Canadian Retail Prices

[Anonymous]

Rod,


1. Can you admit that the producer got paid $1.40 for the entire carcass while the retail store "SUPPOSEDLY" got paid $5.23 for 75% of that carcass?

Can you admit that? Yes or No?


2. Do you agree with the breakdown of the carcass as presented in the Canadian study I posted?

YES OR NO?

Sandcheska: "How slow do you think we are on this board, Rod?"

Pretty slow little ankle biting cheer leader. Where's your contribution to this thread? Oh, that's right, you're a packer blaming sheep who mindlessly follows anyone who says what you want to believe.

How can anyone be any slower than to insist that Japanese consumers want bse tested beef as Japan imports non tested beef, their consumers purchase it as fast as it's made available, and their government hasn't mentioned bse testing in the negotiations? I'd say that's about as slow as a person can get.

Rod: "Your ash is hanging out every second you don't do it, and people are beginning to realize how full of crap you really are."

Blah, blah, blah!

Prove it by answering the questions Rod. Talk is cheap! Committ to a position by answering the questions or you can KMA if you think I'm going to do your homework without it being worth my time.

Rod: "You're not smart enough, nor do you have anywhere near the level of knowledge that you think you do."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

This coming from the guy who thinks the entire carcass, including bone, fat, and waste, is priced at $5.23 per pound.


Answer the questions Rod! The only person with his ash hanging out is the one who keeps diverting committing to a position. Tha'd be you!


You make your packer blaming allegations about $2.86 per pound GROSS MARGINS, with nothing to back it but your preschool mathematics that doesn't even consider bone, fat, and waste.

You bet Rod! Some "EDUCATED" wizard you are!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Go away, SH. Don't you have a 4-H or FFA project that you can work on instead of bothering the adults here?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

SH, put up or shut up. Do a balance sheet for me. Prove you can. I told you to use the Ag Canada 75% beef. Make sure you also add in what the packers receive for trimmings/rendering from the other 25%. Don't forget that part of the 25% is complete waste, and they receive no revenue from it. Make sure you use the Canfax average Cdn carcass size of 847 lbs (635 lbs saleable beef).

Here I'll get you started:
Packer cost: 847 x 1.40 = 1185.80
Retail Beef: 635 x $5.23 = 3321.05
Packer Revenue from beef (assuming 20% Canfax reported retail markup) = $2767.54

Packer gross revenue: 2767.54 - 1185.80 = $1581.74

Now off that $1581.74, I want you to post packer expenses. Display your brilliance and knowledge of the packing industry, SH. Bear in mind that Canfax reports a pre-BSE slaughter and processing cost of $100/animal. This wouldn't include boxing and wrapping. Since we're talking about fed animals versus culls, include SRM removal and disposal costs of $35/animal (midline cost between small animals and large).

Put up or shut up.

Rod

SH, I quoted my message from the last page for you. Notice where I said we'd use the Ag Canada 75% mark? Notice where I charge $1.40 to an 847 lb carcass, yet only banked retail on 635 lbs? Do ya think that maybe I took into account that 25% waste?

:roll:

And don't forget when you're doing the balance sheet that only 25% of the waste is true waste. The other 75% of the waste is revenue for the packers. You say the US reported revenue is 4 cents/lb. I'd prefer you find the Canadian revenue numbers from Canfax, but if you can't, go ahead and use 4 cents/lb (don't forget the exchange rate though). We've also had an inflation rate of approximately 1.7% each year since the BSE years, so you can even add that to the Canfax reported slaughter and processing costs of $100/animal.

SH, if you can't do the balance sheet, just say so. You can feel free to get some help if you need it. Heck I started it, and gave you the gross margin. All you have to do is expense against it and add in the revenue from the waste products.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

SH, if you can't do the balance sheet, just say so. You can feel free to get some help if you need it.

He might have a problem there-Ron... I think Prairie Dog U is closed down for the winter- his normal consulting expertise won't be available to him.... :wink: :lol:

Maybe he can find Chip & Dale to fill in for them...

 

[Anonymous]

Gee, I see another R-CULT cheerleader (OT) has shown up to contribute absolutely nothing. Imagine that?

Rod: "SH, I quoted my message from the last page for you. Notice where I said we'd use the Ag Canada 75% mark? Notice where I charge $1.40 to an 847 lb carcass, yet only banked retail on 635 lbs? Do ya think that maybe I took into account that 25% waste?"

