R-CALF Poll

[Texan]

Really disappointed in Blackpower's R-CALF poll on the Beginner's Board. Maybe it was just in the wrong place. I wasn't too surprised in the 4 votes supporting R-CALF. I'm sure that's pretty accurate. What bothers me is that only 16 people even voted!

There's almost 600 registered users on this Board. I feel sure most of them aren't regular users, but there's got to be at least 40 or 50 that saw it and had a chance to vote. And only 16 voted! That's not good. Although I personally have no use for their methods and management, I'd rather see you be a member of R-CALF than to not even care one way or another!

Whether you like R-CALF or not, they are controversial enough that all cattlemen should at least have an opinion one way or another! For those of you that feel like you didn't know enough about it to vote, you need to change that. You can search through these boards and find out a lot.

Unless you consume all of the cattle you raise, or let them die on your place, you're part of the cattle industry. Doesn't matter if you've got one baby calf or if you make your living in this business. Try to learn something about it besides the health, feeding and breeding aspects. This is a business that you're part of! Get involved in your industry!

 

[Campground Cattle]

Well said Texan a lot might have avoided like I did due to the poster. Just tries to stir turmoil.

 

[dun]

Well said Texan a lot might have avoided like I did due to the poster. Just tries to stir turmoil.

EXACTLY

dun

 

[la4angus]

Well said Texan a lot might have avoided like I did due to the poster. Just tries to stir turmoil.

I had to be one of the first to vote.

 

[certherfbeef]

Well said Texan a lot might have avoided like I did due to the poster. Just tries to stir turmoil.

I had to be one of the first to vote.

But since when do you try to avoid controversy La??? ;-)

 

[la4angus]

Well said Texan a lot might have avoided like I did due to the poster. Just tries to stir turmoil.

I had to be one of the first to vote.

But since when do you try to avoid controversy La??? ;-)

Certherfbeef
I just really can't recall the last time.

 

[Marty]

Don't remember looking at the poll but I might have and don't remember, sometimes I go through here pretty fast. Wouldn't have voted anyway as I don't like to stir the pot and I do enjoy this forum because it is pretty tame and not much for conflict. I do have some things to say, though, without wanting to offend our friends to the North.
For a number of years (remember the pre-Atkins years?) we were surviving on some pretty low prices. I know one year were I got $420 for heifers and $475 for steers weighing 550-600#. The prices were low, I was told by NCBA, because cattlemen (me) was putting too much meat (pounds/cattle, whatever) into the market. In the same breath they also told me that there was no effect on the market from all the Mexican and Canadian beef coming across the border.
Anyone with open eyes can see that when the packers have an excessive supply from which to draw there can be no mechanism to for the supply/demand economics to kick in. The packers owned multi-thousands of cattle plus enjoyed the supply from the North and South. There was no way the natural cattle cycle could happen and the packers enjoyed the constant, low, cattle price and we (all of us, Canadians too) were surviving. For several years, even though I was a beginning rancher, I was praying they'd close the border.
Enter Atkins and BSE. Shut the Canadian border and our prices sky-rocket. Imagine if we could close the Mexican border. Now I've seen all the statistics that show we export more cattle North and South than we import but I agree with Mark Twain about statistics. The fact is, one border closed and the prices went up. The people who work at the feedyards holding packer-owned cattle told me the packers sent everything (every weight class critter they owned) to the packing house trying to break the cattlemen's increasing hold on the market (when the feeders started holding out for more money knowing the packers were running out of beef).
Now, that said, (I'm sorry I'm out of time and have to go), sometimes when I think I'm smart I find out I'm fooled again. Now I'm wondering where the packers and NCBA are about to out-maneuver us. Got to go. Didn't even talk about R-Calf. Sorry. Later.

 

[Marty]

Every now and then I get long winded, usually it's a sign I don't know what I'm talking about. Now to continue (if anyone's interested).

What do I think about R-Calf? Honestly, I don't know. Around my place they have a meeting maybe a couple times a month, usually at the salebarn. I've wanted to go but it just never worked out that I had the time, so I don't know exactly what they are about. What I do know is the people who are most like me, my neighbors, believe in R-Calf.

