Importing beef from other countries that could be produced in the United States is a benefit to processers and consumers but is a detriment to producers. Increased value from trim does not outwiegh the negative impact of imports on domestic producers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ANSWER ON TRIM
- Thread starter Econ101
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Econ101 said:Importing beef from other countries that could be produced in the United States is a benefit to processers and consumers but is a detriment to producers. Increased value from trim does not outwiegh the negative impact of imports on domestic producers.
Surely, we were pretty much all aware that was your opinion.
Where are the facts or statistics to back it up?
MRJ
N Ellis said:Econ101 said:Importing beef from other countries that could be produced in the United States is a benefit to processers and consumers but is a detriment to producers. Increased value from trim does not outwiegh the negative impact of imports on domestic producers.
Surely, we were pretty much all aware that was your opinion.
Where are the facts or statistics to back it up?
MRJ
MRJ, some people will never believe "facts or statistics". You might do well to do some of that reading I suggested for Jason in economics. You don't have to believe anything if you don't want to.
N Ellis said:Shouldn't the person making the accusations present some basis in fact for their claims? At the least, state that is simply an opinion, rather than making it appear as a statement of fact?
MRJ
MRJ, The argument boils down to whether or not the substitute of the end product outweighs the complement of the import to make the substitute in value to the domestic producers. It has not been shown that this increases market share in comparison to other protein substitutes.
Do I have you confused yet? Just take my answer unless you don't want to.
A
Anonymous
Guest
N Ellis said:BTW, I'm posting from a borrowed computer, hence the "N Ellis" alias.
MRJ
MRJ- Were you the real Nebrusker too?- Kind of becoming like your intitial son with multiple personalities.... :wink: :lol: :lol:
agman
Well-known member
Econ101 said:N Ellis said:Econ101 said:Importing beef from other countries that could be produced in the United States is a benefit to processers and consumers but is a detriment to producers. Increased value from trim does not outwiegh the negative impact of imports on domestic producers.
Surely, we were pretty much all aware that was your opinion.
Where are the facts or statistics to back it up?
MRJ
MRJ, some people will never believe "facts or statistics". You might do well to do some of that reading I suggested for Jason in economics. You don't have to believe anything if you don't want to.
Most people will believe facts and statistics. It is opinions from you that are not to be believed as they are a product of your lack of knowledge of the beef industry and business in general. BTW, trim imports do not harm producrs as you suggest. Your conspiratorial mind cannot grasp such a real world concept so I won't bother to explain.
Rather than citing books for others to read you need to learn something about the beef industry and the economic common sense and reality of "comparative advantage". I beleive that concept was set forth in 1817 in "The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation" by David Ricardo.
Who wants to raise the beef that you need to add trim to??????????? What is Tyson paying on the grid for steers that grade standard?????
My point is our resources in the US tend to lend themselves to raising cattle with the trim on them. If you don't put the pounds on, you are short changing yourself,
I guess that was my opinion, lol,
PPRM
My point is our resources in the US tend to lend themselves to raising cattle with the trim on them. If you don't put the pounds on, you are short changing yourself,
I guess that was my opinion, lol,
PPRM
agman
Well-known member
PPRM said:Who wants to raise the beef that you need to add trim to??????????? What is Tyson paying on the grid for steers that grade standard?????
My point is our resources in the US tend to lend themselves to raising cattle with the trim on them. If you don't put the pounds on, you are short changing yourself,
I guess that was my opinion, lol,
PPRM
You are on the right track PPRM but your knowledge of the real world is beyond the comprehension of Econ101 who lives in a self induced world of hypotheticals.
agman said:Econ101 said:N Ellis said:Surely, we were pretty much all aware that was your opinion.
Where are the facts or statistics to back it up?
MRJ
MRJ, some people will never believe "facts or statistics". You might do well to do some of that reading I suggested for Jason in economics. You don't have to believe anything if you don't want to.
Most people will believe facts and statistics. It is opinions from you that are not to be believed as they are a product of your lack of knowledge of the beef industry and business in general. BTW, trim imports do not harm producrs as you suggest. Your conspiratorial mind cannot grasp such a real world concept so I won't bother to explain.
Rather than citing books for others to read you need to learn something about the beef industry and the economic common sense and reality of "comparative advantage". I beleive that concept was set forth in 1817 in "The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation" by David Ricardo.
Bring on the numbers and stats then, Agman. You are so far above everyone with your industry numbers. Why don't you share them or are we to believe that you are the industry "expert" and that we should follow your lead on everything. I guess we don't need judges or juries to determine if you are right or wrong on anything, all we need to do is ask you.
Bring it out, Agman.
A
Anonymous
Guest
PPRM,
The problem is that this industry is more focused on increasing marbling than decreasing seam fat. Marbling and 50/50 trim go hand in hand when Choice Y3 carcasses are the base for most pricing grids.
Others,
Conman 101 is simply wrong on this issue as he is with MOST ALL of his positions. Imported lean trimmings does benefit U.S. producers because there is not enough "CHEAP" lean trim produced domestically to supply the 50/50 trim blending needs. Emphasis on "CHEAP".
This industry would be crazy to reduce the value of the beef products they have added value to just so they could supply domestic lean trim to blend with our surplus supply of 50/50 trim. They would also be crazy to turn 50/50 trim into dogfood, as Conman has suggested, when they could import lean trimmings to add value to it. More testimony to his eternal ignorance.
Most beef products are valued differently. 30% is about as much fat as consumers are willing to accept in their hamburger and the product is priced accordingly. There is a market for 90/10, 80/20, and 70/30. The more fat, the cheaper the price. If you raise the price of these products too much, consumers switch to other protein sources.
To grind chuck and round products to supply this need would be cost prohibitive and going backwards. To discard the product as dog food would also be going backwards economically. The best answer economically is to add value to as many beef products as we can domestically and import lean trimmings to blend with 50/50 trim to supply the 70/30 ground beef market. Contrary to what Conman has stated, importing lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand to add value to our surplus 50/50 trim does benefit U.S. producers.
Conman 101 is simply too ignorant of this industry to understand this. Using his backwards logic, it would be better to grind up all of our culls and the chucks and rounds from fat cattle to supply this market rather than adding value to as many of these products as we can.
~SH~
The problem is that this industry is more focused on increasing marbling than decreasing seam fat. Marbling and 50/50 trim go hand in hand when Choice Y3 carcasses are the base for most pricing grids.
Others,
Conman 101 is simply wrong on this issue as he is with MOST ALL of his positions. Imported lean trimmings does benefit U.S. producers because there is not enough "CHEAP" lean trim produced domestically to supply the 50/50 trim blending needs. Emphasis on "CHEAP".
This industry would be crazy to reduce the value of the beef products they have added value to just so they could supply domestic lean trim to blend with our surplus supply of 50/50 trim. They would also be crazy to turn 50/50 trim into dogfood, as Conman has suggested, when they could import lean trimmings to add value to it. More testimony to his eternal ignorance.
Most beef products are valued differently. 30% is about as much fat as consumers are willing to accept in their hamburger and the product is priced accordingly. There is a market for 90/10, 80/20, and 70/30. The more fat, the cheaper the price. If you raise the price of these products too much, consumers switch to other protein sources.
To grind chuck and round products to supply this need would be cost prohibitive and going backwards. To discard the product as dog food would also be going backwards economically. The best answer economically is to add value to as many beef products as we can domestically and import lean trimmings to blend with 50/50 trim to supply the 70/30 ground beef market. Contrary to what Conman has stated, importing lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand to add value to our surplus 50/50 trim does benefit U.S. producers.
Conman 101 is simply too ignorant of this industry to understand this. Using his backwards logic, it would be better to grind up all of our culls and the chucks and rounds from fat cattle to supply this market rather than adding value to as many of these products as we can.
~SH~
SH,
I agree with you on the seam fat or what I like to call bark. Not sure if you keepup with the other side of the forum at all, but I have been talking about the Umatilla Steer Futurity and Bulls a bit. I am looking to boost my marbling a bit, but I do keep an eye on the FT and REA along with the other traits. It would be easy to add Bark and IMF, but it is easier to go to an individual if you add more criteria...
PPRM
I agree with you on the seam fat or what I like to call bark. Not sure if you keepup with the other side of the forum at all, but I have been talking about the Umatilla Steer Futurity and Bulls a bit. I am looking to boost my marbling a bit, but I do keep an eye on the FT and REA along with the other traits. It would be easy to add Bark and IMF, but it is easier to go to an individual if you add more criteria...
PPRM
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Here's the way I see it; Packers buying Aussie lean does nothing to put money in my pocket - I'm not selling Aussie lean. If they couldn't get that lean, they would use chucks from US cattle - which I am selling. The folks who talk about the "value" of those rounds should tell the whole story on who owns that "value".
If the 50/50 trim is a byproduct (and not a profit center), it should be minimized. Packers can do this by paying less for cattle that produce a lot of it and paying more for cattle that do not. During my 25 years of paying attention to "what they want", I've seen ranchers change their cattle half a dozen times. This tells me ranchers have no problem with trying to provide "what they want" if they see any economic advantage.
If the 50/50 trim is a byproduct (and not a profit center), it should be minimized. Packers can do this by paying less for cattle that produce a lot of it and paying more for cattle that do not. During my 25 years of paying attention to "what they want", I've seen ranchers change their cattle half a dozen times. This tells me ranchers have no problem with trying to provide "what they want" if they see any economic advantage.
Jason
Well-known member
Sandhusker did you even read what you wrote?
The packers should pay less for all cattle that contribute to the 50/50 trim.
Talk about wanting the packers to drive producers out of business. By your logic all animals that grade choice with a yield grade of 3 or more should be discounted. Yet a YG 3 with high choice marbling is a premium animal under the current grades.
You just proposed a slash in price for nearly 50% of ther entire slaughter, with no way to generate more income.
Feed the trim to the dogs, lose the feeder $50 or more per carcass, lose all the burger joints as customers because they can buy chicken cheaper than beef. Sheesh good answer. :roll:
The packers should pay less for all cattle that contribute to the 50/50 trim.
Talk about wanting the packers to drive producers out of business. By your logic all animals that grade choice with a yield grade of 3 or more should be discounted. Yet a YG 3 with high choice marbling is a premium animal under the current grades.
You just proposed a slash in price for nearly 50% of ther entire slaughter, with no way to generate more income.
Feed the trim to the dogs, lose the feeder $50 or more per carcass, lose all the burger joints as customers because they can buy chicken cheaper than beef. Sheesh good answer. :roll:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Jason said:Sandhusker did you even read what you wrote?
The packers should pay less for all cattle that contribute to the 50/50 trim.
Talk about wanting the packers to drive producers out of business. By your logic all animals that grade choice with a yield grade of 3 or more should be discounted. Yet a YG 3 with high choice marbling is a premium animal under the current grades.
You just proposed a slash in price for nearly 50% of ther entire slaughter, with no way to generate more income.
Feed the trim to the dogs, lose the feeder $50 or more per carcass, lose all the burger joints as customers because they can buy chicken cheaper than beef. Sheesh good answer. :roll:
I kinda made you think, didn't I. Look at the system we have. Even though we're finding marbling does not provide the benefits we once thought it did, the packers want high marbled beef and the fat that comes with it. Then, they claim the need imports to mix with that fat in a salvage operation and try to tell us we're profiting from the value? Our system is antiquated and our knowledge begs an overhauling. Yet, those in position to modernize don't do it. Don't you wonder why?
Jason said:Sandhusker did you even read what you wrote?
The packers should pay less for all cattle that contribute to the 50/50 trim.
Talk about wanting the packers to drive producers out of business. By your logic all animals that grade choice with a yield grade of 3 or more should be discounted. Yet a YG 3 with high choice marbling is a premium animal under the current grades.
You just proposed a slash in price for nearly 50% of ther entire slaughter, with no way to generate more income.
Feed the trim to the dogs, lose the feeder $50 or more per carcass, lose all the burger joints as customers because they can buy chicken cheaper than beef. Sheesh good answer. :roll:
Jason, At Burger King the difference between the regular burger and the double meat is $1.00. It does not cost that much more just for the beef. If cattlemen continue to try to sell beef next to chicken, they are going to lose out. Beef is a higher product than chicken and you should be proud to sell it for more, yet at the resturaunt there sometimes is no difference in the price between the beef and the chicken in price.
Tyson owns both and makes more on the chicken. They are trying to sell more chicken than beef because of this. Wouldn't you want to sell the thing that makes the best profit margin? You have used examples of cows and round to make the argument for imports so your cattle could sell for a higher amount. There are a lot of grades and cuts of meat that can go into hamburger to sell at a lower price. Believe me, the packers or grinders use the lowest cost meat for their grind as the quality just doesn't matter with a few exceptions like steak and shake. If there is so much value in trim, why don't the packers just sell it to foreign sources and not worry about importing? Gotta go.
Jason
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:Jason said:Sandhusker did you even read what you wrote?
The packers should pay less for all cattle that contribute to the 50/50 trim.
Talk about wanting the packers to drive producers out of business. By your logic all animals that grade choice with a yield grade of 3 or more should be discounted. Yet a YG 3 with high choice marbling is a premium animal under the current grades.
You just proposed a slash in price for nearly 50% of ther entire slaughter, with no way to generate more income.
Feed the trim to the dogs, lose the feeder $50 or more per carcass, lose all the burger joints as customers because they can buy chicken cheaper than beef. Sheesh good answer. :roll:
I kinda made you think, didn't I. Look at the system we have. Even though we're finding marbling does not provide the benefits we once thought it did, the packers want high marbled beef and the fat that comes with it. Then, they claim the need imports to mix with that fat in a salvage operation and try to tell us we're profiting from the value? Our system is antiquated and our knowledge begs an overhauling. Yet, those in position to modernize don't do it. Don't you wonder why?
Whose fault is it that cattle take years to change genetics?
People flame the AAA when they show research that Angus cattle can be selected for marbling independent of fat cover. Breeders choose to use maximum marbling genetics independent of the fat cover epd. Then someone gets it in their head that a low fat cover at 1 year automatically makes for hard doing cows.
The packers are working with what they have. Producers are responsible for the mix of cattle sent to feed and kill.
We have been told the targets of YG2 Choice, but how many cow calf guys really have a clue what theirs do? Grids and premiums and discounts have made more headway in improving the beef quality than any other factor.
Marbling is still the major factor in a good beef eating experience. Excellent preperation and cryovac etc can make average beef as good, but food service still buys the prime and choice cuts. Food service is the main place cryovac packaging is used too. The average consumer wouldn't put up with the smell from cryovac, and doesn't like the look of well marbled beef.
The packers would prefer bigger animals, killing less numbers and moving more beef. They tried that but found the consumer stopped buying it. Beef quality starts with the producer, and sadly has the biggest hurdle to overcome at the same place.
PORKER
Well-known member
Beef export values down significantly
According to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the value of Australian beef exports during September fell 21% compared with the same period last year, to $A352.3 million. The decline in value was largely driven by a fall in the volume shipped during the month, due to high cattle prices and reduced production in Australia during September. Total export values to the US and Japan – Australia's two main markets – fell considerably, while export values to Korea significantly increased.
Australian beef export values to the US during September declined 49% on last year, to $A95.6 million. The value of frozen exports, typically the lower value manufacturing cuts, TRIM fell by a greater extent than the chilled exports, with weaker foodservice demand in the US decreasing the chilled returns. In addition, the recent removal of the quota management system to the US has reduced the incentive for exporters to fill their US beef quotas before the end of the year.
With trade to Japan quiet during September, the value of beef exports eased 17%, to A$154.7 million. Uncertainty surrounding the re-entry of US beef exports contributed to the reduced volumes shipped, as importers resisted purchasing Australian beef. Offer prices from Japanese buyers were significantly lower than both in previous months and than year ago levels.
Beef export values increased significantly to Korea during September, surging 57%, to $A54.5 million. Volumes shipped for the month also increased considerably, as product was redirected from the Japanese market.
Australian beef exports for the first nine months of 2005 are valued at A$3.480 billion, a 4% increase on the same period last year.
According to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the value of Australian beef exports during September fell 21% compared with the same period last year, to $A352.3 million. The decline in value was largely driven by a fall in the volume shipped during the month, due to high cattle prices and reduced production in Australia during September. Total export values to the US and Japan – Australia's two main markets – fell considerably, while export values to Korea significantly increased.
Australian beef export values to the US during September declined 49% on last year, to $A95.6 million. The value of frozen exports, typically the lower value manufacturing cuts, TRIM fell by a greater extent than the chilled exports, with weaker foodservice demand in the US decreasing the chilled returns. In addition, the recent removal of the quota management system to the US has reduced the incentive for exporters to fill their US beef quotas before the end of the year.
With trade to Japan quiet during September, the value of beef exports eased 17%, to A$154.7 million. Uncertainty surrounding the re-entry of US beef exports contributed to the reduced volumes shipped, as importers resisted purchasing Australian beef. Offer prices from Japanese buyers were significantly lower than both in previous months and than year ago levels.
Beef export values increased significantly to Korea during September, surging 57%, to $A54.5 million. Volumes shipped for the month also increased considerably, as product was redirected from the Japanese market.
Australian beef exports for the first nine months of 2005 are valued at A$3.480 billion, a 4% increase on the same period last year.