No, you didn't take the 25% waste into account. You are obviously trying to divert from your previous position.

What you said was..........

Rod: "$5.23/lb. Producers are receiving an average of $1.40 on the rail. Knock 20% off the retail for the store share: packers are receiving $4.26/lb. So packers are getting a gross profit of $2.86/lb. Pretty healthy, given they only touch the beef for 3 weeks of its life."

and....

Rod: "Any industry that has a 200% gross profit after the purchase of raw material has a healthy gross."

There is no getting around the fact that you credited the entire carcass to a retail beef price of $5.23.

Why can't you admit that? Why can't you admit to making the same mistake I corrected you on previously? You're just like Sandbag and Conman. All you can do is spin, twist, and divert.

Now answer the question.........

1. Can you admit that the producer got paid $1.40 for the entire carcass while the retail store "SUPPOSEDLY" got paid $5.23 for 75% of that carcass?

Can you admit that? Yes or No?


2. Do you agree with the breakdown of the carcass as presented in the Canadian study I posted?

YES OR NO?


Don't make a statement, just answer the questions with a simple yes or no. If you can't admit that you made the same mistake again and if you can't agree with the carcass breakdown I presented, there is no sense in taking this any further because you'll just try to spin out of it again.


Here's some more information for you to chew on while you continue to divert my questions............

The hidden cost of BSE beef bans
Joel Severinghaus, IFBF International Trade Analyst
June 21, 2005

To make a profit in the beef business, a packing plant has to sell the whole steer. It's easy to sell the few muscle cuts preferred by American consumers, but the challenge is to make money on the hide, the organ meats, even the bones and hooves (where do you think Jello comes from?) An industry rule of thumb is that the muscle cut sales will cover the operating costs of a packing plant, but the profit, if any, has to be made in the hide and offal sales.

Fortunately, we have export markets. Luckily for us, consumers in some foreign countries will gladly eat parts of the cow we won't. And in some cases, they'll pay more for those cuts than we'd pay for filet. Japan has been buying most of our beef tongue – they slice it thinly and grill it with teriyaki sauce, Korean-barbecue style. Mexico buys most of our tripe (the second and third stomachs of ruminants) – they use it for menudo, a popular stew of tripe, hominy corn, and hot chilies. We export about $1.5 billion of raw cowhides each year to China, Korea, and Taiwan (and then buy some of them back as leather shoes and car seats.) Export markets like these have been key to the profitability of the US beef packing industry.

The discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in one US cow in December 2003 changed all that. Most of our export markets closed their borders to US beef. In 2003, we were selling beef to 112 countries. 32 still remain closed, the most important being Japan and Korea, who were buying $3 billion of US beef before the BSE trade bans. Although countries such as Mexico and Taiwan have since reopened to some US beef, about 40 percent of our pre-BSE trade volume is still banned. Progress is slow in Japan, where their Food Safety Commission is now deliberating over how to verify the age of under-20-months-old US and Canadian beef. The latest predictions are that it may be August or September before we again ship any beef to Japan.

The current Mexico sales help, but can't replace those lucrative Asian markets. Mexico did buy $5 million of US beef tongue in 2004, but in 2003, pre-BSE, we had sold $84 million of tongue to Japan and $8 million to Korea. Mexico bought $6 million of beef liver from us last year, but in 2003, pre-BSE, our big markets were Russia at $34 million and Egypt at $19 million. "Other frozen beef offal" exports in 2004 were $47 million, mainly to Mexico, just a fraction of the $235 million 2003 exports to Japan, Korea and China.

The U.S. Meat Export Federation has calculated an estimate of the export premiums lost due to worldwide BSE bans on US beef, using what had been our top ten beef export items. (See table below.) If some of these don't sound familiar, it's because you won't find these cuts in a typical US supermarket meat case. "Short plate", which the Japanese fast-food industry slices thinly like bacon and sautes with sliced onion and soy sauce to make gyudon beef bowl over rice, is boneless beef belly meat, similar to the pork belly used to make bacon. "Chuck roll" is muscles from under the shoulder blade. "Skirt" is the diaphragm muscle, detached from the ribs, while "hanging tender" is the internal diaphragm pillar muscle. "Rib fingers" are the intercostal meat cut from between the ribs. Tripe, as noted before, is stomach.


Lost beef export premiums due to worldwide BSE bans


Pre BSE price 12/03 Post BSE loss/pound lbs/carcass loss/carcass
Short plate $1.80 ---- $0.71----- $1.09 ----- 40.0 ----- $43.60
Liver ----- 0.35 ----- 0.10 ------ - 0.25 ----- 11.0 ------ - 2.75
Short ribs --2.37 ----- 0.71 ----- - 1.66 ---- 5.0 ------- - 8.30
Intestine --0.55 ------ 0.00 ------ - 0.55 ---- 7.5 ------- - 4.13
Chuck roll 1.66 ------ 1.52 ------ - 0.14 ---- 38.0 ----- - 5.32
Tongue --- 4.25 ------ 0.70 ----- - 3.55 ----- 3.5 ------- - 12.43
Skirt ------ 3.11 ------ 1.81 ----- - 1.30 ----- 7.0 ------ - 9.10
Rib fingers 2.45 ------ 0.51 ----- - 1.94 ---- 4.0 ------- - 7.76
Tripe ----- 0.99 ------ 0.43 ----- - 0.53 ---- 7.5 ------- - 4.20
Hanging --2.00 ------ 0.85 ------ - 1.15 ---- 2.5 ------- - 2.88
tenders ------------------------------------= 126.0 ---- $100.46


Prices for these ten beef export items fell hard from December 2003 to December 2004. Without exports, the best remaining market for some of these cuts is the domestic petfood industry. Intestine, however, has zero value post-BSE, whereas it could be exported at $0.55 per pound before. Multiplying each price loss per pound by the amount of that particular cut on the average beef carcass yields a loss per head figure. Total up all the lower prices for those 126 pounds of meat and it's a loss of about $100 per head. Or about $8.00 per hundredweight, as cattle prices are usually quoted.

But US cattle prices were high throughout 2004, thanks to strong domestic beef demand, so cattlemen and beef packers both made good money for most of the year. Iowa State University economist Dr. John Lawrence does monthly calculations of estimated returns for Iowa livestock producers. For December 2004, he figured that Iowa cattlemen finishing steer calves bought that spring made a net profit of $56.72 per head. But for finishing yearling steers, bought at high prices that June, December sales brought a net loss of $18.39 per head. That extra $100 per head from lost export sales, the hidden cost of BSE beef bans, would have made a big difference in net profits. It may not have been obvious from 2004's high prices, but it was still money left on the table that used to go in Iowa farmers' pockets.

3. Do you have anything to counter this data that suggests packers lost $100 in the value of a live animal due to bse?

Yes or no?


~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1. Can you admit that the producer got paid $1.40 for the entire carcass while the retail store "SUPPOSEDLY" got paid $5.23 for 75% of that carcass?

Can you admit that? Yes or No?

Look at this:

Packer cost: 847 x 1.40 = 1185.80
Retail Beef: 635 x $5.23 = 3321.05

635 is 75% of the carcass weight. :roll: Can you not read?

2. Do you agree with the breakdown of the carcass as presented in the Canadian study I posted?

I said to go ahead and use it. Therefore, yes, I agree to its use. If you can't read, then I'd say there isn't much hope of you figuring out a balance sheet.

3. Do you have anything to counter this data that suggests packers lost $100 in the value of a live animal due to bse?

Yes or no?

Yes! The ABP report I told you to read has the packer losses pegged at a MAXIMUM of $88, INCLUDING SRM removal and disposal. Actual SRM removal and disposal costs have a median of $35. By the way, your little post there? Thats US. We're in CANADA. C - A - N - A - D - A. Do you have reason to doubt a report generated by a third party for an association with packer leanings, utilizing numbers from Canfax and Ag Canada?

Now, I've answered your questions. You'll get no more from me. Time to pony up to the table and show us your balance sheet SH. Put up or shut up. Quit diverting, and hoping people won't see you CAN'T DO IT.

Rod

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Rod,

after reading all of your posts I think you better do us all a favor and come out and admit that your an undercover r-calfer.

 

[Anonymous]

Rod,

after reading all of your posts I think you better do us all a favor and come out and admit that your an undercover r-calfer.

And we'd gladly accept him...He appears to be a well educated man that has learned to think for himself and question- rather than blindly follow the the status quo...

And this is what the elitist corporate multinationals fear most...They don't want truth or transparency- prefering to keep the Super Heros of the world drinking their Kool-aid and marching to their drumbeat.....

If you do not look- you will not see....

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

after reading all of your posts I think you better do us all a favor and come out and admit that your an undercover r-calfer.

MR, you're more than welcome to do the balance, as is Jason. Hell, you made reference to poor pricing on culls earlier in the thread (or was it another one?). Aren't you tired of people telling you that those stolen cattle aren't adding tremendously to the packer bottom line? Aren't you tired of packers telling you that they're starving, all the while paying down billion dollar debts over a 3 year time period?

All I'm asking SH to do is step up to the plate. If he can do up a balance sheet with numbers that he says he knows, then I'll leave him alone. I'm not sure how you figure that makes me an R-Calfer, especially since I've vocally spoken out about their views on Canadian beef, but whatever floats your boat.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

after reading all of your posts I think you better do us all a favor and come out and admit that your an undercover r-calfer.

MR, you're more than welcome to do the balance, as is Jason. Hell, you made reference to poor pricing on culls earlier in the thread (or was it another one?). Aren't you tired of people telling you that those stolen cattle aren't adding tremendously to the packer bottom line? Aren't you tired of packers telling you that they're starving, all the while paying down billion dollar debts over a 3 year time period?

All I'm asking SH to do is step up to the plate. If he can do up a balance sheet with numbers that he says he knows, then I'll leave him alone. I'm not sure how you figure that makes me an R-Calfer, especially since I've vocally spoken out about their views on Canadian beef, but whatever floats your boat.

Rod

SH must think Canadian cattle are all guts and no meat. MR and Jason, is that what your cattle are?

 

[agman]

Rod,

after reading all of your posts I think you better do us all a favor and come out and admit that your an undercover r-calfer.

And we'd gladly accept him...He appears to be a well educated man that has learned to think for himself and question- rather than blindly follow the the status quo...

And this is what the elitist corporate multinationals fear most...They don't want truth or transparency- prefering to keep the Super Heros of the world drinking their Kool-aid and marching to their drumbeat.....

If you do not look- you will not see....

He may be well educated but is just about as misinformed as you are OT. We can all only wish that a carcass converts into 75% of retail cuts by weight. That number is off just a bit, like 25%-30%. Depending upon the amount of boneless cuts and trim specifications retail cuts by weight derived from a carcass are lucky to be 50%. So much for being well educated without a commensurate knowledge level.

 

[Tam]

Rod have you ever read the Special report on Beef pricing and other Contentious Industry Issues By George Morris Centre. Written March 16, 2004. Which is about the same time some including you claim the packers gross margins were 200% higher

I suggest you read it as when I did I thought they were talking to you. with comments like

The George Morris Centre has been criticized by both producers and beef buyers for saying that packers have not been gouging anyone in the beef supply chain. We stand strongly by that statement. The dictionary refers to gouging as some sort of extortion. This is not the case. There are nefarious meanings associated with the word gouging that as simply not applicable to pricing in the industry.

The live cattle pricing issue for packers is to place a value on commodity that is in significant over supply. It is rational economic behavior to pay just what it takes to get the cattle to move to the plant. Furthermore, it is important to remember that the over supply of cattle is caused by the border closure. That is a problem not of packers making. It is a problem that is not going to be solved by accusations. If the border remains closed, then the Canadian cattle herd is too large. High cattle prices will not encourage it to be downsized. The situation is an economic disaster, but it is the border closer that caused it.

Another quote from them

With regards to packer margins, it makes some intuitive sense that returns have been very good the fall and winter. Back in the early summer when they lost tens of millions of dollars each week, however, there was no media interest whatsoever, and some media now like to use that period for comparison to say how much margins have risen. Furthermore, while gross margins are large, so are packers' operating costs. During the last six weeks margins have been declining rapidly and appears to be very narrow on the net basis. That fact will receive little coverage. Implications
Understanding the extraordinary supply and demand factors at work in the beef market can assist in coming to grips with whether some kind of competition problem exists. Fundamentally, we have a market situation for the cattle/beef industry with strong demand, limited processing capacity because the borders are closed to exports of live cattle and therefore, a surplus of live cattle. The solutions to the fundamental situation are either to open the borders or reduce the number of cattle in the country.
Misunderstanding and misusing information promotes nothing useful. We offer the following comments in favour of getting it right.

