Canadian Beef consumption
- Thread starter Murgen
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Murgen said:
Murgen you must understand that consumption does not equal DEMAND. Consumption by itself is just a function of supply. We will always consume everything we produce. To determine demand you must know the price at which that level of consumption occurs. Example: If consumption is up 2% but prices are 6% lower we can both agree that is not better demand just because consumption is up. With this scenario revenue would have declined by 4%. That would not be good as you know. Have a great day. agman
Kato
Well-known member
Other than the odd 'cheap hamburger' sale that was put on, prices in the stores did not respond to lower prices paid to cattle producers, as a general rule.
Nevertheless, it was the first time consumption has gone up after the discovery of BSE, and we are very grateful for it.
Nevertheless, it was the first time consumption has gone up after the discovery of BSE, and we are very grateful for it.
A
Anonymous
Guest
:roll: Good stuff Murgen. Don't you jsut love how our BIC has bragged about their promotion causing this increase in consumption by the Canadian consumer. Then they will tell you that if not for this and the fact that they promoted the product, producers of this country would be in worse shape.
As agman says, cunsumption has nothing to do with supply/demand. Just as our dysfunctional marketplace has had nothing to do with supply and demand. -------- Therefore, every cent offered up by producers of this country for almost 2 years for promotion of beef has helped consumption, but not one of those red cents has found it's way back into producers pockets. :roll: Packers and retailers have benefitted with our checkoff dollars.
As agman says, cunsumption has nothing to do with supply/demand. Just as our dysfunctional marketplace has had nothing to do with supply and demand. -------- Therefore, every cent offered up by producers of this country for almost 2 years for promotion of beef has helped consumption, but not one of those red cents has found it's way back into producers pockets. :roll: Packers and retailers have benefitted with our checkoff dollars.
rkaiser
Well-known member
:shock: Just me Murgey, I forgot to log in.
Anonymous said:
I'm sorry but how could the producer not have benefitted if the packers and retailers did. we are the ones they bought their suppy from and if they didn't have a demand they would of had no need for any of our cattle.
rkaiser
Well-known member
:roll: All that promotion does is affect price Tam. Price, in Canada, was found by means beyond comprehension, but it certainly was not found from demand for cattle. This leads to my assumption that nothing trickled down past the door of the packing house. They took our cattle because they had a market for beef, but the price for those cattle had nothing to do with supply and demand. You tell me how we saw benefit from increase in consumption?
Weather is great out here Murgen. A bit below zero today but nice and sunny and NO WIND.
Made a quick tour through the trade floor at Red Deer but didn't see the booth you directed me at. Must have been under another name.
Weather is great out here Murgen. A bit below zero today but nice and sunny and
NO WIND.Made a quick tour through the trade floor at Red Deer but didn't see the booth you directed me at. Must have been under another name.
Jason
Well-known member
Price, in Canada, was found by means beyond comprehension, but it certainly was not found from demand for cattle. This leads to my assumption that nothing trickled down past the door of the packing house. They took our cattle because they had a market for beef, but the price for those cattle had nothing to do with supply and demand. You tell me how we saw benefit from increase in consumption?
Sorry randy, I agree with Tam on this one. If the packers never found homes for that beef, they wouldn't have given anything for our cattle.
If you remember back our surplus was/is end meats not middle meats. There has been good demand (consumption x price) for high end cuts. If we had not been in BSE mode prices for said middle meats would have climbed beyond the reach of consumers who were still buying it, and they would have switched to lower priced cuts or lower priced meats.
If the packers have been making so much money, why hasn't the price advanced now instead of them shortening the kill week? Because the cattle have been held back due to low margins. If the packers had been making the kind of money everyone kept saying they were making, they could have advanced the prices and kept drawing cattle through the system.
Sorry randy, I agree with Tam on this one. If the packers never found homes for that beef, they wouldn't have given anything for our cattle.
If you remember back our surplus was/is end meats not middle meats. There has been good demand (consumption x price) for high end cuts. If we had not been in BSE mode prices for said middle meats would have climbed beyond the reach of consumers who were still buying it, and they would have switched to lower priced cuts or lower priced meats.
If the packers have been making so much money, why hasn't the price advanced now instead of them shortening the kill week? Because the cattle have been held back due to low margins. If the packers had been making the kind of money everyone kept saying they were making, they could have advanced the prices and kept drawing cattle through the system.
rkaiser
Well-known member
:roll: When the border cracked open to America for boxed beef, the packers in Canada not only had the producers of this country by the balls, they also held the consumers in Canada in their hands. The price of BEEF was now based on the American consumer and the Canadian consumer paid the same price even though packers were getting cattle for next to nothing.
Consumer demand, okay I'll give you that. But American consumer not Canadian. :shock:
Consumer demand, okay I'll give you that. But American consumer not Canadian. :shock:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous said:
Response: Where did I say consumption has nothing to do with supply/demand? You comment is a total misinterpretation of fact. What I said is that consumption does not equal DEMAND. Demand is a supply and price function. Those TWO components are necessary to determnine demand. Consumption by itself only measures the available supply. Demand is determined when the price required to clear that level supply is known.
The market is not disfunctional as you say. It appears that you have a misunderstanding of how supply and demand determine price. Have a great day. agman
rkaiser
Well-known member
:roll: That's right agman, supply and demand is a very complex market phenomenon that only minds like yours can handle.
Canada had an over supply of cattle in the months following the border closure. We have moved closer to closing that gap with expanded slaughter capacity and a hot American boxed beef market. Is this wrong so far.
Your comments "What I said is that consumption does not equal DEMAND. Demand is a supply and price function. Those TWO components are necessary to determnine demand. Consumption by itself only measures the available supply. Demand is determined when the price required to clear that level supply is known. " I can agree with. And excuse me for assuming that consumption has NOTHING to do with supply/demand.
It obviously does not equal demand unless you include exports and need; and then demand would always be short of supply.
As far as a functioning marketplace based on supply and demand in Canada for the past two years, you sir are wrong. We are getting closer as I've said, but dysfunctional is the word to describe the Canadian market during this debacle.
Why so arrogant agman.
My point on this thread is that due to a complete disconnect between consumption of beef in Canada and price, no checkoff money paid by producers in Canada has found it's way back to those producers, but has benefitted retailers and packers alone.
Canada had an over supply of cattle in the months following the border closure. We have moved closer to closing that gap with expanded slaughter capacity and a hot American boxed beef market. Is this wrong so far.
Your comments "What I said is that consumption does not equal DEMAND. Demand is a supply and price function. Those TWO components are necessary to determnine demand. Consumption by itself only measures the available supply. Demand is determined when the price required to clear that level supply is known. " I can agree with. And excuse me for assuming that consumption has NOTHING to do with supply/demand.
It obviously does not equal demand unless you include exports and need; and then demand would always be short of supply.
As far as a functioning marketplace based on supply and demand in Canada for the past two years, you sir are wrong. We are getting closer as I've said, but dysfunctional is the word to describe the Canadian market during this debacle.
Why so arrogant agman.
My point on this thread is that due to a complete disconnect between consumption of beef in Canada and price, no checkoff money paid by producers in Canada has found it's way back to those producers, but has benefitted retailers and packers alone.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[It obviously does not equal demand unless you include exports and need; and then demand would always be short of supply.
As far as a functioning marketplace based on supply and demand in Canada for the past two years, you sir are wrong. We are getting closer as I've said, but dysfunctional is the word to describe the Canadian market during this debacle.
Why so arrogant agman.
My point on this thread is that due to a complete disconnect between consumption of beef in Canada and price, no checkoff money paid by producers in Canada has found it's way back to those producers, but has benefitted retailers and packers alone.[/quote]
Response: Per capita consumption already includes the net of imports and exports. The later part of your statement you will have to explain to me. I believe you are quite confused regarding demand. Would demand have been better if retailers reduced their price to zero? There is a point where demand becomes very inelastic. Lowering the price would yield no more consumption. If you truly understood demand you would be thankful that retail prices maintained the level they did.
The dysfunctional market you describe was the result on very unusual and unfortunate circumstances. That mere fact did make it dysfunctional. Unfortunately you had record numbers on feed and limited slaughter capacity. The market functioned as good as it could given the totality of those unfortunate circumstances. Have a great day.