The people I am associated with distrust the NCBA and their wanton waste of the billions(?) of checkoff dollars. What has been produced from the checkoff? Nothing that I can see, and I'm a pretty objective person (I like to think). Cattle prices go up a bit and NCBA says it's checkoff dollars at work. Prices go down and NCBA says it's my fault. Up they're good, down I'm bad. Just a couple years ago cattle prices were the same as they were in the '70's while expenditures for ranchers had more than quadrupled. How can the NCBA say they're proud of that? Nobody I know thinks the checkoff dollar is going for anything but into the NCBA's and the packers back pocket.

R-Calf? The two reasons that I've heard that some people hate them is because they kept the border closed and some members might be buying cattle in Canada. About buying cattle- I'll bet the packers own thousands more than all the R-calf guys combined, are you mad at them? I think it's pretty unethical if they are doing it and if they are doing it with the intent of enabling the border opening at the time of their choice. Can they do that? I don't know. So if they weren't there bidding on your cattle you'd be getting less money. True? I said it before in another post, is it ethical, no, is it big business, yes. Anyway you look at it, the packers are far more brutal in business than any cattlemen.

I have to agree, though, that the border closing was a cheap shot. I consider Canadian cattle far safer than Mexican cattle. I really wish we could shut the Southern border for health and quality reasons, not to mention the dirt cheap prices they can afford to get for their cattle. I don't think BSE is a problem in Canada. I think it will show, someday, to be correlated to poor nutrition (all I've seen are sick dairy cows and I've worked with enough dairy farmers to know what they do to their cows).

The vast majority of cattle in the US is owned by people who own less than 50-100 cows. Most people use the cows as a second income or as a hobby so a low cattle price may not threaten your livelihood, thus the border opening wouldn't have a major impact to your operation. But those who rely on cattle for their living (I'll say me and my neighbors without putting words in too many peoples mouths) have been pretty happy about the border closing and what it's done for our bank accounts.

That said, I'm not comfortable saying either way whether to open the border. I didn't know the Canadians were hurting that much so open the border because I'll not starve another to make a profit; but doing so very well could put me out of business and I have a family to think about. In case you can't tell, the situation bothers me.

 

[Tc]

good post marty you should be the guru on here.~~~~~~~~TC

 

[Texan]

The people I am associated with distrust the NCBA and their wanton waste of the billions(?) of checkoff dollars. What has been produced from the checkoff?

Marty, maybe the people you are associated with are misinformed. Or maybe I am. But here is a fact: Total checkoff assessments from 2003 were less than $85 million. That money goes through the Cattlemen's Beef Board. You can link them here to look at everything about the checkoff, including their budget if you want to. How do you figure the NCBA has wasted billions of checkoff dollars? Also, keep in mind that half of all checkoff dollars collected in states with Beef Councils can be kept in those states for in-state promotions! I urge you to use the link I provided and check out the Cattlemen's Beef Board site if you're really concerned about where your checkoff dollar goes!

As for what has been produced from the checkoff, how about increased demand through promotions like the "Beef: Its What's For Dinner" campaign? Then there's research, new products, foreign marketing, etc. And don't forget that within two weeks of announcing the discovery of the Washington case of BSE, a $1 million dollar crisis fund was activated out of checkoff dollars to help offset bad publicity and maintain domestic demand for our products. Also, let's don't forget the crucial work done by NCBA, along with R-CALF and other organizations, during that period!

Prices go down and NCBA says it's my fault.

Where did you hear this? Why did they say its the producer's fault? I guess I hadn't heard that one. Of course, I'm not an NCBA member, so I'm not aware of all of their statements.

R-Calf? The two reasons that I've heard that some people hate them is because they kept the border closed and some members might be buying cattle in Canada.

I don't know about hating them, but some of us don't like them because of things other than that. In fact, I don't care where they buy cattle. I personally don't like some of their methods. Seems like they're always wanting the government to intervene in our business. And there's other reasons that have all been covered on these boards in the past. No use in repeating all of them.

 

[Marty]

Texan: some good points and some good questions. About the "billions". That was a strong statement and I knew it when I wrote it. Unsure how to check the actual total but a quick estimation, using your figure of $85,000,000 for 2003, average the total per year at say $70M/year (it seems like cattle numbers have remained relatively steady for that time frame but it's always good to estimate low) since 1985 (I think your site says this was the year the checkoff was enacted) rounded up a year to make 20 years for easier math, would be (I'm not that good at math) $1.4B (is that right?). So well over a $1B but not the "billions" that I stated. Sorry. Good catch.

Are my neighbors misinformed? In some areas, probably, in most areas probably not. Many make their living strictly off cattle and some have farms to supplement. They will be quick to admit that we should be advertising our product and I think we should too. They're not happy, though, about giving the packers money to help them do research. Grocers and packers are businesses and if they have problems I think they will probably be able to fix those problems without us funding it. I think there is too much money going into the checkoff. Could we compromise and say that every cow that goes to the packing house be charged the checkoff? What figure would that come up to?

What has the checkoff accomplished? I thought beef consumption was on a steady decline since the checkoff was started (don't know where to look this up, just going off memory). Then Atkins hits and consumption goes up, once again NCBA steps in and says "we did that." It's been proven in the Dairy checkoff that their "Got Milk" program has been a failure and I'm thinking I read something similar about the beef ad but not sure. You're right that NCBA did come through on the BSE scare and consumption never faultered during that timeframe. But how about the mad cow Oprah? NCBA's spokesman, admittedly going into a hostile zone, didn't do that hot of a job and didn't get his/our message across. That was a bad situation to say the least. I fight with Mom every time I catch her watching Oprah. I didn't know that half the checkoff stays in the State for promotion, Nebraska took in something like $3M last year if I read it right, which might explain why every third comercial on our small town radio station is a "Beef, it's what's for dinner" ad. I'm sick of it, honestly. I think we should be able to redistribute that money to other states who have more population and less cows. The way this appears to be set up is like telling a banker to save his money. (But then our radio station would probably go bankrupt.)

My impression of NCBA was first made back in '95 when I quit college to go help ranch for my parents (Dad had a heart problem). I didn't know much about ranching but I still wanted to learn everything I could about the business. Grandma never throws anything away so I was able to read about 5 years worth of NCBA magazines in a relatively short time. I feel I was pretty objective at the time because I really had no intention of staying at the ranch. Maybe I haven't been very objective about NCBA in the past years but I really haven't been too impressed with their actions.
I guess I'm expecting more from the $85M they took in last year.

There's a post in this same forum "R-Calf/NCBA" (? something like that, from Haymaker?) with an Omaha World Herald article on the differences between the two. I think it's a pretty accurate article and reading it I'd say I lean more toward R-calf. I think R-Calf is using the courts and politicking(sp) in Washington for my benefit. The checkoff, by it's own finite powers, can't do that. The corn board is extremely powerful in Washington; and the cattlemen have __?

In my perfect world: packers couldn't own cattle (nor their reps, one of which owns several thousand head in a feedyard just north of town as well as in the feedyard 15 miles south of my place); and the border would be closed to imports but open to exports. Now who stands closer my fantasyland beliefs? R-calf.

But I'll tell you what, Texan, I will do as you say and do some more research on NCBA and R-Calf because I don't really know many facts. My memory is such that I just get impressions of things and tuck them away for later. And you're right, we should have an opinion.

 

[Texan]

Good post, Marty. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. I'd also like to hear some thoughts from some of the rest of you. Its very easy for something like this to degenerate into a debate between two people. Oldtimer, I know where you stand on this issue but always like to hear your point of view. You always give me something else to think about. Sometimes it seems like you guys in the mountains and plains have a different perspective on this issue and its good for those of us in the South to hear that. I'd also like to hear from some of the rest of you, especially if there's any NCBA members who have an opinion. Now, just a few thoughts on your post, Marty:

Maybe I haven't been very objective about NCBA in the past years but I really haven't been too impressed with their actions.
I guess I'm expecting more from the $85M they took in last year.

The $85 million figure I gave you was the total checkoff assessments for last year taken in by the Cattlemen's Beef Board. That money doesn't all go to NCBA. Where do you get that idea? CBB does have a lot of contractors. I'm sure the NCBA gets a piece of it as a contractor for the CBB, but I'm not sure how much. Maybe I can find out or maybe someone else can tell us. I'm probably wrong, but sometimes it seems to me that this is the big problem with the Checkoff in the eyes of R-CALF and LMA. You think if they were getting a big cut of that money that they might be more supportive?

In my perfect world: packers couldn't own cattle (nor their reps, one of which owns several thousand head in a feedyard just north of town as well as in the feedyard 15 miles south of my place); and the border would be closed to imports but open to exports. Now who stands closer my fantasyland beliefs? R-calf.

I agree with you about the fantasy. A border closed to imports but open to exports? You and R-CALF do have a perfect world in mind, don't you? We all know that can never happen because there are trade issues involving too many other industries. I hope R-CALF is not really spending its resources persuing that goal!

As for outlawing packer ownership, I've got a big problem with that! I believe in capitalism, free enterprise and less government intervention. I don't think R-CALF does. But, let's say we ban packer ownership and any type of captive supplies like some of you guys want. And its not just R-CALF member that would like to see this, by the way. What's the next logical step in that sequence?

Maybe stocker operators would like to ban cattle feeders from running stocker cattle? That gives the feeder an unfair advantage! I'm a cow-calf operator. Maybe I think we should have a law to keep stocker outfits from running cow-calf operations, too. That takes them out of the market for my calves! That's not fair! Why don't we have a law to stop futures basis trades and forward contracting? That takes those buyers out of the cash market later.

And I want a law to stop all this nonsense of Superior Livestock selling 200,000 head in a few days time, with most of them being deferred deliveries! I just don't care if that's the way you want to sell your cattle! That takes people out of the cash market when I want to sell my calves. That's just not fair! What about the guy at the feed store? If I choose to contract my winter protein needs in advance, that takes me out of the cash market for feed later. Maybe he needs a law, too? Please, Big Government, give me a law......

But I'll tell you what, Texan, I will do as you say and do some more research on NCBA and R-Calf because I don't really know many facts.

And I'll tell you what, Marty. I'll actually try to find out something good about R-CALF, because as I've said before, I'm sure there are good things they do for this business. I know for a fact that I have many things in common with the R-CALF member. Seems like its always easier to concentrate on our differences! That's counterproductive, at best. Deadly to our industry, at worst!

 

[Oldtimer]

Texan-- I started out as a big supporter of NCBA- I really thought that if we all (cow/calf, feeder, packer, retailer) could work together it would be the best thing for the beef industry. I'll agree I was apprehensive if it could work, since each have different agendas, but at least I was supportive-- NCBA came out with a plan for a mandatory COOL law-- one that would give the American and foreign consumer the choice on what countries beef they eat- I was sold on the plan- whether it increased demand for US beef or not- it was the right thing to do- consumers should be able to choose whether the meat they are eating is US, Canadian, Mexican, Australian, etc.--everything else imported into the country is labeled from your shirts to your shorts to your auto parts--- The packers, retailers, some southern feeders, Canada and Mexico lobbied against it - at the same time Canada conveniently opened the border to some border state calves on a trial basis under certain regs.- at the time the Pres. and incoming Pres. were both from border states- NCBA did a complete flip-flop and came out against the law. This became the start of everything supported by the cow/calf producer being overpowered by the packers and feeders- NCBA doesn't have a one man, one vote system and set up districts with reps like R-CALF-- NCBA Board membership is decided by a complex system made up by cattle population -- which gives the feeder states (where the packing plants are located) a larger board and committee representation.--It got to where everything brought to the NCBA by the cow/calf producer was killed in committee or by the board. R-CALF has given these people representation.

As far as the checkoff goes- I voted for it and still pretty much support it- I think the advertising has done some good for the beef industry-(but everything good for the beef industry is not always that positive for the cattle industry) I believe the law should have been changed to require a revote every 7-10 years on it and on who should administer it. Dynasty's should not be built upon what is essentially a tax.--- One of the major complaints I have heard about the checkoff is the inequity in collecting it from state to state. Some states like Mt. have strong beef boards and brand laws and the checkoff is collected at every ownership change, be it at a sale barn or private treaty sale-- But I have heard in many states the checkoff is loosely collected- or done on the honor system- or in many cases, some producers never even knew it existed.

Is R-CALF right or wrong about the effect of Canadian cattle on our prices--I don't know-- All I can go by is the fact that since the border closure we are experiencing record prices- Something that R-CALF has touted for years-- I know their are other demand factors (Atkins, low cattle numbers, etc.)-What effect does each have?

Marty made an interesting comment about NCBA that I have to agree with- For 20 years when prices were bad it was our own fault (we weren't marketing right, we needed to retain ownership, we needed to vertically integrate our ranchs more, etc) But now that the price is high they claim it is demand brought about by the checkoff--BULL- (the checkoff doesn't even recognize the Atkins or low carb diet)

 

[Oldtimer]

In my perfect world: packers couldn't own cattle (nor their reps, one of which owns several thousand head in a feedyard just north of town as well as in the feedyard 15 miles south of my place); and the border would be closed to imports but open to exports. Now who stands closer my fantasyland beliefs? R-calf.

But I'll tell you what, Texan, I will do as you say and do some more research on NCBA and R-Calf because I don't really know many facts. My memory is such that I just get impressions of things and tuck them away for later. And you're right, we should have an opinion.

Marty- Must be a lot of your neighbors researching the situation-- I see in the last new membership stats released by R-CALF for the month of May- there were 742 new members and Nebraska led the states with 227 new members.

 

[certherfbeef]

One of the major complaints I have heard about the checkoff is the inequity in collecting it from state to state. Some states like Mt. have strong beef boards and brand laws and the checkoff is collected at every ownership change, be it at a sale barn or private treaty sale-- But I have heard in many states the checkoff is loosely collected- or done on the honor system- or in many cases, some producers never even knew it existed.

In Ohio the check-off dollar is taken out automaticaly at the sale barn. But the private treaty sales is all on the honor system. And since I have never had a production sale, I have no idea if it is taken out or if it is the honor system. I know a lot of folks around here don't like the idea and more than likely do not send in the check-off dollar.

Yes, I am a NCBA member and a member of the OCA. And I pay my dues for the 50-99 head range. But, no one seems to be able to tell me, (cause I ask every year) am I better represented because my dues are more than the neighbor who has only 20 head? This is like the union dues that my husband has to pay. They pay dues based on the hourly wages. Does that mean that the guy at the bottom of the scale making $12/hour is less represented than the guy making $32/hour?
I don't know how R-Calf members pay their dues, I have never looked into it. Maybe some one can help clear the fog from my brain!

 

[Oldtimer]

One of the major complaints I have heard about the checkoff is the inequity in collecting it from state to state. Some states like Mt. have strong beef boards and brand laws and the checkoff is collected at every ownership change, be it at a sale barn or private treaty sale-- But I have heard in many states the checkoff is loosely collected- or done on the honor system- or in many cases, some producers never even knew it existed.

In Ohio the check-off dollar is taken out automaticaly at the sale barn. But the private treaty sales is all on the honor system. And since I have never had a production sale, I have no idea if it is taken out or if it is the honor system. I know a lot of folks around here don't like the idea and more than likely do not send in the check-off dollar.

Yes, I am a NCBA member and a member of the OCA. And I pay my dues for the 50-99 head range. But, no one seems to be able to tell me, (cause I ask every year) am I better represented because my dues are more than the neighbor who has only 20 head? This is like the union dues that my husband has to pay. They pay dues based on the hourly wages. Does that mean that the guy at the bottom of the scale making $12/hour is less represented than the guy making $32/hour?
I don't know how R-Calf members pay their dues, I have never looked into it. Maybe some one can help clear the fog from my brain!

R-CALF dues are $50 per person and you must be a cattle owner to be a voting member-- every member gets to vote on R-CALF policy, as a ballot is mailed out to each member-1 member, 1 vote --Where in the NCBA the only way you can participate and vote is to attend the convention- and then you only get to vote on policy that has been approved by the board and committees- unless you can come up with a 2/3 majority to overturn the board decision. Have you ever read the NCBA rules about board and committee membership and policy adoption?--I've asked past officers and its so complicated that they were unable to explain it. It was set up purposely this way---The "good old boys" didn't want to give up control. Many have pushed for years for a 1 person 1 vote scenario and a mail out ballot-- It isn't going to happen.----I don't always agree with everything R-CALF does, but at least R-CALF gives me a vote and my input counts.

 

[BLACKPOWER]

And I want a law to stop all this nonsense of Superior Livestock selling 200,000 head in a few days time, with most of them being deferred deliveries! I just don't care if that's the way you want to sell your cattle! That takes people out of the cash market when I want to sell my calves. That's just not fair! What about the guy at the feed store? If I choose to contract my winter protein needs in advance, that takes me out of the cash market for feed later. Maybe he needs a law, too? Please, Big Government, give me a law......

How is this nonsense? If you look at the delivery dates on the cattle most are between the first of October until the Middle of November. Average weights on these calves is from 500 to 650 lbs. No money exchanges hands until the calves are weighed at the time of delivery. The cattle are sold on a slide usually around 6 cents, if the calves weigh less than the weight they were sold at selling price slides up, inversely if calves weigh more price slides down, consequently price slides down more rapidly on heavier calves than it slides up on lighter than the weight the calves were sold at. This is why some sell at the sale barn yet. There is virtually no price difference in 600lb Nov delivery calves sold in August from 600lb calves sold in November. I imagine you market your cattle at such a small salebarn that it isn't an accurate representation of the market's prices. You more than anyone would benefit from Superior Livestock, because sellers can offer their cattle, viewed in their natural surroundings, to a larger potential buyer base using the most accurate form of price discovery available.....competitive bidding! What is wrong with the cattlemen in Texas?!! Against R-Calf, Against Superior, Against keeping the border closed. As far as I can see it you must all be so small of operators that you don't really spend the time researching other options and developing marketing plans from them. You are entitled to an opinion but when you are blatantly out of line and militiant you come off real ignorant to a cattleman who makes his living by the pound.

 

[Texan]

You are entitled to an opinion but when you are blatantly out of line and militiant you come off real ignorant to a cattleman who makes his living by the pound.

I couldn't have said it better myself, BP! Great advice I'll try to keep in mind!

Anyway, I think you missed my point with that one. It was about the captives that so many of you R-CALF guys are against. If I'm wrong about you, I apologize, but I just assume you're one of the ones that wants a law to ban packer ownership and captives because it takes them out of the cash?

Same principle applies to deferreds with Superior or anybody else. The buyer that has spent all spring and summer buying October delivery calves through Superior is out of the market when I want to sell mine! That's just as unfair to me as a cow-calf producer as captive fats are to feeders, isn't it? That was my point.

By the way, I appreciate your marketing advice and I hope everybody reads it and thinks about it. I couldn't agree with you more on the benefits of competitive bidding. I'm glad some of us have the option of selling our cattle on Superior or anywhere else we choose. But, the way I feel, the bigger their sale gets, the more determined I am to sell mine at one of these dinky little Texas salebarns. They've got to have the commission to stay in business. If all we send them is our cull cows and the cuts that won't fit the Superior deal, one of these days they'll be gone. Then what are we gonna do with our gooseneck load of cull cows or our crippled bull?

 

[BLACKPOWER]

You are entitled to an opinion but when you are blatantly out of line and militiant you come off real ignorant to a cattleman who makes his living by the pound.

I couldn't have said it better myself, BP! Great advice I'll try to keep in mind!

Anyway, I think you missed my point with that one. It was about the captives that so many of you R-CALF guys are against. If I'm wrong about you, I apologize, but I just assume you're one of the ones that wants a law to ban packer ownership and captives because it takes them out of the cash?

Same principle applies to deferreds with Superior or anybody else. The buyer that has spent all spring and summer buying October delivery calves through Superior is out of the market when I want to sell mine! That's just as unfair to me as a cow-calf producer as captive fats are to feeders, isn't it? That was my point.

By the way, I appreciate your marketing advice and I hope everybody reads it and thinks about it. I couldn't agree with you more on the benefits of competitive bidding. I'm glad some of us have the option of selling our cattle on Superior or anywhere else we choose. But, the way I feel, the bigger their sale gets, the more determined I am to sell mine at one of these dinky little Texas salebarns. They've got to have the commission to stay in business. If all we send them is our cull cows and the cuts that won't fit the Superior deal, one of these days they'll be gone. Then what are we gonna do with our gooseneck load of cull cows or our crippled bull?

This is where you are so ignorant. Who buys your calves? I'm gonna wager a guess. FEEDYARDS!! Who buys these calves??? Order buyers or feedlot owners??? ANSWER: BOTH!! You know why people buy cattle off both Superior and Northern Plains livestock barns??? Because they can buy quality cattle because they can't buy every calf in a Nebraska sale barn even though they are superior to every eared calf that comes through the Texas barn.

 

[BLACKPOWER]

Well said Texan a lot might have avoided like I did due to the poster. Just tries to stir turmoil.

????????????? Border closed = higher cattle prices for American Cattlemen (and I use the term "cattlemen" lightly for Texans) is really stirring the turmoil. Or maybe its "American" that I use lightly????