This is where they add 4 points but the second and fourth are the best and so I'll post them , you can find the report and read the others for yourself,

2. The more the media chooses to focus on the price of beef, the more the ultimate root cause of the issue will be discussed. The ultimate root cause of the issue, of course is the two BSE cases. It seems to make sense for the cattle industry that the less said about BSE and beef the better since it does not seem to be a serious health issue, especially given the fact that Canada's inspection system worked well by keeping the single infected cow out of the human food chain. Those who continue to try and stir media and political interest in beef pricing will ultimately succeed in making this a consumer issue. If it becomes a consumer issue, the entire beef chain will be loser for it.

4. Canada has an institution to investigate whether price gouging occurs, ie the federal Competition Bureau. It is investigating and will undoubtedly do so using appropriate information and techniques. Let it do it's job. Little will be gained be hurling charges based on inappropriate data intended for other purposes.

Now I know how you like killing the messenger Rod but remember these are not my words they are the words of the George Morris Centre. And if I remember right the Competition Bureau found no evidence in their investigation that supported the charges that were being hurled around . Another quote I thought was interesting was

From our perspective, there are only two groups who are really concerned about the price of beef at retail. One group is reporters and the other group is cattle producers. The reporters' interest is based on trying to find a villain using simplistic arguments about an industry that most don't understand and clearly fail to grasp the longer term issues.

You really should read it Rod.
http://www.georgemorris.org/GMC/publications/domesticandinternationalmarketing.aspx?lID=61

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

He may be well educated but is just about as misinformed as you are OT. We can all only wish that a carcass converts into 75% of retail cuts by weight. That number is off just a bit, like 25%-30%. Depending upon the amount of boneless cuts and trim specifications retail cuts by weight derived from a carcass are lucky to be 50%. So much for being well educated without a commensurate knowledge level.

Hmmmmm, odd how Agriculture Canada got it wrong. Bear in mind Agman that the Canfax and Ag Canada are weighted averages. With the special cuts and boneless cuts you talk about comes higher retail prices.

Tell you what Agman, consider the offer open to you to. Lets see a balance sheet. If you want to use special cuts and a different carcass breakdown, I leave that to you. However, make sure you also use an appropriate retail price level. And since we're trying to keep this Canadian, make sure the break downs are Canadian. You can use the last Canfax numbers (updated on the 17th on the ABP website) or the ones that started this whole thread off on the 9th.

I grow weary of hearing how wrong I am, yet no-one steps up to the plate to prove it....

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Rod: "635 is 75% of the carcass weight. Can you not read?"

I'll take that as your admission that you were wrong when you said.........

Rod: "So packers are getting a gross profit of $2.86/lb."

because you failed to figure in bone, fat, and waste AGAIN.


and you were wrong when you said........

Rod: ""Any industry that has a 200% gross profit after the purchase of raw material has a healthy gross."

because you failed to figure in bone, fat, and waste AGAIN.

Incidentally, that was a ridiculous statement to begin with because "gross profit" tells you nothing about "net profit" after expenses which is what you seem to be so concerned about.


You won't admit it but it is obvious to anyone NOW how you have changed your story to consider the value of bone, fat/trim, and waste when you originally wanted to value the entire carcass at $5.23 per pound.

OT (speaking on Rod): "He appears to be a well educated man that has learned to think for himself and question- rather than blindly follow the the status quo..."

Thinks for himself???? Bwahahaha!

Rod blindly followed the packer blaming rhetoric to the point that he used simplistic mathematics to determine packer profits AFTER HE WAS CORRECTED ON THE SAME THING BEFORE.

Nah OT, he just tells packer blamers like you what you want to hear. FACTS BE DAMNED!

OT: "And this is what the elitist corporate multinationals fear most...They don't want truth or transparency- prefering to keep the Super Heros of the world drinking their Kool-aid and marching to their drumbeat....."

Yeh, that's what packer blamers like you keep repeating to yourselves over and over meanwhile Pickett revealed the truth and the transparency AND YOU PACKER BLAMERS LOST AGAIN. Pickett revealed who was drinking Kool-aid and blindly following their packer blaming heros over the cliff like mindless lemmings.

"HUGE PACKER PROFITS"
"CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER PACKERS"
"STEPPED OUT OF THE CASH MARKET FOR 8 WEEKS"
"DISMISSED BLACK JURORS BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK"
"$400 PER HEAD PROFITS OFF THE BACKS OF PRODUCERS"

You bet OT! Like a typical follower, you accuse others of exactly what it is that you do best. You are the epitomy of an R-CULT sheep so it's impossible for you to recognize true independent thinking.


