Trains.com

Wake Up and Haul the Bacon

16153 views
156 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, June 8, 2013 2:06 PM

More on Kosher, to answer questions.   Talked with my more ultra-Orthodox teacher and other teachers:

1.   Kosher is Kosher as far as transportation.   No one gives a hoot if the truck, airplane, container, trank car, regular freight car, or whatever, was used to carry pork or even fetilizer once the car is clean enough to carry Kosher products.

2.   A tank car is like a food implement or pot or pan, used in a restaurant.   Cleaning with supervision by a Mashgiiya is required.   But if the movement is regular, the Mashgiiya can give just spot checks, not required every day or each load, once he has confidence that the workmen will follow the procedures.

4.   Packaged food in regular freight cars require no special treatment of the freight car.   Refrigerator cars can carry exposed food along with non-Kosher food, meat and milk, as long as the car is kept cold at all times, and the non-compatible food doesn't  make any contact.

5.  Ultra-Orthodox look at the lable and trust it.  They don't inqurire as to what the shipping practices are.

6.   One hour boiling of a non-Kosher food iimplement may not be required.  A minute or  two may be enough.   But none source says conversion from meat ot millk or visa versa is never ever done.  Unnless the meat implement is accidentally used for milk, making it non-Kosher, then it can be made Kosher for either meat or milk by the boiling water.   Boiling pot that is too large to be put in another pot is done by filling and then letting the boiling water overlow and cover the sides.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, June 8, 2013 2:31 PM

Convicted One

Bucyrus
But what would you say to those who believe that Shanghui will sell to the highest priced market first, with only the excess production going to the lower priced Chinese market? 

I would say that the Chinese are not buying Smithfield to use as a conduit to sell far eastern pork to the American Dinner table. They are buying it to place more pork on the Chinese dinner table.

I agree with that, but it misses the point of my question because I did not make it clear.  When I referred to Shanghui selling to the highest priced market first, I meant selling the Smithfield or U.S. produced component of their production.  I did not mean to include the component produced in China.

Will China only sell U.S. pork to the Chinese market once it has sold all to the U.S. market that the U.S. market demands? 

Or-- will Shanghui forego sales of U.S. produced pork to the U.S. market, leaving U.S. demand unfulfilled, and divert U.S. pork production to the Chinese market? 

I expect it to be the latter, but some might say that is hallucinatory unless the Chinese market prices the same as the U.S. market, which it probably cannot do.

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, June 8, 2013 2:56 PM

Bucyrus

Or-- will Shanghui forego sales of U.S. produced pork to the U.S. market, leaving U.S. demand unfulfilled, and divert U.S. pork production to the Chinese market? 

I expect it to be the latter, but some might say that is hallucinatory unless the Chinese market prices the same as the U.S. market, which it probably cannot do.

I read the abusive  delusional ad homs in that other post, and would say I was shocked, except considering the source, what else is there to expect? (LOL)

I tend to agree with you, that something OTHER than profit (shock and awe) is the prime motive. probably a good time to buy stock in Smithfield's competitors.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, June 8, 2013 3:57 PM

schlimm

Bucyrus

Murphy Siding

Bucyrus
  

Since it is said that the point of the acquisition was to lock in more supply, then it might be that Shuanghui would sacrifice the higher price of pork in the U.S. market in order to increase supply in the Chinese market.  

     Did you hear the one about the  Chinese company that bought an American pork processor, in order to sell American pork at lower prices in China?  Me neither.

I don’t think you are looking at it deeply enough.  Every pork chop Shuanghui sells in the U.S. is one less pork chop they sell in China.  It is true that the U.S. chop sells at a higher price.  But they bought Smithfield to close the production shortfall in China, and to improve the Shuanghui brand in China, so they might prioritize serving the Chinese market. 

And considering that they are currently producing 33 times more pork for China than Smithfield produces for the U.S., Shuanghui might decide that it makes better business sense to sell the Smithfield pork in China (although at a lower price) in order to help improve the supply and brand in China where the bulk of their business will be.  In the big picture, they might actually make more money doing that despite sacrificing the higher prices of the smaller U.S. market. 

And furthermore, the U.S. pork market is shrinking while the Chinese market is growing, so they might want to favor the Chinese market with brand and supply improvement rather than go after the higher price of the shrinking U.S. market.