As far as a functioning marketplace based on supply and demand in Canada for the past two years, you sir are wrong. We are getting closer as I've said, but dysfunctional is the word to describe the Canadian market during this debacle.
Why so arrogant agman.
My point on this thread is that due to a complete disconnect between consumption of beef in Canada and price, no checkoff money paid by producers in Canada has found it's way back to those producers, but has benefitted retailers and packers alone.[/quote]
Response: Per capita consumption already includes the net of imports and exports. The later part of your statement you will have to explain to me. I believe you are quite confused regarding demand. Would demand have been better if retailers reduced their price to zero? There is a point where demand becomes very inelastic. Lowering the price would yield no more consumption. If you truly understood demand you would be thankful that retail prices maintained the level they did.
The dysfunctional market you describe was the result on very unusual and unfortunate circumstances. That mere fact did make it dysfunctional. Unfortunately you had record numbers on feed and limited slaughter capacity. The market functioned as good as it could given the totality of those unfortunate circumstances. Have a great day.
rkaiser
Well-known member
:roll: I'll forget about the notion of demand for now, agman. Your university definition and my rather challenged one are obviously at odds.
Canadian consumption has no place in this discussion. The boxed beef market removed Canada from the picture. Beef was once again sold at world market price which in this case was driven by American consumer demand.
I would like to recognize your words about Canada's unfortunate circumstance. I call it more of a legal opportunity for cattle theft myself but here again I will agree to disagree.
To say that it was the best that could be made of an unfortunate situation is about as lame an explaination as I have heard yet.
Canadian consumption has no place in this discussion. The boxed beef market removed Canada from the picture. Beef was once again sold at world market price which in this case was driven by American consumer demand.
I would like to recognize your words about Canada's unfortunate circumstance. I call it more of a legal opportunity for cattle theft myself but here again I will agree to disagree.
To say that it was the best that could be made of an unfortunate situation is about as lame an explaination as I have heard yet.
agman
Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Response...When the tide turns as it has here in the US and packers are losing money should you be called a thief? I guess not, but by your standards you should be labeled a thief. Only packers and retailers steal. I would refer the whole process as part on the cattle cycle which has endured since I have records dating back to the early 1900's.
Regarding your later point. What would you have done differently? Plants were running at capacity. Can't you acknowledge that the world is a puzzle and not all the pieces are in place at the same time? When cattle prices recover why don't you have twice or three times as many cattle as you do? Shucks, I guess you just can't adjust that rapidly either. Unfortunately that is the real world where hindsight is always 20/20. Have a great day.
Kato
Well-known member
I'm not a market expert by any means, but this what I have observed from a producer's point of view. My take on it is that the price for live cattle was set at a level that would actually bring them to market. Nothing to do with what went out the front door.
If it got ridiculously low, the numbers didn't show up. Only those who had no choice but to sell did so.
We rode that one all last summer and fall. The price would be good one week, (comparatively :wink: ), and enough cattle would show up for a two week kill period. Next week, sure enough it had dropped by about 5 or even 10 cents. Once they caught up, it came up a bit and we would ship again. That went on for months. We had a smart cattle buyer on our side, and when he didn't call to see if we had fats ready to go we knew the price had dropped again. Dysfunctional is a very good word.
As for the four day week they are running on now, that same smart cattle buyer is of the opinion that it has as much to do with the labour negotiations at one of the big plants as anything else. He thinks that they are just running hard enough to keep the workers from striking, and that when the border opens they just may let the union walk and shut down the plant.
It's always more complicated than it seems. :?
If it got ridiculously low, the numbers didn't show up. Only those who had no choice but to sell did so.
We rode that one all last summer and fall. The price would be good one week, (comparatively :wink: ), and enough cattle would show up for a two week kill period. Next week, sure enough it had dropped by about 5 or even 10 cents. Once they caught up, it came up a bit and we would ship again. That went on for months. We had a smart cattle buyer on our side, and when he didn't call to see if we had fats ready to go we knew the price had dropped again. Dysfunctional is a very good word.
As for the four day week they are running on now, that same smart cattle buyer is of the opinion that it has as much to do with the labour negotiations at one of the big plants as anything else. He thinks that they are just running hard enough to keep the workers from striking, and that when the border opens they just may let the union walk and shut down the plant.
It's always more complicated than it seems. :?
rkaiser
Well-known member
:roll: A short reply to agman on the theft issue. Can you tell me what the average basis in Canada was for lets say 10 years prior to BSE. Now tell me what is has been, on average since boxed beef was allowed across the line.
This before and afer picture is the picture that I see, and don't try to tell me that the producers of this country or yours would ever see an opportunity to realize this much change in profit at the expense of the packer. They would simply shut their doors. I am sorry but very few producers had the luxury of shutting their doors when prices crashed.
I am always amazed at your confidence agman, and the industry needs people like you, but don't think for a moment that the different language you use, and all the statistics in your world impress me. I live in a real world too agman, just as real as yours.
Yes the packers and retailers took full advantage of an opportunity handed to them, and did it with legal backing. Does that make it right, does that make it fair,,,,,,, not a chance. An illegal border closure caused by a bogus scientific situation caused this, and no one had the guts to face it properly.
I could never be the thief you predict I would be if the tables were turned because the tables could never be turned to such a degree and you darn well know it.
Randy Kaiser
This before and afer picture is the picture that I see, and don't try to tell me that the producers of this country or yours would ever see an opportunity to realize this much change in profit at the expense of the packer. They would simply shut their doors. I am sorry but very few producers had the luxury of shutting their doors when prices crashed.
I am always amazed at your confidence agman, and the industry needs people like you, but don't think for a moment that the different language you use, and all the statistics in your world impress me. I live in a real world too agman, just as real as yours.
Yes the packers and retailers took full advantage of an opportunity handed to them, and did it with legal backing. Does that make it right, does that make it fair,,,,,,, not a chance. An illegal border closure caused by a bogus scientific situation caused this, and no one had the guts to face it properly.
I could never be the thief you predict I would be if the tables were turned because the tables could never be turned to such a degree and you darn well know it.
Randy Kaiser
A
Anonymous
Guest
I am always amazed at your confidence agman, and the industry needs people like you, but don't think for a moment that the different language you use, and all the statistics in your world impress me. I live in a real world too agman, just as real as yours.
Yes the packers and retailers took full advantage of an opportunity handed to them, and did it with legal backing. Does that make it right, does that make it fair,,,,,,, not a chance. An illegal border closure caused by a bogus scientific situation caused this, and no one had the guts to face it properly.
I could never be the thief you predict I would be if the tables were turned because the tables could never be turned to such a degree and you darn well know it.
Response: The value of using data is to separate fact from perception. I don't think that is a debate you would want to engage in with any hope of winning. I truly respect the difficulty you faced which was not of your own doing nor that of the packer. You can complain all you want but the reality is there was insufficient slaughter capacity for all the available marketable cattle. Perhaps you should also blame producers for having record number of cattle on feed. Was the packer advantaged by that condition; the answer is yes. Did he capitalize on that advantage; the answer is yes. I don't begrudge him of that anymore than I would begrudge you from making an excessive profit. We all know these unusual conditions are short lived. They ran those plants as hard as their workers would allow them to do.
I did not say you were a thief. I believe you are a very good and wise person. But if you are to judge a packer by certain standards then you must be willing to be judged accordingly. Have you ever sold your cattle at a lower price than was necessary? Have you shared your profits with your neighbors? Have you ever paid more than necessary for replacement cattle? I think not. So what makes you any different from the packer who was advantaged by a situation I can assure you they did not seek? Have a great day. agman
Yes the packers and retailers took full advantage of an opportunity handed to them, and did it with legal backing. Does that make it right, does that make it fair,,,,,,, not a chance. An illegal border closure caused by a bogus scientific situation caused this, and no one had the guts to face it properly.
I could never be the thief you predict I would be if the tables were turned because the tables could never be turned to such a degree and you darn well know it.
Response: The value of using data is to separate fact from perception. I don't think that is a debate you would want to engage in with any hope of winning. I truly respect the difficulty you faced which was not of your own doing nor that of the packer. You can complain all you want but the reality is there was insufficient slaughter capacity for all the available marketable cattle. Perhaps you should also blame producers for having record number of cattle on feed. Was the packer advantaged by that condition; the answer is yes. Did he capitalize on that advantage; the answer is yes. I don't begrudge him of that anymore than I would begrudge you from making an excessive profit. We all know these unusual conditions are short lived. They ran those plants as hard as their workers would allow them to do.
I did not say you were a thief. I believe you are a very good and wise person. But if you are to judge a packer by certain standards then you must be willing to be judged accordingly. Have you ever sold your cattle at a lower price than was necessary? Have you shared your profits with your neighbors? Have you ever paid more than necessary for replacement cattle? I think not. So what makes you any different from the packer who was advantaged by a situation I can assure you they did not seek? Have a great day. agman
rkaiser
Well-known member
"I did not say you were a thief. I believe you are a very good and wise person. But if you are to judge a packer by certain standards then you must be willing to be judged accordingly. Have you ever sold your cattle at a lower price than was necessary? Have you shared your profits with your neighbors? Have you ever paid more than necessary for replacement cattle? I think not. So what makes you any different from the packer who was advantaged by a situation I can assure you they did not seek? Have a great day. agman"
You are right about the arguement end of this Agman, you are the pro. I did say however that I agree with the fact that, in your reality, and the real world, supply exceeded demand causing the price spread to become so extreme.
You fail to explain ,however, how I could ever be in the position of benefitting from unbeleiveable profits should the tables be turned. That simply could not happen.
Have I ever sold cattle at a lower price than nessecary? Yes to support a further sale down the road I have.
Have I ever shared profits with a neighbor? All the time! I am a primary player in a vertically integrated market and share this position of profit with lots of customers, friends, and neghbors.
Have I ever paid more than necessary for replacement cattle? Of course I have, just as every other purbred cattle breeder in North America, again as a marketing tool for my own stock.
I am different than the packer. But don't end this arguement with a simple notion that I am a packer blamer either. Of course we need packers, but some sort of respect in this industry is also needed or the bickering and waste of money in lawsuites will never end. Let's get to work on calling this an integrated industry once again. Stop calling every one that opposes every move the packers make a blamer, and sit down at a few tables.
You are right about the arguement end of this Agman, you are the pro. I did say however that I agree with the fact that, in your reality, and the real world, supply exceeded demand causing the price spread to become so extreme.
You fail to explain ,however, how I could ever be in the position of benefitting from unbeleiveable profits should the tables be turned. That simply could not happen.
Have I ever sold cattle at a lower price than nessecary? Yes to support a further sale down the road I have.
Have I ever shared profits with a neighbor? All the time! I am a primary player in a vertically integrated market and share this position of profit with lots of customers, friends, and neghbors.
Have I ever paid more than necessary for replacement cattle? Of course I have, just as every other purbred cattle breeder in North America, again as a marketing tool for my own stock.
I am different than the packer. But don't end this arguement with a simple notion that I am a packer blamer either. Of course we need packers, but some sort of respect in this industry is also needed or the bickering and waste of money in lawsuites will never end. Let's get to work on calling this an integrated industry once again. Stop calling every one that opposes every move the packers make a blamer, and sit down at a few tables.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I am different than the packer. But don't end this arguement with a simple notion that I am a packer blamer either. Of course we need packers, but some sort of respect in this industry is also needed or the bickering and waste of money in lawsuites will never end. Let's get to work on calling this an integrated industry once again. Stop calling every one that opposes every move the packers make a blamer, and sit down at a few tables.
Response...I truly don't believe you are a packer blamer. Frustrated by the situation, yes, but not a packer blamer. That is clear by your comments. I do think you are victim of limited information. I am convinced that no information is better than misinformation or partial information.
Few if any at my end of this business have supported the progress you and others have made to make this a much better industry. If you ever want me at that table you describe, just call, I will be there to assist in any way I can. Have a great day. agman
Response...I truly don't believe you are a packer blamer. Frustrated by the situation, yes, but not a packer blamer. That is clear by your comments. I do think you are victim of limited information. I am convinced that no information is better than misinformation or partial information.
Few if any at my end of this business have supported the progress you and others have made to make this a much better industry. If you ever want me at that table you describe, just call, I will be there to assist in any way I can. Have a great day. agman
