Ranchers.net Bull Session

China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Things that come up in the daily operation of a ranch.
User avatar
Soapweed
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 16077
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: northern Nebraska Sandhills

China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby Soapweed » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:26 pm


WB
Member
Member
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:16 pm
Location: North Central S.D.

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby WB » Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:45 am

Not sure what this really means as China has a ban on racotopamine. I have not seen or heard any details on the aforementioned agreement. My guess is that their racto ban will not be lifted and very little U.S. beef is destined for China. The market reaction yesterday reveals what traders think this means.

mrj
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4503
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:19 am
Location: SD

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby mrj » Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:54 am

Interesting, but wonder what China 'wants' in return?

WB, can you refresh us about ractopamine? I've forgotten what it is or why it is used. Does China use it as a trade barrier, or what? They don't seem to be 'lily white' on what the put into food, so surprises me anything would be an issue if they want our beef.

mrj

WB
Member
Member
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:16 pm
Location: North Central S.D.

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby WB » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:08 am

I wish more beef producers were more familiar with ractopamine. It is fed to cattle the last 30-40 of the finishing diet. The current product is called Optaflexx. In hogs it is called Paylean.

China bought a whole hog production system in the US from farrow to rail, lock stock and barrel so they could isolate their product for importation into their country. So I don't think the Chinese are using it as a trade barrier.

I have talked with several professionals in the meat industry who say that Optaflexx fed cattle have poor eating qualities such as bland rubbery tasting beef. It is one of the reasons I believe beef domestic demand is suffering.

User avatar
Mike
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 28459
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:05 pm
Location: Montgomery, Al

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby Mike » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:30 am

This article, in a way, seems to be a promotional ad for TPP.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

Angus 62
Member
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 7:32 am
Location: Colorado

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby Angus 62 » Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:11 am

Gee, isn't it funny that the cattle market tanks while TPP is being fought over. Of course the appeal for added export markets at such a time is great. Except that it doesn't take into account how similar "free trade" agreements helped get us here in the first place. The US has for years been a net beef IMPORTER.

Traveler
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4266
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:21 pm

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby Traveler » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:06 pm

Since threads on here don't seem real forum specific, and why, exactly, can't trade deals be made without TPP? Apparently this one will be. Maybe the idea of President Trump makes them nervous, and they figure they need to get ahead of it to save face and maintain some appearance that they are in control.


viewtopic.php?f=6&t=76267

http://m.beefmagazine.com/blog/tpp-more ... trol-trade

And this is Beef Magazine.....

Is TPP more about control than trade?
by Alan Newport
Alan Newport
Aug 30, 2016
The Trans Pacific Partnership has been debated for quite some time, with arguments on both sides of the issue. Is it good for beef trade?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been pushed for months now by many agricultural groups as a great boon to all ag industries. But after months of study I have concluded it is far more damaging than beneficial.

First, it's my estimation the actual gains appear small and slow to come. An example is in this USDA publication which specifically mentions trade with Japan. It says Japan will eliminate duties on 74% of its beef and beef product imports within 16 years, with substantial cuts to the remaining tariffs.

Note the length of the timetable, however. Most of the Japanese tariffs are to be reduced significantly or eliminated within 13-16 years. If we think of this as an investment such as we would make on the farm or ranch, is that a good one? How many business investments do you make that don't pay off for 16 years? Even most cows supposedly pay off by the sixth year.

More importantly, Japan has the right under TPP to maintain restrictive import quotas on at least 33 classifications of agricultural goods, so this is no true clearing of the deck.

I wonder what the Japanese agreements might net for U.S. beef producers, considering Japan was recently listed as the largest importer of US beef products at $1.6 billion.

In August just gone by, USDA said farmers (everyone below the packer) were getting 42% of the retail beef value and that percentage is dropping steadily. In addition, the wholesale-to-retail spread has been increasing steadily from about $1.20 per pound in 2000 to $2.50 per pound in 2015, and the farm-to-wholesale spread has been and continues a flat trend, varying from 25-50 cents.

So if we assume for a moment that TPP supporters and the USDA are using retail values for beef, then that 42% of retail price would be $672 million total value for farmers. If we increased our take by an average of perhaps 15%, assuming that might be a reasonable improvement in our pricing after tariffs were gone or fully reduced, then we might see an additional $100 million here at home, distributed in typical crocodile-feeding-frenzy fashion among the three sectors of the beef industry. With USDA's count of 915,000 beef farms, that's about a dollar per operation, or with 30 million cows, that's about $3.30 per cow.


But I expect that is wishful thinking, as the top dogs usually eat more and let only the smallest scraps filter down the food chain; remember the shrinking farm-to-retail and farm-to-wholesale spreads.

Worse however, are these facts: TPP robs the ability of nations, including the United States, to make their own deals, and it puts their fates in the hands of international tribunals, and that it gives immense power to corporations to control the trade decisions of nations through lawsuits and other means.

First and foremost, TPP is an attack on our sovereignty. This means U.S. citizens are the only people in the world who were truly put in charge of our own affairs. Sadly, we have squandered our rights and frittered away our power, handing it over to the elected and bureaucratic megalomaniacs who we foolishly call "leaders," and to the big money that buys them. All these people are in cahoots to give themselves the ultimate power and control. It's Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in real life.