And still furthermore, I believe the U.S. Smithfield market will be damaged by the reputation of Shuanghui ownership.  If that proves to be the case, then the U.S. Smithfield market will shrink further.  If they are trying to improve their brand image in China and in the world, they might be well served by not getting the publicity of butting heads with brand resistance in the U.S. even though they will get a higher price here.

Considering all of those things together, I expect nearly all of the Smithfield pork production to go to China.  And I also expect Shuanghui to expand the Smithfield production in the U.S. as much as regulations and environmental capacity can support.  I don’t know what the limit of the Smithfield production would be, but I would guess that it will be met before the Chinese pork shortfall is ended.

So that would be all of pork that even a greatly expanded Smithfield can produce going to China by rail and sea, while other U.S. producers take up the slack and fill in the missing U.S. production from Smithfield.    

That is pure speculation and seems to be largely a rationalization for your distaste for a US corporation being bought by a Chinese one.

 

No it is not pure speculation, but I am connecting some dots, and in those areas it is indeed my opinion or speculation.  I have read a lot of articles on this acquisition, and most of what I said is presented in those various articles either as a documented fact or as their opinion.  They connect dots too.  And what is wrong with speculation?  Everybody does it.  I find the acquisition interesting for its many tentacles of business and marketing principles.  I believe it is unprecedented, and I am not sure if anybody completely comprehends all of the implications of the deal.

If you think that it seems that what I said is largely a rationalization for my distaste for an American company being bought by a Chinese company, then that is your perception, but it is not accurate.  And I also have to wonder what you are implying by that comment.   Why would I have distaste for an American company being bought by a Chinese company?   

I would prefer not to have jobs go to China, but I don’t blame the Chinese.  It is a national policy issue for the U.S.  But in any case, the Chinese buying companies in the U.S. is entirely different than U.S. jobs being outsourced to China.  The results are entirely different.  I could not care less if China bought every business in the U.S.  They would still have to use U.S. labor, and follow U.S. regulations.  If the Chinese were to invest their wealth in U.S. industry, it would spur expansion and job creation in the U.S.  But why would they do that when they can invest for a better return in their own economy?  That question is what makes this acquisition so interesting.        

    

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, June 9, 2013 12:19 PM

This thread has been a real learning experience for me.

First, here's some detail on 2012 US pork exports.  Last year, 23% of US pork production was exported.  China was the 3rd largest importer of US pork in terms of tonnage.  They received 431,145 metric tons of US pork.  I equate that to 22,631 containers loaded at 42,000 pounds per container.

http://www.usmef.org/downloads/Pork-2003-to-2012.pdf

So shipping US pork to China, Japan, S. Korea, Mexico, etc. is nothing new.

On the surface this appears to be nothing more than a free trade, free market, free will transaction.  A company headquartered in Hong Kong has concluded that it can make some more money by importing more US pork for Chinese consumption.  They could do this in various ways, but they decided it was best to just buy the largest US pork producer.   The US producer wasn't doing all that well financially and agreed to the deal.

If this remains a free market situation everybody will benefit.  The Chinese who buy US pork will experience a net gain in welfare otherwise they won't make the purchase.  The Americans who raise and sell the pork will also experience a net gain in welfare otherwise they won't make the sale.  That's on the surface.  Below the surface, well I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that there is anything below the surface.    

And that was the learning experience for me.  I was totally surprised by many of the responses on this thread.  Some posters just refused to accept the concept that this is a straight up free market deal.  The US has pork, the Chinese people want more pork.  Let's make a deal.  But some folks just cannot accept that.  I'm not sure why they can't accept that, but I'm glad I learned that they can't.

Getting back to the railroad opportunity, which was my original point;  US pork production is centered in and around Iowa.  That's a long way from any port.  As pork exports to China increase, which is the whole point of this transaction, the railroads will have a great opportunity to haul the containers from the point of production to the ports.  If they play the right cards.  Hopefully, they will.

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, June 9, 2013 12:50 PM

greyhounds

This thread has been a real learning experience for me.

First, here's some detail on 2012 US pork exports.  Last year, 23% of US pork production was exported.  China was the 3rd largest importer of US pork in terms of tonnage.  They received 431,145 metric tons of US pork.  I equate that to 22,631 containers loaded at 42,000 pounds per container.

http://www.usmef.org/downloads/Pork-2003-to-2012.pdf

So shipping US pork to China, Japan, S. Korea, Mexico, etc. is nothing new.

