|
Napanee, Ontario | "The chart says it all, pretty much - unless you wish to not believe the data presented."
which is the problem here. I don't.
I discussed this with you on the other thread. You seem to want to chalk it up to the fact that my chart which shows a much different view of our profitability, which was provided by the USDA, is wrong and yours is right. How? Because you say you know some ppl at cattle fax, and that USDA is only polling the poor cow/calf guys. Oh, right....ok that makes sense then ********* glad you have it all figured out.
The problem cfdr, is that you are basing your understanding of the situation of a chart you found on cattle fax.
the rest of us that have actually lived and worked in this industry, have a markedly different understanding than you do. This isn't our BIL either, but us. Our own sweat and our chqs received in our hands. Again, like i said below, the reality is the cow numbers are low and people have left the industry for one reason: lack of profit.
And packers bought everybody out, expanded, poured in new investment and vertically integrated because of one thing: more profit. One group is exiting, and one group is pouring in investment and expanding.
not really a head scratcher to me who's been making the money.
You can believe what you want to believe, but feeders at 1.70 and fats over 140 are the reality, and tell the real story for anyone that wants to take the time to read it. I guess that would be a little more time than just copy and pasting a chart in from cattle fax.
Edited by OldMcdonald 1/27/2014 10:09
| |
|
Have packers beat the dog so much it won't come when they call