An excellent article in The American Thinker last fall noted the 5,544-page TPP document contains seven things which have little to do with trade and everything to do with world government and cronyism:

A legislative body superior to Congress
A vehicle to pass Obama’s climate-change treaty
Increased legal immigration
Reduced patent protection for U.S. pharmaceuticals
Quotas on U.S. agricultural exports
Increased currency manipulation
Reduced U.S. power and self rule

An example is in Chapter 10, which calls for the opening of U.S. borders to foreign service companies that want to bring foreign workers with them to provide services in the U.S. Chapter 12 calls for the opening of U.S. borders to any foreign professionals they bring in. Chapter 12, "Temporary entry for business persons," provides that visas must be supplied to the professionals being brought into the country by these service companies and that they must be allowed to bring their spouse and children with them.

But under the appendices to Chapter 12, almost all of the other countries participating in the TPP limit immigration to certain professions and limit the length of stay of these "temporary" workers. For example, Japan limits entry to businessmen, specific professions and to technicians who have the equivalent of a Japanese associate's degree. It also limits the amount of time that they can stay in the country to five years. No such appendix appears for the United States.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said just days ago only five of 30 chapters deal with trade, and an examination of the table of contents and chapter summaries shows this is a fair assessment. The rest of TPP regulates an unimaginable number things, including the internet.

Paul Craig Roberts, an economist, journalist and former assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy for President Reagan says one of the primary functions of TPP is to set global corporations above the laws of the nations where they operate.

William F. Jasper in The New American said much the same: "The real agenda behind the TPP is to consolidate and centralize economic and political power. The main organizing entity behind the TPP agenda is the secretive Trilateral Commission ... intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States."

If you want to read more about TPP, remember everyone you read is biased and you'll have to filter through all that and try to discern the truth. Notice, too, that I put a link to the actual TPP document at the beginning of this blog, should you want to read through more than 5,500 pages.

Come to think of it, that should be reason enough reject the agreement.

The article in The American Thinker I quoted earlier says, "The only truly redeeming option of the TPP is that we can easily get out of it ... any country can withdraw from the agreement, simply by giving six months notice."

But I have a better idea. Let's demand Congress throw the damned thing in the incinerator where it belongs. Then we can work on real trade deals instead of setting up international governments.

More TPP links you might want to read:

http://www.tppcoalition.org/about/

(This list is corporate entities given early access to TPP)

http://www.flushthetpp.org/tpp-corporate-insiders/

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Tran ... eement-TPP

Political donations to US congressional members:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -track-tpp

redrobin
Member
Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:25 pm
Location: arkansas

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby redrobin » Sat Sep 24, 2016 5:19 am

I havnt read it but heard China wants traceability. That's a hoot coming from the land of melamine. I don't know who it is that wants traceability but I bet it's not China.

Brad S
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 2875
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:36 am
Location: west of Soapweed

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby Brad S » Sun Sep 25, 2016 5:27 pm

That's incisive analysis traveler. Fundamentally, most of us are free traders, but we can trade without giving up sovereignty.

User avatar
Silver
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 5060
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Location: BC

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby Silver » Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:56 pm

Brad S wrote:That's incisive analysis traveler. Fundamentally, most of us are free traders, but we can trade without giving up sovereignty.


Free trade is a fine idea in principle. But it turns out free trade does not necessarily mean fair trade.

mrj
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 4503
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:19 am
Location: SD

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby mrj » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:57 am

Hasn't isolationism been shown to be a disadvantage to us in the USA, given we have a miniscule population compared with the rest of the world?

Don't we need to imports some lean beef so long as we produce so much fat in order to get the superior high quality tender beef our customers from ACROSS THE WORLD want from us? And, don't forget that we produce far more beef with fewer cows in this nation than in the past.

Add the fact that communication is virtually instantaneous to any place in the world, movement of most trade goods gets faster than ever (except maybe the US Postal System in rural areas!) and most of us LIKE quite a few products we get from other nations.

Now, if we could find simpler ways to level the playing fields than trade agreements, more fair to all concerned, and then level the tax rates we pay in the USA.......maybe we would create marketing Utopia. Personally, I'm not holding my breath till it happens.

mrj




)

User avatar
Mike
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 28459
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:05 pm
Location: Montgomery, Al

Re: China announces in will lift ban on U.S. beef

Postby Mike » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:24 am

Hasn't isolationism been shown to be a disadvantage to us in the USA, given we have a miniscule population compared with the rest of the world?


Not when it comes to labor. Here we are talking about making the minimum wage $15 per hour and some countries still basically have slave wages. How do we compete in the world market while paying up to 100 times the labor costs for manufacturing an item?

Don't we need to imports some lean beef so long as we produce so much fat in order to get the superior high quality tender beef our customers from ACROSS THE WORLD want from us? And, don't forget that we produce far more beef with fewer cows in this nation than in the past.


This is absolutely absurd. It takes as much as 6 times the energy fed to produce fat as it does lean muscle in cattle. Too much fat produced here and buying beef from other countries to offset it falls flat on it's face. Too much fat is a poorly designed genetic pool and a lack of monitoring in the feeding process, along with an inferior beef grading system. There are feedlots out there that can predict at delivery the cost of gain going forward until finish, length of time to finish, and market the cattle on an individual daily basis, instead of selling a whole pen full at one time where we know all won't finish equally and/or at the same time.

One way to eliminate a lot of fat is for producers to utilize the good feedyards, retain ownership on the grid and know what type product they are producing. Until they get paid significantly less for an overabundance of fat, breeding decisions will not change.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-new ... ility.html
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.


Return to “Ranch Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 6 guests