On the surface this appears to be nothing more than a free trade, free market, free will transaction.  A company headquartered in Hong Kong has concluded that it can make some more money by importing more US pork for Chinese consumption.  They could do this in various ways, but they decided it was best to just buy the largest US pork producer.   The US producer wasn't doing all that well financially and agreed to the deal.

If this remains a free market situation everybody will benefit.  The Chinese who buy US pork will experience a net gain in welfare otherwise they won't make the purchase.  The Americans who raise and sell the pork will also experience a net gain in welfare otherwise they won't make the sale.  That's on the surface.  Below the surface, well I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that there is anything below the surface.    

And that was the learning experience for me.  I was totally surprised by many of the responses on this thread.  Some posters just refused to accept the concept that this is a straight up free market deal.  The US has pork, the Chinese people want more pork.  Let's make a deal.  But some folks just cannot accept that.  I'm not sure why they can't accept that, but I'm glad I learned that they can't.

Getting back to the railroad opportunity, which was my original point;  US pork production is centered in and around Iowa.  That's a long way from any port.  As pork exports to China increase, which is the whole point of this transaction, the railroads will have a great opportunity to haul the containers from the point of production to the ports.  If they play the right cards.  Hopefully, they will.

Ken;  I agree with you [mirabile visu!!]  and have also found the progression of thoughts 'interesting" to say the least in the search for hidden motives.  Seems like pretty straight forward market economics.  
Iowa has been the center of US pork production because, in part at least, it is where the feed is from.  However, if exports increase sufficiently, the market may lead to some production moving to the west coast, closer to the ports, since it is probably cheaper to transport corn than pork 2000 miles.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 9, 2013 1:31 PM

Nobody is looking for hidden motives.  That makes it sound so sinister and conspiratorial.  What may appear to be a search for hidden motives may instead be simply highlighting facts that are not apparent to everyone.  This may very well be a free trade, free market, free will transaction.  But I am not sure where the boundaries of that definition lie. 

Let’s get down to specifics.  Give me an example of what would not be a free trade, free market, free will transaction.  And show me what has been said in this thread that would indicate a refusal to believe that this is a free trade, free market, free will transaction.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, June 9, 2013 3:52 PM

schlimm
Ken;  I agree with you [mirabile visu!!]  and have also found the progression of thoughts 'interesting" to say the least in the search for hidden motives.  Seems like pretty straight forward market economics.  
Iowa has been the center of US pork production because, in part at least, it is where the feed is from.  However, if exports increase sufficiently, the market may lead to some production moving to the west coast, closer to the ports, since it is probably cheaper to transport corn than pork 2000 miles.

At the risk of ruining our mirabile visu moment, I don't see pork production moving to the west coast.

I takes 7.7 pounds of grain to create one pound of pork.  So you'd have to ship 7.7 times as much tonnage.  It may be cheaper to ship a pound of grain than a pound of pork, but you have to ship much more grain.  And those grain cars would return to the Midwest empty.  2,000 empty miles would have to be covered by the freight rate on grain to the west coast.

Conversely, an empty refrigerated container that needs to be moved eastward  from the west coast can be loaded with all kinds of good things to eat.  Such as lettuce, broccoli, carrots, etc.  California does produce almost half of the fresh fruits and vegetables for the US.   (And export to eastern Canada.)   Washington state produces 59% of the apples.  Idaho and Washington produce about one half of the potatoes.  Loading the equipment both ways does produce a lot of cost savings.  Pork west, potatoes east.  Meat and potatoes.  Money on the bottom line.

If it made economic sense to process hogs on the west coast there would be some plants there.  People out west do eat pork. As it is, there is only one hog processing plant of any significant size on the west coast.  That would be Clougherty (Hormel owned) at Vernon, CA.  I show it as having a modest capacity of 7,300 head per day - not near enough for the population.  (Figure 144 pounds of useable pork product out of each head.)

They've built their "Farmer John's" brand around being locally produced.  They scored big 40 years ago when they came out with "Dodger Dogs" and became the supplier of hot dogs for the Dodger games.  The "locally produced" familiar brand is worth something in the southwest, but it won't play in China.  The hogs for Clougherty aren't raised in California.  They come in live from out of state.  This used to be one of the few remaining livestock moves on US railroads.  (UP from Nebraska).  But now they source live hogs from Arizona and other western states.  I'd guess Hormel sees more value from the local brand than the extra cost of  processing the hogs in California.

Anyway, there is a significant movement of animal protein to the west coast from the Midwest and the south.  (Pork, beef and chicken.)  The truckers who move this come back from the west coast with produce.  It is quite irritating to me that the railroads don't go after this market.  It will be even more irritating if the railroads don't grab the increased pork exports to China.

