Canadian Retail Prices

[Econ101]

So Bill what would you like to see done?

What about a legislated floor price?

A government funded cull?

Come on guys lets get the options expored.

The only real answer is a little less market concentration and a little more competition, things you have been unwilling to see the value in supporting in the past, BMR. You reap what you sow.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So Bill what would you like to see done?

What about a legislated floor price?

A government funded cull?

Come on guys lets get the options expored.

The only real answer is a little less market concentration and a little more competition, things you have been unwilling to see the value in supporting in the past, BMR. You reap what you sow.

Econ we had more competition but the border closed to over thirty month cattle. Did you hear?

 

[Econ101]

So Bill what would you like to see done?

What about a legislated floor price?

A government funded cull?

Come on guys lets get the options expored.

The only real answer is a little less market concentration and a little more competition, things you have been unwilling to see the value in supporting in the past, BMR. You reap what you sow.

Econ we had more competition but the border closed to over thirty month cattle. Did you hear?

If you keep supporting the 30 0r 20 or 10 month rule or whatever other rule instead of the real reason, you will lose out again.

Again, you will reap what you sow.

A $20.00 test there and in the U.S. would solve the problem, but then again, you are busy sowing.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

The only real answer is a little less market concentration and a little more competition, things you have been unwilling to see the value in supporting in the past, BMR. You reap what you sow.

Econ we had more competition but the border closed to over thirty month cattle. Did you hear?

If you keep supporting the 30 0r 20 or 10 month rule or whatever other rule instead of the real reason, you will lose out again.

Again, you will reap what you sow.

A $20.00 test there and in the U.S. would solve the problem, but then again, you are busy sowing.

You don't offer anything different then has been hashed over already. You complain about Canada's competion but your no better in the US.
The CFIA has been lobbied and lobbied some more. The USA has never said they would take OTM if it was tested have they?

 

[Econ101]

Econ we had more competition but the border closed to over thirty month cattle. Did you hear?

If you keep supporting the 30 0r 20 or 10 month rule or whatever other rule instead of the real reason, you will lose out again.

Again, you will reap what you sow.

A $20.00 test there and in the U.S. would solve the problem, but then again, you are busy sowing.

You don't offer anything different then has been hashed over already. You complain about Canada's competion but your no better in the US.
The CFIA has been lobbied and lobbied some more. The USA has never said they would take OTM if it was tested have they?

No, BMR, ours is no better here in the U.S.---you are right about that. At least I have identified the real problem though.

If you are waiting on this corrupt USDA to pre approve anything the big packers don't want, don't hold your breath. They never will under the current sold out politicians. Things may change come January, but the executive still holds the reigns of that horse.

Corruption in the U.S. does affect you. I would be a little more vocal about it if I were you, but then you are already neck broke aren't you?

 

[Tam]

If you keep supporting the 30 0r 20 or 10 month rule or whatever other rule instead of the real reason, you will lose out again.

Again, you will reap what you sow.

A $20.00 test there and in the U.S. would solve the problem, but then again, you are busy sowing.

You don't offer anything different then has been hashed over already. You complain about Canada's competion but your no better in the US.
The CFIA has been lobbied and lobbied some more. The USA has never said they would take OTM if it was tested have they?

No, BMR, ours is no better here in the U.S.---you are right about that. At least I have identified the real problem though.

If you are waiting on this corrupt USDA to pre approve anything the big packers don't want, don't hold your breath. They never will under the current sold out politicians. Things may change come January, but the executive still holds the reigns of that horse.

Corruption in the U.S. does affect you. I would be a little more vocal about it if I were you, but then you are already neck broke aren't you?

Econ how many times have you told Canadian producers to fix your own industry before daring speaking about the US system. Well right back at you babe. :wink: All we hear is how the US is in the leadership roll on every issue. Well here is your chance to show us Canadians how to "get'er done". Take the lead and Fix your competition problem and then maybe we will finally learn something from you. As we sure didn't learn how to ID our cattle from you. Leadership roll my foot. :roll:

 

[Tam]

1) No Rod I don't deny the producers lost but is that not what happens when the supply side of things is way out of line with the demand side?

2) Maybe before you blame the packers for taking advantage of the markets in Canada, you should take a look at the other side of the equation.

3) Tell me Rod if the tables were turned and the Canadian producers had the packers over the barrel would you be laughing all the way to the bank like the US producers are or would you limit the amount the packers paid you for your cattle as not to put the packer out of business?

4) Actually Rod what Randy posted said the total additional cost was $25 to $50 dollars but on pages 37 to 43 of the report the additional cost to packers was broke down and more in the range of $49.81 to $88.95/head

5) One more thing the report points out is that the packers hold all the risk when they buy the live older cattle as if they are condemned the packers is out the price they paid plus the cost of disposal as with the new rules these animals can't even be made in to pet food.

6) It did not cover any other cost brought on by BSE as in plant upgrades to handle the new regulations that these plants have to abide by if they care to stay in business.

7) Rod let me remind you where you read about the 20% It was posted by SH on Friday, November 10

8) Just wondering Rod if there is so much profit in the packing industry why haven't you and Randy invested YOUR money in a packing plant? Could it be because they are not always profitable? :?

1) One of the things that I'd hoped you might take from the report were the following lines:

"If there is a demand for a certain quantity of product at a certain price and a supplier is prepared to supply that quantity at that price then supply and demand are at an equilibrium. This requires a willing buyer and a willing seller."

"As a principle of the supply-demand concept each party to a component part of the final demand will act in their own self-interest ... As such, both will seek alternative buyers or sellers until they are satisfied with the outcome. With many participants an equilibrium point will be reached where both the buyer and the seller will be satisfied with the outcome, or if not satisfied, accept the outcome ie: Price Discovery. To reach equilibrium requires a market mechanism without artificial barriers."

In other words Tam, what we have in the cull animal market is no longer a free market mechanism due to artificial trade barriers and packer concentration. The packers are taking advantage of that and raking in money hand over fist, all while crying about losing money.

BTW, SH, pay close attention to the "Price Discovery" quote.

As an aside, Tam: I was a 10 percentile double major at the U of R. Computer Science AND Agricultural Economics. This is why I find the forums discussions of free markets to be laughable at best (especially SH's). We have nothing remotely close to a free market in either the US or Canada. Even pre-BSE, the "free market" was a joke.

2) Apples and oranges Tam. The packers are taking advantage of artificial barriers and packer concentration. The US producers are simply taking advantage of a high point in their boning cow market. The Canadian border closure is having a nil effect on the US boning cow market. The ABP report was one of the highest I'd seen at $2/cwt. Other reports fix the Canadian influence at $0.

3) Since you ask, I am opposed to any artificial trade barrier or ruling, whether it be to the advantage of the packer OR the producer and would work to eliminate it. The only time I ask for government intervention is when a market power is exercising an artificial barrier to the detriment of the cattle producer. If the high prices were a natural function of supply and demand, of course I'd take advantage of it. We're not facing that situation right now.

As an aside Tam, I am not "blaming" packers for taking advantage of the prices. I am however debating SH's claims that packers aren't making a killing during this BSE crisis. And this report has handily demonstrated it, which the Ag Canada fluff report did not do.

I am however soundly criticizing the packers for their collusion in their purchasing. Since the overall producer price of cull animals is a direct function of consumer demand (for a simplistic view, see the graph in the ABP report), we should not be seeing such a massive reduction in income from those cull animals. A 20% retail price drop should not carry with it a 75% reduction in cull animal prices.

4) Actually what Randy posted was the SRM removal costs that he made reference to in an earlier thread, not the $88 total costs in the report. I also find it interesting that you point out their high side range, but fail to mentioned that producers lost up to $547/animal average, with high side losses of $740/hd. Why is that Tam?

5) Risk? Oie. Auction markets don't ship suspect cows, feedlots aren't allowed to ship suspect animals. Shipping losses to packing plants are so slim as to be ignored.

6) Plant upgrades are an investment and as such, cannot be considered costs. Each plant will continue to make use of those upgrades into the future. Those investments also improved processing efficiency, something the report didn't mention.

7) Not quite. I read the 20% two years ago in a Canfax report. SH is posting old news.

8) How do you know I haven't Tam? The last place I'll be discussing any of my investments is on this forum. BTW, you asked a while back what I was doing to correct problems and advance producer positions within Canada? Does supporting upstart plants and helping prep business plans count?

Rod

1. Read on Rod as the report goes on to say.

To reach equilibrium requires a market mechanism without artificial barriers. When demand increases supply will increase to fulfill demand and when demand decreases supply will decrease to the lower level of demand. By and Large this mechanism worked well in the Canadian beef industry until May 2003 when with BSE the market mechanism collapsed resulting in a supply surplus of commercial beef animals, lower pricing and deminished returns.

Why did it collapse because our supply far exceeded our demand do to a trade barrier that was a result of BSE not anything the packers did.

And Rod as an aside have you ever heard the old saying "that guy is an educated idiot." Or the one about "they educated the common sence right out of that guy" :wink:

2. Wouldn't the same artifical trade barrier that is affecting our prices in a downward motion be affecting the US cattle prices in an upward motion. Did you miss the part in the report that said

the lack of live animal trade since May 2003 further boosted US cow prices by making the US market even shorter for supply of slaughter cattle

You say the packers are using the drop in demand do to our border being closed to take advantage of us but that same artifical trade barrier closed border is what is driving cattle prices up in the US according to this ABP packer profit margin report the producers down there are using it to pocket as much money as they can before the border reopens. Apples to apples only difference is the ones taking pocketing the money.

3. So it's OK for you to take advantage of the packers went it suits you but damn the packers.

this report demonstrated nothing of the kind as it did not tell us what the packers actually paid for the cattle or the true cost of processing or what they recieved for their finished product. All things that we would have to know to beable to prove if they actually profited or not.

Rod: I'm not blaming them ---- I am however soundly criticizing the packers for their collusion in their purchasing.

ABP/Alberta Government/ Standing Committee on Ag: report shows no unfair packer pricing because of BSE

and the

Competition Bureau: All market power parameter estimates are well below levels that would be consistent with collusion

Sorry Rod but all investigations went against your view on things.

4. Rod what Randy posted was

9.The report considers the impact that new health regulations are having on packing plant costs and returns. These include the need to remove Specified Risk Material and the loss of a market for Meat and Bone Meal as well as the cost of disposing of unsaleable materials. It estimates the total cost of these requirements to be between $25.00 and $50.00 per head of cattle slaughtered. These costs would be highest for OTM.

Which according to the full report the total cost of SRM removal was Labor to remove and lost yield to the tune of $19.93 to $34.92 plus The losts do to the fact the packers can't render the SRM's for a income and the rendering is now an expense adding another $25.61 to $48.99 plus the dispose of the MBM now that there is a ban on it, add another $4.27 to $5.04 totaling $49.81 to $88.95. and could you tell me what page you pulled the $740/hd. losses from I seem to have missed that part when I read it.
5. So Auctions don't ship suspect cows
This Market Report is based on the sale at
THE ASSINIBOIA LIVESTOCK AUCTION
Date Oct 30/ 06 /Nov 6/06 Total cattle 1277
D1 & D2 cows avg .28 sold up to .33
D3 cows avg. .25 sold up to .28
And the ones Rod claims the auction house don't ship
Triple "C" cows avg. (canners, clunkers and cripples) .12 sold up to .20

Just like the waste of a carcass is trivial when it accounts for up to 25% of the carcass

6.

Rod: Plant upgrades are an investment and as such, cannot be considered costs.

from the report.

The economic impact of this proposal was examined in a series of studies conducted by The Informa Economics Inc. and George Morris Center. The Informa Economics Inc. and George Morris studies concluded there would be additional non-recurring set up costs and recurring operating costs should the proposal be implemented.

. Now this proposal was about completely removing SRM's from the feed chain, and according to these guys there would be a non-recurring set up COST. What is the likehood of this and there not being a non-recurring set up cost of the other proposed changes to these plants? And Rod where do you think the money for those non-recurring set up costs is going to come from?

7. :roll:

8. Rod there are lots of ways to support an idea without actually investing money, so I'll ask you again if you think there is so much profit in the packing industry why don't you invest your money? I don't need to know the details of your deal just did you invest or not? Yes or NO. If not, could it be because the packing industry wasn't going to guarantee you a return on your investment? Yes or NO. :?

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Econ how many times have you told Canadian producers to fix your own industry before daring speaking about the US system. Well right back at you babe. All we hear is how the US is in the leadership roll on every issue. Well here is your chance to show us Canadians how to "get'er done". Take the lead and Fix your competition problem and then maybe we will finally learn something from you. As we sure didn't learn how to ID our cattle from you. Leadership roll my foot. "

A good way to start fixing your problems is deciding who is your best leader. There are leaders up there if only you would follow.

Some of us are trying to fix our competition problems. We're trying to get the PSA enforced as it was intended. We're trying to get GIPSA enforced as it was intended. We're trying to reduce those with marketing power abilities to manipulate markets. We're trying to get the USDA out of their habit of predetermining the winners via their policies. One of the things hindering us are folks like you and SH who just give us static.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1. Why did it collapse because our supply far exceeded our demand do to a trade barrier that was a result of BSE not anything the packers did.

2. And Rod as an aside have you ever heard the old saying "that guy is an educated idiot." Or the one about "they educated the common sence right out of that guy" :wink:

3. Wouldn't the same artifical trade barrier that is affecting our prices in a downward motion be affecting the US cattle prices in an upward motion. Did you miss the part in the report that said

the lack of live animal trade since May 2003 further boosted US cow prices by making the US market even shorter for supply of slaughter cattle

4. this report demonstrated nothing of the kind as it did not tell us what the packers actually paid for the cattle or the true cost of processing or what they recieved for their finished product. All things that we would have to know to beable to prove if they actually profited or not.

5. and could you tell me what page you pulled the $740/hd. losses from I seem to have missed that part when I read it.

6. And the ones Rod claims the auction house don't ship
Triple "C" cows avg. (canners, clunkers and cripples) .12 sold up to .20

7. Just like the waste of a carcass is trivial when it accounts for up to 25% of the carcass

8. What is the likehood of this and there not being a non-recurring set up cost of the other proposed changes to these plants? And Rod where do you think the money for those non-recurring set up costs is going to come from?

9. Rod there are lots of ways to support an idea without actually investing money, so I'll ask you again if you think there is so much profit in the packing industry why don't you invest your money? I don't need to know the details of your deal just did you invest or not? Yes or NO.

I'm going 2. first: Back to the insults, huh? Ok, I can hunt like that too. At least I have an education. You on the other hand apparently have none, nor does it appear as though common sense is high on your list of things. You act smugly superior to everyone on the forum, yet you have no formal training and obviously no business experience. Like SH, you are nothing more than a waste of my time, and once this thread is up, you're back on ignore mode.

1. Look back. Where the hell did I say anything about the packers being to blame? Quit twisting my words.

3. I saw that part, but I guess you missed where it said $2/cwt? So 2 cents per pound equates to the $547 average per animal? Or the $740 maximum?

4. Apparently you missed the part where they mentioned the pre-BSE slaughter and processing costs of $100 per animal? You should maybe read that report a little more closely.

5. Footnote 11

6. OMG, you don't even know that an auction house won't ship an animal on its last legs? Kelvington and Saskatoon both destroy animals that appear to be in danger of dying. So does Assiniboia. The triple C's that you mention are low risk animals.

7. Where did I say that?

8. Ah changing the subject I see. First you mention the costs with expansion for handling culls, now its changed to SRM costs. Those costs, AGAIN, are trivial. My god, they'll use the same equipment to remove SRMs from now until the end of time. Knock that 1/2 cent from each animal Tam. :roll: :roll:

9. Yes, Tam, I've invested and plan to do more investing in the near future. Happy? So what exactly have you done in the recent past that actually help producers?

BTW, and this goes back to your lack of knowledge: You can't add the missing income from lost sale of byproducts to the costs associated with SRM removal because it ALREADY SHOWS UP AS MISSING INCOME. Randy understands this, and as such, only quotes the actual costs associated with SRM removal.

Rod

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

This whole "how much did they make" debate is getting pretty old. We all know the big packers DID and ARE taking advantage of an over abundance of over 30 month animals in Canada. There is no law against it and we also know that CCA and its affiliates have shown no interest in AGRESSIVELY persuing one damn thing to change it. There may be resolutions passed by provincial orgs but it has generated nothing more more than a brief bit of lip service.

While I agree with what you're saying Bill, we do unfortunately have a few idiotic producers kicking around who still swear the packers aren't making big bucks off of cull animals. And even more unfortunately, they seem to be able to get enough support at the producer association level that the associations are hamstrung.

BMR, the one big issue to gaining over 20 or over 30 access is BSE testing. And don't ask again 'Has anyone asked for it?'. Use some logic. Our over 30 stuff is being kept out based on the risk of it having infectious prions. We test it, and it turns out negative, the offending countries have NO legal leg to stand on. Should they keep the border closed, we simply sue, much like the we did over the softwood lumber dispute. At least we have some recourse.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

You don't offer anything different then has been hashed over already. You complain about Canada's competion but your no better in the US.
The CFIA has been lobbied and lobbied some more. The USA has never said they would take OTM if it was tested have they?

No, BMR, ours is no better here in the U.S.---you are right about that. At least I have identified the real problem though.

If you are waiting on this corrupt USDA to pre approve anything the big packers don't want, don't hold your breath. They never will under the current sold out politicians. Things may change come January, but the executive still holds the reigns of that horse.

Corruption in the U.S. does affect you. I would be a little more vocal about it if I were you, but then you are already neck broke aren't you?

Econ how many times have you told Canadian producers to fix your own industry before daring speaking about the US system. Well right back at you babe. :wink: All we hear is how the US is in the leadership roll on every issue. Well here is your chance to show us Canadians how to "get'er done". Take the lead and Fix your competition problem and then maybe we will finally learn something from you. As we sure didn't learn how to ID our cattle from you. Leadership roll my foot. :roll:

Tam, it is going to take producers on both sides to recognize the problems and working on them, not just one side. Did you see the IBAND article?

I am working on the competition issues. It seems our respective national NCBA and your org.s are not. That groundswell of indignation to change things comes only after recognition of the problem and then working on it through these or other organizations. It has been well documented that the NCBA is only interested in carrying packer water and not producer water. We both need to take back the bucket of producer support.

I agree with Rod on your not being able to carry on a decent conversation and unless you show a turn in your mental abilities, I will do as he does.....Ignore you.

The only real answer is a little less market concentration and a little more competition, things you have been unwilling to see the value in supporting in the past, BMR and Tam. You reap what you sow.

 

[Bill]

So Bill what would you like to see done?

What about a legislated floor price?

A government funded cull?

Come on guys lets get the options expored.

Actually BMR I would not support any of the above. Surely you must know that a legislated floor price would be viewed as a subsidy and not trade friendly by the Americans. A non-starter. We are also long past the days of discussion of a gov't funded cull on our beef herd so I hope that worn out idea isn't being batted around the SSGA or CCA tables.

What would I like to see done? The same thing many Canadian producers have been asking for for over the past 3 years and the only Ace card we have left, the option of testing Canadian beef for the export market. NOT FOR FOOD SAFETY but to move product. We all know how much the Americans fear the possibility of Canada making that move as well as it is the ONLY hope smaller packers have of surviving let alone competing in Canada.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So Bill what would you like to see done?

What about a legislated floor price?

A government funded cull?

Come on guys lets get the options expored.

Actually BMR I would not support any of the above. Surely you must know that a legislated floor price would be viewed as a subsidy and not trade friendly by the Americans. A non-starter. We are also long past the days of discussion of a gov't funded cull on our beef herd so I hope that worn out idea isn't being batted around the SSGA or CCA tables.

What would I like to see done? The same thing many Canadian producers have been asking for for over the past 3 years and the only Ace card we have left, the option of testing Canadian beef for the export market. NOT FOR FOOD SAFETY but to move product. We all know how much the Americans fear the possibility of Canada making that move as well as it is the ONLY hope smaller packers have of surviving let alone competing in Canada.

Bill I didn't think you would support those options but they were put forward at meetings and rejected by the SSGA.
You might have even been at the convention in Swift Crrent where Ben Thorlaksons motion as CBEF Chair to push CFIA to allow for a test run of BSE tested beef for export was passed by the memebership of SSGA.
The CFIA says it won't do it. We aren't the only ones that have lobbied for it.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

No, BMR, ours is no better here in the U.S.---you are right about that. At least I have identified the real problem though.

If you are waiting on this corrupt USDA to pre approve anything the big packers don't want, don't hold your breath. They never will under the current sold out politicians. Things may change come January, but the executive still holds the reigns of that horse.

Corruption in the U.S. does affect you. I would be a little more vocal about it if I were you, but then you are already neck broke aren't you?

Econ how many times have you told Canadian producers to fix your own industry before daring speaking about the US system. Well right back at you babe. :wink: All we hear is how the US is in the leadership roll on every issue. Well here is your chance to show us Canadians how to "get'er done". Take the lead and Fix your competition problem and then maybe we will finally learn something from you. As we sure didn't learn how to ID our cattle from you. Leadership roll my foot. :roll:

Tam, it is going to take producers on both sides to recognize the problems and working on them, not just one side. Did you see the IBAND article?

I am working on the competition issues. It seems our respective national NCBA and your org.s are not. That groundswell of indignation to change things comes only after recognition of the problem and then working on it through these or other organizations. It has been well documented that the NCBA is only interested in carrying packer water and not producer water. We both need to take back the bucket of producer support.

I agree with Rod on your not being able to carry on a decent conversation and unless you show a turn in your mental abilities, I will do as he does.....Ignore you.

The only real answer is a little less market concentration and a little more competition, things you have been unwilling to see the value in supporting in the past, BMR and Tam. You reap what you sow.

Econ you say you are working on the competition issues. Who's you? and do you represent "A" organization or are you a one man internet show?

 

[Tam]

I'm going 2. first: Back to the insults, huh? Ok, I can hunt like that too. At least I have an education. You on the other hand apparently have none, nor does it appear as though common sense is high on your list of things. You act smugly superior to everyone on the forum, yet you have no formal training and obviously no business experience. Like SH, you are nothing more than a waste of my time, and once this thread is up, you're back on ignore mode.

All I did was tell you about some old saying my dad (God rest his soul) use to say. If you took them personally well what can I say :wink:

And if belittleing someone by bragging about how smart you are, and claiming other posters are a waste of your precious time isn't smug, what is Rod? :roll:

1. Look back. Where the hell did I say anything about the packers being to blame? Quit twisting my words.

No you just critize their every move.

3. I saw that part, but I guess you missed where it said $2/cwt? So 2 cents per pound equates to the $547 average per animal? Or the $740 maximum?

page please

4. Apparently you missed the part where they mentioned the pre-BSE slaughter and processing costs of $100 per animal? You should maybe read that report a little more closely.

No Rod I didn't miss it but I also didn't miss the assume cost in the sentence before or the estimated losses in the next line. When you can come up with some actual costs post them OK.

6. OMG, you don't even know that an auction house won't ship an animal on its last legs? Kelvington and Saskatoon both destroy animals that appear to be in danger of dying. So does Assiniboia. The triple C's that you mention are low risk animals.

Glad to hear canners clunkers and Cripples are low risk. Say Rod what are the first clinical signs of BSE?

7. Where did I say that?

Page one of this thread in a reply to SH "You and I both know that waste is trivial. You're trying to nickel and dime against a 200% gross margin, and it won't work."
then SH Posted this
The warm carcass will then break down into:
116 pounds—or 14 %—of hip cuts;
152 pounds—or 18%—of middle cuts;
99 pounds—or 12 %—of front cuts;
211 lbs—or 25%—of ground beef;
47 pounds—or 6%—of manufacturing cuts;
and, 207 pounds—or 25%—of waste.
In the end, only 625 pounds of the original 1,387-pound animal will end up on the retailers' shelves.

:wink:

8. Ah changing the subject I see. First you mention the costs with expansion for handling culls, now its changed to SRM costs. Those costs, AGAIN, are trivial. My god, they'll use the same equipment to remove SRMs from now until the end of time. Knock that 1/2 cent from each animal Tam. :roll: :roll:

Not changing just making a point Rod. that being if there is a non recurring cost to the SRM complete ban enough for these guys to study it and mention it in this report just what kind of non recurring cost was there to the implementing of all the other new rules. BTW is that the end of time as in the life of the plant or the excepted life of the equipment and if is the later then would that mean there will be another cost to fix or replace that equipment. :?

9. Yes, Tam, I've invested and plan to do more investing in the near future. Happy?

Good for you Rod at least you are willing to bet your money on the packing industry profits.

So what exactly have you done in the recent past that actually help producers?

Well Rod I feel I invest in the industry every time I pay my membership to an Association that deals with Land Use issues, property tax issues, own use drug issues, and so many other issue that I can't even list them all.
Besides that, just this last week I made a few calls and was able to get a very important person to attend a beef industry reception. Which was set up to bring the producers issue to the attention of our MLA's. I also explained to a few of those MLA's how the Proposed Traceability Plan was not going to work. But if there are any producers out there that would like to keep track of every animal they own and register their movement on a government data base everytime they cross over the quarter section line, you better speak up because I have a feeling those MLA's that attended the reception and there was a quite a few also think it won't work. BTW that was not the only issue brought to their attention, many other were in the course of the night including the PST on certain Ag goods and services. All in All I think it was a very good night for not only Sask Producers but all Producers if we can make changes to the proposed traceability plan.

BTW, and this goes back to your lack of knowledge: You can't add the missing income from lost sale of byproducts to the costs associated with SRM removal because it ALREADY SHOWS UP AS MISSING INCOME. Randy understands this, and as such, only quotes the actual costs associated with SRM removal.

Rod maybe you better get ahold of ABP and tell them of the lack of knowledge Informa Economics Inc. and George Morris Center has, as they were the ones that hired these guys who came up with something that you just blamed my lack of knowledge on. Talk about a smug, just how many other people are you going to insult with your intelligents Rod?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

And if belittleing someone by bragging about how smart you are, and claiming other posters are a waste of your precious time isn't smug, what is Rod? :roll:

Tam, establishing credentials is not belittling anyone. Only the insecure are intimidated by someone with an education. Now SH, I belittle, but only because he's repeatedly done it to everyone on this forum and I've decided to roll in the mud with him.

No you just critize their every move.

Not their every move, but I certainly don't have respect for large businesses who take advantage of loopholes and producer misfortune. You know who I have respect for? Companies, who during the BSE crisis actually tried to help producers out. Pfizer as one example. For everyone who continued on the Pfizer gold plan they received a rebate cheque for each year the border remained closed. It wasn't a huge amount, but it was enough to take at least some of the bite out of vaccinations. Pfizer also went through with it, despite the complaints of their non-voting shareholders. Their share prices promptly fell, but they still did it again the following year. Don't get me wrong, I know Pfizer makes a killing on some their drugs, but at least they did something to show some producer support.

I also get a chuckle whenever I read 'the packers won't hurt you or try to put you out of business'. Besides the straight economic losses from the cull market, other fall out has yet to be felt or has had no value assigned to it. Aging of the cow herd, having to make up the difference between the cull animal and her replacement out of general revenue from calf or fed sales, productivity, cost of production, etc etc etc. The packers know this, and if they were really as consciencous as you seem to feel they are, why didn't they buck up a few more $/cwt to help ensure the health of the Canadian cattle producer?

Or the $740 maximum?

page please[/quote]

The page numbers are screwed up in my Word document, but its the second last page of the estimated market loss section, just before Economic consequences. Its the only footnote 11 in the whole document.

4. Apparently you missed the part where they mentioned the pre-BSE slaughter and processing costs of $100 per animal? You should maybe read that report a little more closely.

No Rod I didn't miss it but I also didn't miss the assume cost in the sentence before or the estimated losses in the next line. When you can come up with some actual costs post them OK.

Tam, that $100 per animal cost was a pre-BSE cost of slaughter and processing as reported by CanFax. Since then, we've had what, 2%, 2.5% inflation per year? And of course the added cost of actual SRM removal. That is the lions share of the costs associated with turning live critters into chow. The rest is fluff. Even the wasted product side is trivial, since the packers moved away from dry aging.

Glad to hear canners clunkers and Cripples are low risk. Say Rod what are the first clinical signs of BSE?

They are not as high risk as you seem to think. Kelvington and SLS will not allow any animal to cross their scales that appears to be in _any_ danger of dying. As Ryan says, its bad for business to allow that crap through the ring. If the animal makes it through the stress of the shipment to market AND the stress of the market itself, chances are pretty good its going to make it. Once again, we're nickel and diming against a massive margin. How many animals do you think die on them? As far as the BSE crack, how many BSE cows have we found total in Canada? How many were actually found at the packing plant versus read on the ranch? Divide that number by how many culls they've processed in the last few years. Now you have an understanding of just how much risk they actually have.

Page one of this thread in a reply to SH "You and I both know that waste is trivial. You're trying to nickel and dime against a 200% gross margin, and it won't work."

:roll: I was referring to his 'wasted unsold product', not to the trimming waste.

Not changing just making a point Rod. that being if there is a non recurring cost to the SRM complete ban enough for these guys to study it and mention it in this report

Exactly, they mentioned it in the report, nothing more. No costs associated with it. As a general rule of thumb, if the costs are not stated, they are either trivial or the firm was unable to peg them. From my understanding, the greatest cost associated with SRM removal was in TRAINING, not equipment. Once again, by the time those costs were divided by the number of animals who had SRMs removed during the lifetime of the plant, equipment, or person working, we'd be back to trivial amounts.

Rod maybe you better get ahold of ABP and tell them of the lack of knowledge Informa Economics Inc. and George Morris Center has, as they were the ones that hired these guys who came up with something that you just blamed my lack of knowledge on. Talk about a smug, just how many other people are you going to insult with your intelligents Rod?

Informa Economics was tasked with discovering the 'Economic Losses'. That $88 was a net economic loss, however it was NOT a cost of production, nor does Informa Economics state in the paper that it was a cost of production. As I said, Randy knows the difference and was stating a _cost_ not an economic loss which is already covered by missing income on the plus side of the balance sheet.

Rod

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

BMR, another help would be to implement a European style feed ban. From my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, they've completely eliminated the use of MBMs for any purpose.

Rod

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

BMR, another help would be to implement a European style feed ban. From my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, they've completely eliminated the use of MBMs for any purpose.

Rod

Well you had better get right on that Rod.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Well you had better get right on that Rod.

And whose to say that I haven't been working on it as best I can? You asked for feedback and ideas, I gave them to you. If you didn't want them, why ask?

Rod

 

[Tam]

Rod you establish your credentials when you posted your opinions on limiting all producers market options to the one you choose to use. You re-enforced those credentials when you when after the CCIA and selfish large producers on age vertification and when you when after the Stockgrowers for not taking a stand on Ivomec or testing for market access. :roll:

BTW Rod is Agriculture Not a business in your mind? I think our Bank considers it a business and they sure expect us to manage it as one. :roll: