• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

2017 U.S. Beef Exports Never Better ...

B

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,790
Location
Big Muddy valley
...
U.S. Meat Export Federation CEO Dan Halstrom says beef exports have never been better than they were in 2017.

"Right now it's looking like on the U.S. beef exports we're looking at a record, right around $7.3 billion in sales," Halstrom told Brownfield Ag News at the 2018 National Beef Industry Convention in Phoenix. "On the pork side, while not a value record, more than likely a volume record, so we're excited about that."

Halstrom says improving exports are linked to foreign countries' greater disposable income.

"The economies are growing a lot like ours," said Halstrom. "We're starting to see more and more spending power out there and it's starting to show up in our demand numbers."

2018 is shaping up to be another good year, according to Halstrom, except for his concern about renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which in its current form, has been good for meat exports.

"Mexico and Canada; it's about 30 percent of our beef exports are credited to NAFTA," he said. "On pork, we're closer to 40 percent."
.
Oldtimer would never believe this. :roll:
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
...
U.S. Meat Export Federation CEO Dan Halstrom says beef exports have never been better than they were in 2017.

"Right now it's looking like on the U.S. beef exports we're looking at a record, right around $7.3 billion in sales," Halstrom told Brownfield Ag News at the 2018 National Beef Industry Convention in Phoenix. "On the pork side, while not a value record, more than likely a volume record, so we're excited about that."

Halstrom says improving exports are linked to foreign countries' greater disposable income.

"The economies are growing a lot like ours," said Halstrom. "We're starting to see more and more spending power out there and it's starting to show up in our demand numbers."

2018 is shaping up to be another good year, according to Halstrom, except for his concern about renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which in its current form, has been good for meat exports.

"Mexico and Canada; it's about 30 percent of our beef exports are credited to NAFTA," he said. "On pork, we're closer to 40 percent."
.
Oldtimer would never believe this. :roll:
Click to expand...

You can say that again. :D

It's good news. I wonder if R-calf will publicize it?
 
Why then was there a nearly 2 billion dollar trade DEFICIT (for beef and live cattle) with Mexico and Canada in 2017. Why are cull cows in the 50 cent range? It is dry over a huge area of the country, when cows start coming to town because there is nothing to eat and nowhere to go what will they be, 20 cents? Why is beef that can come from anywhere allowed to be repackaged and labeled "PRODUCT OF USA"?
 
Cull cows are in the 50's because of all the dairy cows being slaughtered. That market is saturated currently.

I do agree with your comment on the beef being called Product of USA.
 
I took last weeks feeder cattle import summary from Mexico last week,18,500hd I times it by 50 weeks and come up with 925,000 divide that by the daily kill in the USA 600,000 hd you have a whole day and a half worth of kill. does that wreck the US market?
Do ranchers in the US make any money growing and feeding those cattle?
 
Still a nearly 2 billion dollar deficit. Like saying I made a million dollars last year, and it only took two million to make it. The huge deficit with Mexico is junk feeder cattle much of what directly competes with slaughter cows. The loss in equity is staggering because no matter how much you think your cows are worth, what they are really worth is what they will sell for by the pound.
 
Producers may find that if they went to breeds with higher lean meat yields that the need to import lean cattle to mix all the trimmings with would decline. As it is, those lean imports actually add value to domestic production.
 
Silver said:
Producers may find that if they went to breeds with higher lean meat yields that the need to import lean cattle to mix all the trimmings with would decline. As it is, those lean imports actually add value to domestic production.
Click to expand...
Too much logic.
 
Silver said:
Producers may find that if they went to breeds with higher lean meat yields that the need to import lean cattle to mix all the trimmings with would decline. As it is, those lean imports actually add value to domestic production.
Click to expand...

If that were entirely correct, wouldn't there be a higher premium paid for leaner cattle, and an offset charged (even more deductions)for poor yielding carcasses?

We already know that it takes twice the $dollars$ to put on a pound of fat vs. lean muscle.

The cattle/beef grading system seems skewed................it's like they're not allowing the market to drive prices..
 
What study or knowledge do you refer to that says it takes twice as many dollars for a pound of fat. I'm interested.
 
redrobin said:
What study or knowledge do you refer to that says it takes twice as many dollars for a pound of fat. I'm interested.
Click to expand...
I thought that was common knowledge. Dr. Lisa Kriese-Anderson at Auburn used to beat this into our heads at every Beef Cattle Improvement Association Meeting & Workshop..

Here's a quick google reference:

Productivity pillar: The goal here is to increase production efficiency by 15 per cent. Fat is added to an animal at a cost of feed roughly 2.5 times that of adding muscle. To make the math simple, if we use a feed efficiency of 5:1 for muscle (12.5:1 for fat), this additional 62.6 million pounds of fat equates to 391,000 tons of grain. It also results in a tremendous amount of both more manure and greenhouse gas. For both industry efficiency and industry sustainability, excess fat is a huge problem.
Click to expand...
 
So a 4 frame fat calf sucking a 3 frame cow grazing native grass in the summer is necessarily less efficient in dollars than a 7 frame Holstein that's been fed hard all his life because the Holstein has less fat?. Fuzzy math. Some animals fatten cheaper than others.
 
All I'm saying is the premiums for better yield grades is not nearly enough. There's not a high correlation between backfat/kidney fat and marbling.

Not understanding your analogy.
 
Mike said:
All I'm saying is the premiums for better yield grades is not nearly enough. There's not a high correlation between backfat/kidney fat and marbling.

Not understanding your analogy.
Click to expand...
how much does it cost to produce a pound of bone?
 
redrobin said:
Mike said:
All I'm saying is the premiums for better yield grades is not nearly enough. There's not a high correlation between backfat/kidney fat and marbling.

Not understanding your analogy.
Click to expand...
how much does it cost to produce a pound of bone?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. But probably it's not something we can change with management. I'll bet Dan Dorn at Decatur County Feedyard would know.

They have a very sophisticated program that runs each calf through the chute on arrival with an x-ray, ultrasound, and body measurements, among other analysis. They run an algorithm that predicts with high accuracy the finish weight, the finish date, how much the feed will cost, how much backfat, (and/or yield grade) carcass weight, profit or loss, etc., etc, About the only thing they can't predict is tenderness.

When you send a load of calves they don't all finish at the same time. Decatur picks them one at the time when they are ripe to go to slaughter. You simply don't waste a lot of money on overfeeding and waste fat.

By the way. That's what feedlots do. They sell feed.


Let me know about that bone thing....................
 

Latest posts

Back
Top