 

 

 

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:19 PM

As Ernie Banks used to say,  "Pugnemus duo!"     What you say on pork makes a lot of sense, with good illustrations of why.  Thank you.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:36 PM

     There's a couple of other reasons why hog production won't quickly move to the west coast.   First, hog production does require water.  Second, it produces a lot of hog manure.  Mass quantities of pig poop on the west coast would raise some enviromental concerns.  There is a good use for it though.  It makes good fertilizer, for things like corn, that hogs eat.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Sunday, June 9, 2013 5:21 PM

Murphy Siding

     There's a couple of other reasons why hog production won't quickly move to the west coast.   First, hog production does require water.  Second, it produces a lot of hog manure.  Mass quantities of pig poop on the west coast would raise some enviromental concerns.  There is a good use for it though.  It makes good fertilizer, for things like corn, that hogs eat.

Water: water is not in plentiful supply in the West. Indeed, the people of Las Vegas are of the opinion that the people in central-southwest Utah should let the Nevadans have some of their water. The Utahns say, "No!" In some areas of Utah, planting of greenery that requires very little water is encouraged--and in some cities people who prefer not to water their lawns are harassed.

Smell: there are several hog farms in Utah, and the people who live near them are unhappy when the wind blows from the hog farms towards their homes. Certainly, the people who live near any location of a new hog farm would be unhappy.

 

Johnny

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 9, 2013 5:43 PM

Deggesty

Water: water is not in plentiful supply in the West.

Smell: there are several hog farms in Utah, and the people who live near them are unhappy when the wind blows from the hog farms towards their homes. Certainly, the people who live near any location of a new hog farm would be unhappy.

What is the practical limit to pork production in the U.S.?  There is only so much water, land, and air.  How much added production is needed to feed the Chinese market opened up by the acquisition of Smithfield?  Would tripling U.S. production be enough?  Do we have the natural resources to triple production?

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, June 9, 2013 7:45 PM

Bucyrus

 

What is the practical limit to pork production in the U.S.?  There is only so much water, land, and air.  How much added production is needed to feed the Chinese market opened up by the acquisition of Smithfield?  Would tripling U.S. production be enough?  Do we have the natural resources to triple production?


 

Air?  The extra hogs are going to use up all the air?

Hog production will increase to meet (meat?) the extra demand until the marginal revenue equals the marginal cost.  It's an economic limit, not a "practical" limit.  Resources in the US will be diverted and brought into production to meet the increased demand for hogs.  This will include employing more people.  (veterinarians, truck drivers, farm workers, hog killers, hopefully railroaders, etc.)  It will also involve bringing marginal land into agricultural production. 

This will continue until the marginal cost of production on the last extra hogs produced equals the revenue that can be realized from those extra hogs.  That's the limit.  The marginal cost will go up with increased production.  

At some price a Chinese consumer will decide that US pork cost too much and take a pass.  That will be the point of "Peak Pork", or, as you call it the "Practical Limit".  

Just let the markets work.  Things tend to work out better that way.

 

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:03 PM

greyhounds

Bucyrus

 

What is the practical limit to pork production in the U.S.?  There is only so much water, land, and air.  How much added production is needed to feed the Chinese market opened up by the acquisition of Smithfield?  Would tripling U.S. production be enough?  Do we have the natural resources to triple production?


 

Air?  The extra hogs are going to use up all the air?

{snip}

 

hee hee hee... you ain't never lived downwind from a hog lot!  Ick!Wilted Flower

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:11 PM

Semper Vaporo

 

 

hee hee hee... you ain't never lived downwind from a hog lot!  Ick!Wilted Flower

Oh, I grew up in hog land.  They called it the smell of money. 

There is a great picture in the book "Chicago and Illinois Midland" of a passenger train ready to depart Peoria with a carload of hogs cut in ahead of the two car "first class" consist.  I grew up in a very small town served by the C&IM thinking Peoria was the ultimate big city.  So I know the smell. 

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: North Dakota
  • 9,592 posts
Posted by BroadwayLion on Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:27 PM

Deggesty
Smell: there are several hog farms in Utah, and the people who live near them are unhappy when the wind blows from the hog farms towards their homes. Certainly, the people who live near any location of a new hog farm would be unhappy.

Any new hog farm requires a sanitation system that rivals that of many small cities.

ROAR

The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.

Here there be cats.                                LIONS with CAMERAS

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:40 PM

I only used the reference to water, land, and air as an environmental metaphor, and was wondering if it limits production at some point.  I assume that the premise behind the Smithfield acquisition implies a very large production increase, maybe several times the current rate of production.  I would think that the price would naturally come down when ramping up to much higher production levels. 

So, if the price falls as Chinese demand is supplied by rising production, I don’t see how price is going to be what limits Chinese demand.  Thus, the only limit to what we can supply is what the natural resources can sustain.  I have no idea if we would ever get to that limit.  I thought somebody might know. 

I agree that a little farm smell is not going to be a showstopper.  But, as I understand it, Shangui is 33 times larger in production than Smithfield and Shanghui can’t meet demand.  I don’t know how short Shanghui is, but if you doubled Smithfield, it would only increase Shanghui production by about 6%. 

Here is an interesting article that says many theories are being advanced to explain the Smithfield deal.  After exploring some of those theories, it concludes that the real reason for the deal is that the environmental pollution in China is so hampering food production that it is cheaper to buy foreign food producers than it is to clean up the pollution in China.  If that theory is true, then it shows that China has indeed reached the limits of its water, land, and air. 

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/04/smithfield-china/

From the article:

“The real story behind this transaction is that far-sighted Chinese entrepreneurs fully understand that, because pollution has contaminated major parts of China's food chain, their future profit opportunities lie in buying the entire food-production process abroad. Bagging Smithfield, in this sense, is not about getting its hogs, pork-processing technology, or even premium brand. It is really about owning access to America's safe farmland and clean water supplies.

This strategic calculation is truly brilliant. Based on official Chinese data, more than two-thirds of its waterways are polluted. A sample study of farmland conducted in the late 1990s showed 10% contaminated with heavy metal. A three-year national survey of soil conditions completed in 2010 must have yielded such alarming data that the Ministry of Environmental Protection declared the data a "state secret."

Given the fact that cleaning up land and waterways despoiled by heavy metal and other carcinogens requires huge amounts of money and takes a long time, buying food producers that own their land and have access to safe water supplies is a far more attractive proposition.

If this analysis is correct, the Shuanghui purchase of Smithfield is a harbinger of things to come. Pressured by the catastrophic consequences of environmental degradation, Chinese food producers will have no choice but set their sights abroad. No doubt, this will present great business opportunities for many, but a rapid increase in Chinese acquisitions of food companies overseas will almost certainly create tensions between China and the rest of the world. Sadly, there are no good policies in place to address this challenge.”

 

Why would a rapid increase in Chinese acquisitions of food companies overseas create tensions between China and the rest of the world, as the article says will almost certainly be the case?  It is only a matter of free trade, free market, and free will transactions.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, June 9, 2013 10:18 PM

I have no idea why the author thinks this will increase tensions.  It makes no sense and the author doesn't explain why.  Here's a good thought:  "When trade goods cross borders soldiers don't."

We're way off topic here.  But I do work with several people who immigrated from China.  These immigrants aren't "The Wretched Refuse of Your Teeming Shore" as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.  They're highly educated competent people.  They were chosen for employment by a world class company because they were identified as the best candidate after an extensive selection process.   They're raising their children as US citizens and we're fortunate that they're here.

People of this caliber didn't leave their homes and families because things were better in China.  We know there are all kinds of problems in China.  But that doesn't mean that a Chinese company shouldn't buy a US company.  If it's mutually beneficial for both the US and China to move US produced pork to China, just haul the freight.

I cannot think of a better outcome.  The Chinese get high quality safe food.  The US producers get needed money.  And the US railroads get some more freight to haul.  Why does anyone have a problem with this?

 

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
  • 2,148 posts
Posted by rrnut282 on Monday, June 10, 2013 7:46 AM

greyhounds

Semper Vaporo

 

 

hee hee hee... you ain't never lived downwind from a hog lot!  Ick!Wilted Flower

Oh, I grew up in hog land.  They called it the smell of money.   We call it the same thing, too.

There is a great picture in the book "Chicago and Illinois Midland" of a passenger train ready to depart Peoria with a carload of hogs cut in ahead of the two car "first class" consist.  I grew up in a very small town served by the C&IM thinking Peoria was the ultimate big city.  So I know the smell. 


 
putting hogs in front of the First Class cars?  What was the conductor thinking? 
Mike (2-8-2)
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, June 10, 2013 8:13 AM

greyhounds, you said it beautifully!

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Monday, June 10, 2013 8:59 AM

greyhounds
Below the surface, well I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that there is anything below the surface

Researchers often "steer" their results based upon what they hoped to find, perhaps that has become a factor here for you as well?  My thoughts are not that anything sinister or hidden is part of the equation. I simply believe that those who cannot see higher pork prices for North American consumers as the outcome of this little "free market" end run,  are  either misguided or fooling themselves.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 10, 2013 9:32 AM

greyhounds
We're way off topic here.  But I do work with several people who immigrated from China.  These immigrants aren't "The Wretched Refuse of Your Teeming Shore" as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.  They're highly educated competent people.  They were chosen for employment by a world class company because they were identified as the best candidate after an extensive selection process.   They're raising their children as US citizens and we're fortunate that they're here.

People of this caliber didn't leave their homes and families because things were better in China.  We know there are all kinds of problems in China.  But that doesn't mean that a Chinese company shouldn't buy a US company.  If it's mutually beneficial for both the US and China to move US produced pork to China, just haul the freight.

I cannot think of a better outcome.  The Chinese get high quality safe food.  The US producers get needed money.  And the US railroads get some more freight to haul.  Why does anyone have a problem with this?

I agree with all of that, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any point I have made in this thread.  Your response makes it seem that you believe that my questioning of this deal amounts to bigotry and a racial prejudice against the Chinese. 

I never said nor implied that a Chinese company should not buy an American company.  I have not even said anything whatsoever that would indicate that I oppose the deal or any part of it.  If I believed that, I would come right out and say it.  Perhaps you are interpreting my comments and questions as innuendo meaning that I oppose the deal.  A lot of people use innuendo to avoid coming right out and saying what they mean.  I don't do that. 

All I have done here is pose questions about how the deal will play out in terms of market economics.  There are dozens of articles on the Internet that ask the same type of questions and search for the same answers.  Many of those articles talk about how people are missing this point or that point in their analysis.  Everybody is asking what the deal “means.”     

You brought up the topic of the deal and the potential it has for increasing rail traffic.  My general conclusion (if anybody took the time to understand it) is that rail traffic will be increased even further than what is obvious on the surface.  And I have made an effort to explain it in the clearest terms possible.  It has nothing to do with hating the Chinese.     

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, June 10, 2013 11:20 AM

rrnut282

greyhounds

Semper Vaporo

 

 

hee hee hee... you ain't never lived downwind from a hog lot!  Ick!Wilted Flower

Oh, I grew up in hog land.  They called it the smell of money.   We call it the same thing, too.

There is a great picture in the book "Chicago and Illinois Midland" of a passenger train ready to depart Peoria with a carload of hogs cut in ahead of the two car "first class" consist.  I grew up in a very small town served by the C&IM thinking Peoria was the ultimate big city.  So I know the smell. 


 
putting hogs in front of the First Class cars?  What was the conductor thinking? 

The conductor was probably following the proper procedure for placing cars in a mixed train: freight cars in front of passenger cars.

Johnny

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Monday, June 10, 2013 11:21 AM

Bucyrus
All I have done here is pose questions about how the deal will play out in terms of market economics.

{sarcasm} Just for the good ol boy network, perhaps there IS a sinister motive? Maybe the Chinese have figured out that we will never make good on our debt, and have decided to hedge their position by cornering our food production?{/sarcasm}

$20.00 /bag for pork rinds? SAY IT AIN'T SO!!Devil

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Monday, June 10, 2013 3:58 PM

The regular ones or the spicy hot ones?

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, June 10, 2013 4:01 PM

The new ones, of course,  with sweet/sour sauce baked in!  [witless effort at sarcasm]

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Monday, June 10, 2013 4:22 PM

As long as they don’t mess with the spicy ones…basic good ole boy snack food.

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Monday, June 10, 2013 5:30 PM

Better get used to the fake, wheat puffs that are seasoned like pork rinds. Chef

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Monday, June 10, 2013 8:34 PM

No, no…say it isn’t so….

What will we eat while drinking Lone Star and driving our pickup trucks?Stick out tongue

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, June 10, 2013 9:14 PM

     Our local John Morrel plant still has tracks leading in through the front gate.  The tracks seem to lead into the older part of the packing plant complex.  Right next door, is the $10 million refrigerator plant that our city gave to Morrels the last time they threatened to leave town.  How hard would it be to gear up and start shipping out by rail?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy