of understanding its origins," added Bullard, who was in North Platte recently to speak to a gathering of the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska.
"It's the reason that organizations like R-CALF USA are on the scene and the reasons that ICON has been developed. It's important for us to understand the direction that this industry is presently headed and to talk about the solution and a more appropriate course that we may want this industry to follow."
The beef business is an extremely profitable industry, and has been for decades if not centuries here in the United States, Bullard said.
"It's a $70 billion industry," he said, "but it's important for you to understand that this is a very complicated industry. You have at the foundation the cow-calf producer, the stocker, and the feeder. The foundation of the industry. The large cattle producer."
"But as you move downstream in the this industry, you hit the other segments," Bullard continued. "You hit the packers, the processors, the importers, the exporters, the wholesalers and the retailers and restaurateurs. It's a very involved, comprehensive industry."
Some of the packers have been sitting down and planning long-term for the direction of the industry, Bullard contended.
When packers hold their board meetings, Bullard said, they look out 11 years and discuss the challenges that will affect the profitability of their industry and the strategies they will put in place to deal with those challenges so they remain profitable.
Their goal, he explained, is to be more competitive than their competitors. They want to win the competition on a global scale.
Bullard said the first thing packers realize is that the cattle industry is cyclical.
"We have lows and highs over a period of time," Bullard said, "and as the result of that, there's volatility in the market, and volatility is difficult to manage."
Since it's difficult to manage, he said, at some point the packers are going to pay more than they want to for their input costs.
Much of that comes back to inventory availability for their packing plants, he said.
They don't limit themselves to a single country like the United States, Bullard said. They look beyond U.S. borders to cattle-producing nations like Canada and Mexico. Eventually, he said, they look at the entire Western Hemisphere. That includes Argentina and Brazil.
"It's in the packer's interest to expand their access to more cattle supplies and increase their ability to better manage inventories," Bullard explained.
One of their strategies, he continued, might be to combine the herds of the United States, Canada and Mexico into one seamless herd.
It's a good business strategy on the packer's part, he admitted.
Bullard said the packer wouldn't want the U.S. consumer — the consumer in the largest beef consuming market in the world — to think that cattle from any one of these countries is superior to cattle in any other country.
"They want the consumer to believe that all cattle are the same," he said.
Consequently, Bullard said the packer is more willing to compromise the health and safety standards that one country might have for another country.
A packer, he claimed, would be willing to compromise health and safety standards to level the playing field, bring it down to a lower common denominator, so the packer can access those cattle for wider source availability as well as ensuring consumers don't perceive that cattle produced in the United States are superior to cattle produced in Mexico, Uruguay, Argentina, or any other cattle-producing country.
"The first thing you know is that to be competitors on a global scale, we're going to have to be able to differentiate our product," Bullard said. "We're going to want consumers to seek our products out in the marketplace. That's how we're going to be more competitive in this global market. We want to be the largest provider of protein in the world."
While a packer may want to differentiate his product, Bullard said it won't be with a country of origin label.
If consumers were able to discern and differentiate products based on the country of origin, Bullard opined, the packer would have just contradicted his strategic moves.
Consumers would have the ability to perceive cattle produced under one production regime as being superior to cattle produced under another production regime.
That's not in the best interest of a packer, Bullard insisted.
"It's not in the interest of a packer to have mandatory country of origin labeling," Bullard said. "They want consumers to be loyal to their brand regardless of where they obtained the cattle for use in that product."
A packer would not want 792,000 producers left in the United States, he said. The packer would not want the producers to have the ability to interfere with or obstruct his ability to access those inventories he just gained by combining the national herds into one international herd.
Producers could ask for trade remedy laws, like countervailing duty laws and anti-dumping laws, Bullard said.
A packer would want to restrict the actions an independent producer could take that would interfere with the packer's abilities, he said.
Consequently, a packer would work with Congress to restrict independent producers’ ability to seek trade remedies.
"That's a reasonable, justifiable, legitimate business strategy," Bullard said, at least from the packer’s viewpoint.
Packers are in the business to make a profit, he reminded.
The problem is when that profit comes at the expense of the cow-calf producer, the stocker operator and the cattle feeder, Bullard said.
They are in this business to make a profit, too, he noted.
"This strategy of the packers has been unfolding over the past decade," Bullard said.
Prior to the improved market of the last couple of years, Bullard said, "The last high that you had in your industry was in 1990."
Nebraska direct fed Choice steer prices in 1990 were $77.
By 1996, Bullard said, the industry began liquidating the production capacity.
"Then in 1998, we see a marked increase in consumer demand for our final product."
By 2002, the industry had had seven years of liquidating supplies.
"We'd had five years of increasing demand for our final product," Bullard added.
There were favorable economic indicators for live cattle producers.
In 2002, 12 years after the last high in the cattle market, the average cattle producer lost $10, Bullard said. Nebraska direct Choice steer prices were $67.
According to USDA data, Bullard, said the average return on investment among cow-calf producers in the United States was a negative $30.40 per bred cow per year for each year of the 1990s.
"Your industry suffered staggering losses measured in the billions of dollars," Bullard reminded. "We lost over 10 percent of the total number of beef cattle operators in the United States."
"We've lost over 108,000 producers since 1993," he said.
The effect of that, he contended, has been a hollowing out of rural communities all across America.
Bullard said that while the cow-calf producer, stocker operator and cattle feeder weren't benefiting from these economic indicators, the packer, processor and retailer were.
"In 1998," he said, "the year where we began to see an increase in beef demand, the average retail price of beef in the United States was $2.77."
In 2002, when cattlemen were getting $10 cwt. less than they did a decade before, retail prices were $3.32 a pound.
"The retailer certainly benefited from these very favorable economic indicators," Bullard said, "and the packer did, too."
In 1992, the average packer margin was $62 a head, he noted.
"By 2002," Bullard said, "that more than doubled to $142 a head." All this time, the people who produced, raised and fed the live animals were losing money every year.
It became clear, he said, that what had happened over the last 10 years was that downstream sectors of the industry, the packers in particular, had perfected their ability to capture their full value-added contribution.
"But they did something else," Bullard charged. "In addition to capturing their value-added contribution, they figured out how to capture an ever-increasing share of the producer's contribution."
He said that is revealed in the share of the consumer's beef dollar that goes back to the producer.
In 1994, Bullard said, the producer was the majority recipient of the consumer's beef dollar. The producer received 56 cents for every dollar the consumer spent on beef.
"That makes sense," Bullard opined.
He said producers were the deserving recipients of the majority share, but by 2000, the producer became the minority recipient.
"Your share fell to 49 cents," Bullard said.
By 2002 it had fallen further, to 44 cents.
The producer has been losing his share of the consumer's beef dollar at an alarming rate, Bullard said.
During that period, he claimed, producers were left with a market structure that was too low to sustain the industry.
"That's the systemic problem that caused the formation of organizations like R-CALF," Bullard said, "and organizations like ICON that are starting now."
Producers got together and organized, he said.
"The first thing we realized was that we needed to reverse the trend toward the vertical integration model," Bullard said. "A model not unlike the poultry industry went through in the 1960s and 1970s. A model not unlike the hog industry is going through now."
In the fall of 2002, the American Meat Institute said the demand for a consistent quality supply is leading many firms to exert greater control over the supply chain.
"When one segment of this industry starts exerting greater control over another segment," Bullard said, "that's not a cooperative effort. That's not a beneficial alliance. That's exactly what it said. We have the packing industry attempting to exert greater control over the live cattle industry."
That bodes ill for the cattleman, Bullard warned.
"We believe we need to reverse this trend toward the vertical integration model," he said, "because in this model it is the integrator that's going to determine the terms of your production, the terms of your marketing, as well as to determine the price of your animal."
Bullard said the industry needs to steer a new course, "A course toward open, fair, robust competition."
A course where independent producers continue to have the ability to determine the terms of their production, the terms of their marketing, and have an open, competitive marketplace to establish the value of their livestock.
"This is the direction this industry needs to go," Bullard concluded.
Comment