The nature of the debate that has swirled around the proposed partnership between Silver Fern Farms and PGG Wrightson says plenty about the problems that have plagued the meat industry.
The grim reality is the current livestock procurement-based business model is broken, the industry is on its knees and there is just one alternative model on the table.
Arguments from some quarters about the need to retain farmer ownership and control of meat processing and marketing co-operatives pale into insignificance given the nature and size of the problems the industry faces.
Those problems are, in a large part, because of the apathetic way many sheep and beef farmers have treated their shareholding.
In December 2002 at the height of the bitter, costly and projected PPCS takeover of Richmond, and despite agitation from North Island shareholders in Richmond, just 30 PPCS shareholders turned up to the company's annual meeting in Dunedin.
The inference was that they did not care enough to come and grill their directors or executives about a transaction which would later cause serious economic problems for the company.
Compare that with the way Fonterra shareholders hold their directors to account.
Sheep and beef farmer apathy has led to weak governance and strong executive of the two meat co-operatives, Silver Fern Farms (SFF, formerly PPCS) and Alliance.
Monday is a watershed day for the $4 billion export industry.
SFF shareholders will vote whether to change the shape of the industry forever by agreeing to form a partnership with PGG Wrightson (PGG-W) or, by saying no, to carry on largely as before.
A partnership with PGG-W is the only alternative on the table, despite claims by some that a Meat Industry Action Group proposal to create an entity encompassing 80% of the meat industry is a possibility.
The reality is that train, and its solution, left in April when SFF effectively scuttled Alliance's meat mega merger, saying the proposal had changed and its viability been put at risk by companies being allowed to keep beef outside the new entity.
Heightened antagonism between SFF and Alliance since then, and diminishing trust between companies in general, means it would take years to resurrect.
Time is something the industry does not have.
Immediate action is needed to halt the drain of hundreds of farmers to dairying or dairy support, a trend that is undermining the viability of the sheep meat industry.
This will only happen by improving the sector's profitability and viability.
There is general agreement that more of the same will not achieve that.
Business professionals say they cannot believe farmers would contemplate rejecting the partnership, and they fear that doing nothing will further weaken an already undercapitalised SFF and eventually force it to sell assets.
Not only would SFF get a $220 million cash injection to lower debt, strengthen its balance sheet and reduce from years to months the roll-out of new processing technology, but it would get a huge injection of intellectual capital and experience from PGG-W directors Alan and Baird McConnon, Tim Miles and Craig Norgate.
This expertise in integrated supply chains and fresh ideas, they say, cannot be bought.
SFF says the $220 million will save it about $20 million a year in interest costs and allow it to develop new markets away from the traditional United Kingdom and European markets, which will reduce the wild price fluctuations that have plagued returns.
Well-meaning farmers have traditionally dominated board tables, but in a modern business world there is a difference between representation and governance.
Dealing with shareholder complaints about delays getting stock killed differs from strategy on developing new markets.
Many farmers acknowledge the importance of commercial acumen to sound governance and there have been moves to shift the boardroom balance from farmers to business people.
Farmers are correct in saying the proposed partnership and resulting integrated supply chain are untried and unproven, but PGG-W has sufficient faith to take a gamble with an investment few investors, including farmers, would be prepared or indeed able to make.
Returns on investments in the meat industry have traditionally been poor, but cash of this magnitude would be hard to source in an era of tight credit and risk-averse investors.
Farmers are suspicious of PGG-W's motives and indeed some feel its chairman Craig Norgate has too great an influence in the agricultural sector, with investments in rural servicing, wool and velvet.
SFF has laboured the point that safeguards were in place to ensure farmers retain control, but farmers' suspicions remain, a concern that Alliance chairman Owen Poole has seized upon.
Shareholders are understandably worried about the potential conflict in a partnership between a co-operative originally created to kill and market its shareholders' stock - of all shapes and sizes, as and when required - and PGG-W, with its commercial focus, which will take profits at the expense of farmers.
Mr Norgate's line that he wants to increase the size of the cake, so both the company and farmers see returns, has been hard for some to swallow and they remain unconvinced.
This suspicion has been heightened this year, with many sheep and beef farmers recording their lowest profits in decades.
There has also been criticism that SFF is a weak marketer, they have not consistently paid enough for their stock, and that they pay premiums to volume suppliers.
SFF has countered that suppliers do not commit all their stock to the company, making it difficult to plan, and that they switch allegiance to another company for a few dollars more.
Part of the problem has been the minimal shareholding demanded by co-operatives, starving the company of capital and discouraging supplier loyalty.
SFF shareholders have a maximum of 17,500 $1 shares, which retain their $1 face value when surrendered.
SFF proposes regular reviews, which - as with Fonterra - would see the share value grow.
The debate between SFF and Alliance has been one of brinkmanship and of securing the high ground.
Last year, SFF withdrew from merger talks after Alliance valued the debt-laden company at virtually nothing.
This year, SFF pulled the rug out from under Alliance and its mega meat merger, or concept, saying the rules had changed.
The start of SFF talks with PGG-W roughly coinciding with its withdrawal from concept discussions has added to the antagonism.
It is not a happy relationship.
Alliance has been sidelined by the SFF-PGG-W deal and its chairman Owen Poole has used recent meetings with shareholders to decry the PGG-W deal, using language and making claims many shareholders have said they found inappropriate.
Mr Poole, a former chief executive of the company, has railed against the loss of farmer control.
He told Alliance shareholders the company had a strategy to improve farmers' returns, that it had been doing what SFF was proposing since 1997 and that Alliance had consistently financially outperformed SFF for the past seven years.
But if that is the case, why have Alliance shareholders, like those supplying other companies, been leaving the industry in waves, frustrated at low lamb prices?Mr Poole's intention is clear: he intends going it alone, despite a tide of black and white dairy cows starting to dominate a large chunk of Alliance's Southland sheepmeat catchment.
All meat companies had a bumper year last year because of the high-capital stock kill, and this coming year should also be good as another tranche of sheep farms converts to dairying.
Beyond that, kills will start to fall, reflecting declining ewe numbers, despite near certainty the sheep meat industry is about to enjoy a golden era as demand for protein grows and the exchange rate finally moves in favour of exporters.
But recovery only delays farmers having to address tough questions facing the industry.
If SFF and PGG-W have a Plan B, should Plan A fail to get the required support, then no-one has spoken about it.
The fact remains no-one accepts the status quo is the answer.