Back to you Rod,

No, I am not about to present all the data alone. You made the false statement, you were corrected on it, now you want me to break it all down for you. TO HECK WITH THAT! You are going to do some of this yourself or you will never believe it. You've already proven that in your inability to admit to your simplistic mathematics.

You are the one who believes packers are profitting excessively so the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

For example, an animal that weighs 1,387 pounds at slaughter would be separated into two parts; the warm carcass, representing 60%, or 832 pounds of the total; and, the residuals and offals, representing 40% or 555 pounds of the total.

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.

Packers dispose of the remaining 762 pounds in a number of ways. Of that 762 pounds:
182 pounds—or 24%—of waste
58 pounds—or 8%—of hide;
33 pounds—or 2.3%—of edible offal;
18 pounds—or 2.4%—of edible tallow;
and, 472 pounds—or 60%—of meat and bone meal.
Because of changes brought on by BSE, many of non-meat portions of the animal cannot be sold internationally. Instead, packers are forced to dispose of them. Not only does reduce the potential profit from the carcass, but it also generates additional costs.

This is what we know for sure Rod..............

A 1387 pound live animal at a 60% yield will yield an 832 pound carcass valued at $1.40 per pound of swinging carcass.

The producer gets paid $1164.8 for an 832 pound carcass.

That's something we should all agree on.

Of the original carcass, we have 207 pounds of bone, trim, and waste which we can value later. From this point we have to determine an average beef price for the 625 pounds of saleable beef from that carcass which includes food service ground beef value which constitutes 50% of all ground beef sales, discarded beef that is not sold by expiration day, and featured beef prices to move product. Every one of those factors will drop the retail beef value from $5.23.

To what degree? YOU FIGURE IT OUT!

This is where you need to check back with your local butcher shop and place a value on all of these cuts THEN come up with an average retail value. 25% of that carcass is ground beef and I BELIEVE that the true value of that ground beef value is going to drag the retail value of that carcass down further than $5.23 along with the deduction for "featured prices" to move product and discarded product that is not sold by expiration date.

Before we can start subtracting expenses away from the retail value of the beef, YOU NEED TO FIRST GET THE CORRECT RETAIL VALUE.

It's important to note that your carcass price has to be from the same time period as your retail beef prices.


Previously, you said........

Rod: "And while cattle producers don't know what the costs are to a packing plant, they certainly know how much it costs to take an animal to the local butcher and get it cut and vacuum packed."

So let's use those figures Rod.

Tell me, how much does your local butcher shop charge for processing an animal since you claimed cattle producers know how much it costs to take an animal to the local butcher shop. How much Rod?

While you are asking him, ask him how much those cuts are worth at the retail level and ask him how many pounds of cuts he sent you home with from the original carcass.

Tam, Jason, Robert Mac, Agman..........jump on in here. In the original article I posted, there is a toll free numbers that should give up to date information on retail beef values.

For further information, contact:

Darren Chase
Unit Leader, Strategic Information Services
Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
(780) 422-7101

Dial 310-0000 for toll free access outside Edmonton

also....

The information on these tables is from ACNeilson data, which uses actual sales information, including specials and other promotions.

Looks like we will have "featured prices" covered but what about discarded product?


I would like to take this two different routes. One route using the local locker plant processing costs, beef value, and weight of saleable beef and also go the other route of retail beef value in the stores.

Keep in mind, all of that ground beef does not end up on the retail shelves. Over 50% of all ground beef ends up at the food service level and I do not believe the price or the quality is the same.

If you think I am going to do this all for you Rod, you can forget it. If you want to know, you can help gather the data. I'll contribute based on what I see you contributing now head to your local butcher shop since you claimed that cattlemen know those costs.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Rod: "I grow weary of hearing how wrong I am, yet no-one steps up to the plate to prove it...."

I just did AGAIN! You credited the entire weight of the carcass to a retail beef value of $5.23. I was the one who once again reminded you that at least 25% of that carcass was bone, trim, and waste. Hopefully, this time it sunk in so you're not repeating the same thing in another month.

BTW, for a "SUPPOSEDLY" educated man, you should know that "too" (meaing "also") is not spelled "to". I usually don't make an issue of spelling until someone claims to be so educated yet misses something so obvious. Kinda like Conman not knowing that beef demand can drive cattle prices independent of supplies or not knowing what "cwt" means.


~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod: "I grow weary of hearing how wrong I am, yet no-one steps up to the plate to prove it...."

BTW, for a "SUPPOSEDLY" educated man, you should know that "too" (meaing "also") is not spelled "to". I usually don't make an issue of spelling until someone claims to be so educated yet misses something so obvious. Kinda like Conman not knowing that beef demand can drive cattle prices independent of supplies or not knowing what "cwt" means.

:lol: :lol: Are you kidding me? Where in that quote did I use the word 'to' wrong? :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol:

You embarassed yet?

Anyway, more spewing from the diversion king. Just admit you can't do the balance sheet, SH. :roll: Since you haven't been able to prove anything, just shut up now and let the adults get on with their lives.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Just to add a couple numbers from my experince here, I pay $38 to have a beef killed at an inspected facility. I pay an additional $25 in disposal fees, and they keep the hide. Then depending on which facility I use to process they charge either a straight $.55 a pound carcass weight plus $16 disposal, or $.45 a pound carcass wt and an additional $.15 per pound of grind, disposal there is foggy, sometimes they include the second disposal in the killing disposal.

I just sold a half from a steer that weighed 710 hanging.

I cover all killing and processing costs and charge $2.35 a pound carcass wt.

The 2 boxes of beef the customer got weighed 110 pounds and 95 pounds. The chuck was in boneless roasts, mostly steaks in the middle meats and outer hip in tenderized steaks and inner hip in roasts. No soup bones or ribs, all trim was ground.

The customer paid for 355 (half of 710) pounds of carcass but got 215 pounds of beef. His cost was $3.88 in the freezer.

That alone helps, he paid $2.35 or he paid $3.88.. both numbers are right and he paid the same total either way.

Go back and figure the costs of killing and processing, $453.50 (use the $.55 number as amount of grind is a guess).

This still doesn't include freight of the steer to the facility or back to the freezer, time and phone calls or the cost of electricity to keep the beef frozen until sale.

 

[Sandhusker]

Rod, after reading all of your posts I think you better do us all a favor and come out and admit that your an undercover r-calfer.

I can assure you that Rod is not a member of R-CALF, but we would welcome somebody of his intelligence and experience in an instant. I've read enough of his posts to figure out the man has grey matter that actually fires.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Jason, the experience of someone who farmgates is applicable here, however there are some differences:

1) Farmgated meat is often cheaper than retail meats. Your $3.88 doesn't echo Canfax's retail of $5.23 does it?

2) It appears as though you're being bent over on your slaughter, cutting and wrapping costs. I had a 750lb carcass steer slaughtered, cut and wrapped this spring. Total cost was $255.00 + tax. This is with an 'inefficient small butcher doing the work'. Also note that when you get custom cutting done, you're paying a premium above their actual costs as they need to show some profit on the cutting and wrapping. They certainly aren't going to do it at cost.

3) Packers don't pay freight from feedlot to them, except in rare circumstances as I noted earlier in the thread.

4) The Canfax pre-BSE slaughter and processing costs of $100 include any transport charges to the cutting facility. Let me ask a question: How many Canadian facilities have a slaughter facility in the same plant or adjacent to?

All I did was used your retail numbers, and the average steer rail price from the same report, and Ag Canada's 75% of carcass to get a gross revenue. Its useless for me to bother posting a balance since all I'll see is 'you're wrong! you're wrong!' with no substantial proof to back the claims. This time I'm asking for someone, anyone to do the balance sheet and prove that they actually know what they're talking about. SH apparently isn't capable of it. Are any of the other critics capable of doing it?

Rod

 

[Tam]

I believe that Rod is Scared if he brings any real information to this discussion everyone will see he's wrong again. I dare you Rod prove YOUR CLAIMS. Are you the one that is right about the packers' profits or is the George Morris Centre right when they wrote

With regards to packer margins, it makes some intuitive sense that returns have been very good the fall and winter. Back in the early summer when they lost tens of millions of dollars each week, however, there was no media interest whatsoever, and some media now like to use that period for comparison to say how much margins have risen. Furthermore, while gross margins are large, so are packers' operating costs. During the last six weeks margins have been declining rapidly and appears to be very narrow on the net basis. That fact will receive little coverage.

So Rod just how much have the packers actually pocketed in this so called salmon run? As you would say PUT UP OR SHUT UP :shock: AS It's like the George Morris guys say "Misunderstanding and misusing information promotes nothing useful." :wink:

And I find it funny that Two strong R-CALF supporters would willingly take Rod. :lol: Especially since they have proven so many times how much integrity they have when it comes to the truth. :wink: