R-Calf continues

[pandiana]

Willowcreek, I can empathize with cattle producers in the US who are experiencing loss of farm income for much the same reason as Canadian farmers are, or worldwide for that matter; rising input costs coupled to lack of leverage in price setting.
RCalf no doubt appeals to those farmers who are fighting to make an honest living.

I find it difficult to compare NCBA to RCalf, however. NCBA and its somewhat parallel entities in Canada, CCA or ABP have a very broad mandate and represent several sectors of the beef industry. For example, ABP represents the primary producer through checkoff dollars, but feedlots also pay this checkoff. Industry representitives (cattle buyers, truckers) are now also represented at the board level. Each sector has somewhat different perspectives and bottom line.

Also, checkoff dollars are spread thinly over numerous activities including agriculture research, beef promotion in addition to government affairs (consulting and lobbying).

R-Calf mandate appears to be very simple by comparison in that there mission is to protect members markets at any cost ".fighting for the welfare of the US cattleman- be it for bad or for good.... " your words. I agree with farmers_son in that "R-Calf crossed the line of reason and sense when they took to attacking the safety of North Americas beef in order to justify their protectionist policies."

I suspect there are many producers in Canada that would appreciate an organization like R-Calf that would fight for their interests exclusively, but more fairly. Doing serious harm to the Canadian cattle industry in the short term, however, cannot serve your cause in the long term if your arguments are not sound and honorable.

[Willowcreek]

Pandiana- Do you think its truly possible for a group to fairly represent all the sections of the beef industry without having to give concessions to one or the other? Seems to me that all the sections- cow/calf, feeder, packer, retail are all competing for the lowest purchase cost with the highest resale price- which causes many conflicts of interest- especially when it comes to trade agreements and legislation...This has occurred in the US with the NCBA, with the NCBA lately always taking the stand of backing the packer and retail with the idea that if they do good the profits will trickle down to the cattle industry...But as was proven with the Canadian situation that is not the case...The trickle down theory could leave you dying of thirst....The cattle industry in both countries needs a "cattlemans group" representing that stage of the game, same as the packers have their AMI...

[pandiana]

I would agree, willowcreek, that each sector of the cattle industry, taken on its own, is a distinct business, and I also agree that in order to be profitable they would endeavor to pay the least for their inputs. And yes, I also believe this creates a conflict of interest situation in an organization that 'serves' all sectors of the industry.

Our agriculture organizations parallel the Agriculture industry, and unfortunately, a lot of the decision making power and lobby stays at the top where the money originates. From the top down, every sector keeps as much profit as they can in their pocket. The only trickle down is if their pocket has a hole it it.

I do believe, on the other hand, that the associations attempt to fairly represent their generic members. The strongest voice will be heard first. It's up to the members to change things they don't like in a free enterprise democratic society.

[JD4ME]

"Primum non nocere" First do no harm, that should be the motto of all industry groups. R-calf included, they'd cut off their foot to save their toes thats the level of the logic employed there.

[Joe-2]

Willowcreek, How about it? Name one long term objective,that is to the benefit of grassroots producers, that R-calf has been succesful in accomplishing that would justify the millions of dollars they have raked in through membership dues and rollover calf auctions. Just one.

[Willowcreek]

Joe-2 The #1 thing that R-CALF has proved to the cattle producers of the US is the impact imported cattle and beef have on the US market...They won an anti-dumping ruling in 1999 against Canada, but were unable to prove the effect it had on prices..That proof now exists...Since the announcement of the border opening, prices on fall calves contracted locally for Oct- Nov delivery has dropped $50-100 per head- culls have dropped $5 just on the knowledge of which way the USDA may head and the speculation of OTM beef being allowed....

I spent the afternoon with two of the major cattle buyers from my area- that I have worked with for years and trust... they both say that if OTM beef is allowed in, US cull cattle will automatically drop $10- $15 and possibly as much as by 50%- if live OTM cattle are allowed in, it will be a disaster......Which I know means little to Canadians as Murgen has stated on ranchers.net that Canadians only cull 5% a year- but in the US that cull figure is closer to 15- 30%- which makes a huge impact to a ranch income......

[grassfarmer]

willowcreek, "but in the US that cull figure is closer to 15- 30%" - sounds like it's time the US started importing some decent Canadian beef genetics. How can a herd need to cull 30% of their animals in a year? do you ranch holsteins?

[Joe-2]

Hahah! Willowcreek, cull cow prices are ALWAYS lower in the fall.Wait until the real fall run starts before chirping off about feeder prices.
You failed to show us 1 thing that R-calf has accomplished which would justify the millions of dollars they have coaxed out of their membership.
My bitch is NOT with the rank and file members of R-calf. It is with their snake-oil salesman leadership that cons people like you out of your money. Are Leo, Bill, Dennis, Kathleen, and Herman really "grassroots producers" in the same sense that you are??
That is what I find so offensive about R-calf. These "slick-Willy" type people swindling real people,such as yourself, out of their hard earned money, and delivering absolutely nothing in return other than a request for even more money.
That's how I see's it any how!!

[Willowcreek]

grassfarmer-- Much of this country is much more wide open- with little or no fencing...10,000 to 25,000 acre pastures are not out of the normal- some are much larger-- with water and grass sometimes far between each other which means if you have a 5-6% cull for being open it is pretty good- then add in those culled for age, bad bags, lumps, eye spots, disposition and being a below average weight calf producer it is easy to get to above 15%...Then if you are using good bulls, your genetics should be improving every year so many keep another percentage to improve the herd quality and output...In fact the last I saw was that Harlan Hughes and most of the so called "cattle raising experts" were recommending a minimum of 15%- if for no other reason than to promote the quality and production of your herd- and to get rid of the culls before they get so old they lose value.....

[FRENCHMAN]

Oldtimer.... Joe-2 The #1 thing that R-CALF has proved to the cattle producers of the US is the impact imported cattle and beef have on the US market...They won an anti-dumping ruling in 1999 against Canada, but were unable to prove the effect it had on prices..That proof now exists


Frenchman ..Ot you proved nothing , you had record amts of Canuk and other beef crossing the line and record prices..



Its all gloom and doom with you r-calfers.Speculation.