Econ101 said:
Tyson forecast a second-quarter loss and projected fiscal 2006 income of 50 cents to 80 cents per share.
Analysts had been expecting 2006 earnings of $1.07 per share.
Beef lost $64 million for the quarter and executives said in a conference call that the segment is expected to have steeper losses in the second quarter.
"Beef was ugly," John Tyson said.
Tyson president and chief operating officer Dick Bond said higher beef prices are not what they seem.
"Demand is not that good," Bond said. "Prices are high, but supply is what's driving that, not necessarily demand."
The whole article:
http://www.ellinghuysen.com/news/articles/28052.sh
Where did he contradict anything I said? Was production up or down in the last quarter of 2005 and for the year? Beef production and the makeup of that supply are two entirely different conditions. That is way over your head Conman.
Since you will never answer a question truthfully as you most often don't know the answer or you will simply twist and lie I will answer the questions from above for readers.
Beef production for 2005 was ABOVE the previous year as was fourth quarter beef production. Beef demand declined 2.65% for the year of 2005 and 2.98% for the fourth quarter. I stated throughout the year that the squeeze on discretionary income and spending, a result of record energy prices, would limit beef demand and favor the competing meats especially chicken. That is precisely what occurred. Chicken demand increased 5.17% during 2005. When substantially more chicken is consumed at higher prices only Conman would try to convince you that condition does not represent improved demand for that product. But who believes Conman's lies anyway?
When Dick Bond referred to supply the reference was not to total beef production rather to events that limited the supply of choice cattle. First, sustained average high temperatures this summer knocked the grading as much as 33%-40% in Kansas and to a lesser degree in Texas and Nebraska. That is what caused the market to turn up in mid-August when the sustained heat stress manifested itself in lower grading cattle. Second, a severe snow storm hit Nebraska, especially in the central region, in late November. That not only adversely affected the grading of those cattle but also it deferred some of their marketing dates by as much as 6-8 weeks. To a lesser degree the Midwest was also adversely affected by wet and adverse feeding conditions. That said, beef production was still higher in the fourth quarter of 2005 than 2004.
So Conman, how did Dick Bond from Tyson contradict anything that I said? What twist and lie will you dream up this time? Your lack of any real knowledge of the beef industry shows with every post you make. That is truly pathetic.