Poor Packers?

[cowman]

Pure Country: Of course you are right. The new plants are not looking at competing head to head in the commodity market, and that should be taken into consideration? Because the fact is nobody can compete with Cargill or Tyson in the commodity market.
I do wonder though what will happen to cow beef when (if) that border opens? A lot of these new plants are/were designed to process cow beef? Tyson and XL are killing cows right now in a big way...and why not...as it is still a captive market? Might not be if/when the border opens?...and by the way, what is with that? Are we ever going to get some sanity at the border?

[Cedar]

Cowman: "Because the fact is nobody can compete with Cargill or Tyson in the commodity market. "

Oh? One has to wonder (well, ok, this is just another one of my hair-brained thoughts!!!) if it could be done through a co-op with a western (or maybe even Canada-wide) perspective as far as management, but a local perspective as far as beef supplies....maybe...just maybe! Think about it: beef all supplied locally...say one plant within a 500 mile (or whatever) radius of a certain town or city...born, grown, finished and processed locally.....extreme fuel savings! ...as well as efficiency savings as the cost of carrying live animals versus carrying beef in boxes to market is a very substantial saving...especially if fuel prices continue to rise (as some predict).. The only question would be whether or not it would "pay" to have more, smaller packing plants all over the place versus the huge plants we now have. After all, who pays, in the end, for the transport of these animals???? Especiallly here in MB, further from the plants, it is such a long trip and such a huge expense, it has not done our feedlot industry any good (the shrink is so huge it just doesn't pay). The
"experts", after all, have been telling us for years and years: get bigger, get more efficient...HA!.... looks like " the bigger they come, the harder they fall"!!!!! Maybe now the better answer is a more localized, perhaps smaller approach.

Anyway, just a few thoughts to kick around....

[cowman]

Well I don't think that could happen...but who knows? It is a crazy world anymore!
I doubt the Safeways or Sobeys of the world would want to deal with several small companies unless there was a real economic advantage?
You know, love them or hate them, Cargill and Tyson run a tight ship? They control their costs, including supplies to a certain extent, run efficient plants and market agressively? They use their power and money to effectively lobby government at pretty well every level?
I often wonder at their stated return on investment of 1% to 3%? I suspect they are fairly adept at cooking the books and getting out numbers that plead poverty?

[Cedar]

Cowman: "I doubt the Safeways or Sobeys of the world would want to deal with several small companies unless there was a real economic advantage? "

Hence the suggestion of one ...hmmm... how shall I say....unified "umbrella" organization to oversee the whole operation. This "head office" could maybe be responsible for organizing the sales from certain locations that are close to each Safeway (or whatever store). Once we realize that every penny of expense incurred by the entire industry gets passed back to us, the farmers, it stands to reason that reducing all the shipping costs (and associated disease problems) would benefit us, perhaps even give the consumer a break on the price, or...at least match the multinationals. Ever read that article "power steer" ? if memory serves, I think that poor critter got hauled around to different places about 6 times....everybody along the way adjusts their prices so they make a profit..end result: we pay!!

Cowman: "You know, love them or hate them, Cargill and Tyson run a tight ship?"

Ya...maybe a little too tight! Ever see that documentary "Big Sugar"......is that where agriculture is heading???

Cowman: "....run efficient plants and market agressively?"

Why the heck would they have to market aggressively when they are practically the only one "in the game"???!!??!!!

Cowman: "They use their power and money to effectively lobby government at pretty well every level? "

There's where we need a serious change of mindset...not sure why our "lords and masters" are seemingly trying to destroy us!

Cowman: "I often wonder at their stated return on investment of 1% to 3%? I suspect they are fairly adept at cooking the books and getting out numbers that plead poverty?"

Ya, so it seems! Too bad our Conservatives wouldn't allow the opening of their books...that would've been interesting, eh?

[wd40]

Cargill completes Beef Packers acquisition

by Pete Hisey on 4/4/2006 for Meatingplace.com


Cargill Meat Solutions announced that its acquisition of four California meat companies, now doing business as Beef Packers Inc., has been completed.

The company originally announced the acquisition in September 2005. The four companies were Beef Packers, Inc., Fresno Meat Co., RPM Beef Inc. and King-O-Meat Inc. A fifth company, Ore-Cal Transportation, was originally part of the deal, but will be dissolved instead.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services and HR Livestock Transportation will be responsible for the trucking of live animals and chilled beef.


Another reason why we need to collectively build our own packing plant.

The 2 big packers run a net margin of around 30%. Cargil won't even get into a facility unless they know it will be paid for in 3 to 5 years.

Cowman - if you were to examine the industry properly you would fine there is really no real price discovery.

The food industry even stores like Safeway, Sobeys, SaveOn take what they get and pay what they are charged.

Wake up and smell the Dandilliaons.

[cowman]

I think you underestimate the power of Safeway, Sobeys, Walmart etc. but whatever!
I wonder if this meat packing business is so profitable how come there are no venture entrepreneurs willing to jump right in? You would think they would be lined up...check book in hand?
The fact is Cargill and Tyson dominate the industry and that is unlikely to change?
At the height of the BSE crisis in Canada many plants were proposed? How many are actually up and running...and more importantly how many will still be around in five years?
Now I don't want to rain on anyones parade! If you want to put your money into a private venture...all the power to you and the best of luck!
Myself I see Cargill and Tyson further consolidating the industry and integrating it up and down the line? I guess if that means they take all the profits then I have to make a decision about whether I want to work for nothing? Hmmm...getting pretty close to that right now?

[grassfarmer]

If Safeway, Sobeys, Walmart have so much power Cowman how come during the BSE crisis and very low cattle prices they were in the same position as the consumer - ie paying virtually as much for their beef supply as before? It's clear the extraordinary profits stopped at the packer level.

[cowman]

Well I doubt they went bankrupt or anything?
I'm not saying the packers didn't make a killing on BSE...it was a unique situation?
But if you believe the packers stated profits of 1% to 3% in average times, then who is making the money? If the cow/cal guy isn't making any money, and the feeder isn't, and the packer isn't, and the retailer isn't....what does that mean? Is beef way to cheap?
Now bare with me one moment: In 1973 I went to work at a packing house. Newly married, baby on the way, didn't want to be out on a rig. Got $3.95/hr. Bought a new half ton pickup for $3655! Gas was 11 cents a liter. cigarettes were 45 cents a pack, beer $2.50 a dozen for Molsen Canadian(the things we remember!)! I believe we sold heavy feeders for 37 cents that year...and that was very good!
Now skip ahead to 2006? I see they are advertizing for packing house workers to start at $12.84 or 3.25 times as much as 1973?
gas is $1 liter or 9 times as much?
cigarettes about 20 times as much? A truck about 10 times as much? Beer probably close to ten times as much?
Now how about those heavy feeders? At 96 cents today that comes to 2.6 times as much!
Bottom line here is beef hasn't kept up and workers wages haven't kept up?
If we got the same increase in feeders as gas we would be getting $3.33/lb! As for cigarettes....$7.40!
How long can this "commodity beef" thing continue? When gas goes up to 12 or 14 times the 1973 price where will we be?
Despite what people believe food prices are very cheap in comparison to virtually every other thing we produce? Which also partly explains how wages have been able to be kept so low?
Now personally I don't see this trend changing...in fact I see it accelerating? So what can a person do?
I think you go with the flow. If one thing doesn't pay you find something that does? Maybe we should all quit this food thing and get into gas, trucks, cigarettes and booze...because obviously thats where the money is? Just my opinion.

[grassfarmer]

Cowman,"But if you believe the packers stated profits of 1% to 3% in average times, then who is making the money?"
I don't believe them.

I stand by my earlier statement: It's clear the extraordinary profits stopped at the packer level.

[farmers_son]

Hi folks. Just thought I might add a few comments…

First…we are slaughtering more animals now then a year ago 61,500 this week compared to 55,650 a year ago. All grades are up over a year ago but cows are up the most 4500 this week compared to 900 a year ago. So slaughter has not been cut back.

To date in 2006 we have exported over 210,000 live slaughter steers and heifers to the U.S. Last week we exported 20820 live slaughter steers and heifers to the U.S. plus 9828 feeders.
See: http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/WA_LS635.TXT

The live cash to cash spread is over $200 per head this week or in other words a live steer sold in the United States brings that producer $200 more than if that same steer were sold by a Canadian producer here at home. Unless the costs of slaughtering a steer are $200 per head higher in Canada than in the United States our “poor packers” are still sticking it to our Canadian producers and are still reaping unfair profits at our expense. Instead of “poor packer” why not use the word “pirate packer”, it applies today just as it did 3 years minus a month and 15 days ago on May 20, 2003.

I did some calculations a while back and posted the results on this site to the effect that an initial investment in Tyson would have earned the investor an annual compounded return in the range of (if I recall correctly) 18% with share splits and dividends factored in. A $300,000 investment in an Alberta farm in 1963, the year Tyson went public, would today be worth about $1.5 million. By contrast if one had invested that same $300,000 in Tyson shares they would be today worth over $13.5 million. “Poor packer”... I think not.

Cargill and Tyson are vulnerable to competition from producer packing plants. At some point producers will realize that these packers are manipulating the live price of cattle and simply refuse to sell to them. However we have an interesting market in this country where the people actually raising the cattle are not the ones selling the live cattle to the packers, this is done by feedlot margin operators who really do not care what the live cattle price is as long as they have a positive margin. Cargill and Tyson do run a tight ship but that does not mean those benefits get passed down to producers. Within a generation we will see producers owning and operating their own packing plants, there is simply no alternative as the present situation is not viable.

I for one think it is a national disgrace that we do not have sufficient packing capacity in this country to slaughter our own production and that we export live cattle to be slaughtered in the U.S. We will never have a viable cattle industry in this country as long as we are dependent upon shipping live cattle over international borders.