Canadian Retail Prices

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Rod you establish your credentials when you posted your opinions on limiting all producers market options to the one you choose to use.

2) 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:

3) 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:

1) :roll: And once again you twist words. I posted that we shouldn't be using cash market basis contracts, which is only ONE of the marketing options available. These are damaging to the market, as had been demonstrated by economists and agriculturalists. So that means I'm sitting in some pretty good company. Credentials established.

2) Ah yes, our little debate on the costs of age verification. Still insist that talking to a secretary is the best way to find out how much a system costs? :roll: Once again, I was right on the costs of the system, so credentials established. Thanks for making my points for me Tam. As far as the large producer crack, I stand for ALL producers, not just the big ones. You've proven that you could care less about the small producer.

As for the SSGA, its unfortunate that a CCA rep doesn't know what the SSGA stands for. Why is that? And its unfortunate that the SSGA doesn't feel the need to keep information about its activities on its own website. Its tough to verify information when the association's own website doesn't have any mention of it. :roll:

3) Agriculture is a huge business. Unfortunately there are few producers who comprehend profit/loss statements and accounting. Hell, I still see producers using opportunity costs on cash balance sheets.

Rod

 

[Tam]

1) Rod you establish your credentials when you posted your opinions on limiting all producers market options to the one you choose to use.

2) 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:

3) 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:

1) :roll: And once again you twist words. I posted that we shouldn't be using cash market basis contracts, which is only ONE of the marketing options available. These are damaging to the market, as had been demonstrated by economists and agriculturalists. So that means I'm sitting in some pretty good company. Credentials established.

2) Ah yes, our little debate on the costs of age verification. Still insist that talking to a secretary is the best way to find out how much a system costs? :roll: Once again, I was right on the costs of the system, so credentials established. Thanks for making my points for me Tam. As far as the large producer crack, I stand for ALL producers, not just the big ones. You've proven that you could care less about the small producer.

As for the SSGA, its unfortunate that a CCA rep doesn't know what the SSGA stands for. Why is that? And its unfortunate that the SSGA doesn't feel the need to keep information about its activities on its own website. Its tough to verify information when the association's own website doesn't have any mention of it. :roll:

3) Agriculture is a huge business. Unfortunately there are few producers who comprehend profit/loss statements and accounting. Hell, I still see producers using opportunity costs on cash balance sheets.

Rod

1. Banning even one legal market option because it may effect the price you recieve at the auction market is still limiting other producers option on marketing THEIR CATTLE. I seem to remember you saying your own wife was upset with you as you didn't contract yours.

2. Little smug when it was not established who I actually talked with at CCIA isn't it? :???:
I have a couple questions for you,
Are large producer that only ones that will be expected to trace they cattles EVERY MOVEMENT (QUARTER TO QUARTER)? Gee I not only spoke to our Sask. MLA's on that subject last week but again last night.
Is it only Large Producers that pay Property taxes? Gee just another topic of discussion a week ago and last night.
Is it only Large Producers that pay PST in Ag goods and services?
Is it only the large producers that use imported Ivomec to cut down on input cost?
IS it only Large producers that will benefit if the integrity of our Age vertification system stays intact by not forcing it on someone that doesn't want to comply with the rules? Last night, Even a retired small producer (30 hd) could see that it most likely wouldn't be a large producer that is making his livelyhood on cattle that would risk that system. In his words it would be the producer that has 20 or 30 cows and doesn't depend on them to make his living that would most likely not have the records to verify his birthdates. And the MLA's I was speaking with agreed that our exports rely on the creditiblity of our industry and we need to protect that credibility as much as possible. They could also see that forcing the issue now was probably not in the industry's best interest.
And please PM me the Sask CCA reps name that you were talking to or about and I will make sure the office knows as they are under the impression their reps do know. And Rod the excuse about the website can stop as you have been told for a couple of years now to send your name into the office so you can get your free copy of the Super issue, if you really cared to know you would have done it by now.

3. Rod while you were out gathering "business experience" some of us were in the huge business of Agriculture learning it the hard way.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1. Banning even one legal market option because it may effect the price you recieve at the auction market is still limiting other producers option on marketing THEIR CATTLE. I seem to remember you saying your own wife was upset with you as you didn't contract yours.

2. Little smug when it was not established who I actually talked with at CCIA isn't it? :???:

3. IS it only Large producers that will benefit if the integrity of our Age vertification system stays intact by not forcing it on someone that doesn't want to comply with the rules?

4. And Rod the excuse about the website can stop as you have been told for a couple of years now to send your name into the office so you can get your free copy of the Super issue, if you really cared to know you would have done it by now. Not to mention that someone like myself who hasn't received the edition before has no way to verify whether they're being told something truthfully or not. If I've received bad information, how many others received the same bad information?

5. Rod while you were out gathering "business experience" some of us were in the huge business of Agriculture learning it the hard way.

1) Its got NOTHING to do with the prices I receive at the auction market, but rather the overall health of the industry. I won't bother reposting the numbers since you didn't understand the first time, but one unhealthy marketing option lowers auction market pricing and other contract pricing. Its a net depressive effect on the market that affects all producers, even the ones signing the poorly thought out contracts. On the other hand, all you were concerned about was the limiting of YOUR market options. You could care less that the market option was proven damaging in the grain industry in Europe and other overseas markets, and could less that its been extremely damaging to our own Canadian market.

Feeding MBMs to ruminants has not been _conclusively_ proven to cause or spread BSE, however the practice has been banned. Should we not have banned that practice because it would limit some producers on what they feed?

Some feed medications were strongly suspected of ulcerating cattle back in the 80s. It was _suspected_ these ulcers could be cancer causing, so they medications were banned. Should we have allowed their use to continue?

My point is, we have banned or outlawed practices over the years on less information, so why are we not banning one SINGLE damaging marketing option? I was never recommending eliminating all contracts, just one single damaging type of contract.

2) Tam, you didn't talk to a SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL, who is the ONLY person qualified to comment on the costs of doing system upgrades. The ONLY one. Your comments, and the comments of the CCIA rep made it clear that no-one in systems was ever contacted.

3) I grow weary of your scare tactics on the 'producers are going to lie about it and destroy the system'. Its a load of crap, and thankfully the Alberta gov't didn't buy into it. Unfortunately, its probably come too late to really help.

4) The super issue comes out, what? Once a year? So I can see what resolutions are passed and thats it? How do I find out whats been happening since the resolution has passed? How about a new producer that never received the super issue before? How about someone who did't know the SSGA existed until they found the website? That website is far more important than a super edition. AND the producers who pay you your $100/yr have the right to know whats happening every step of the way.

5) :roll: I've been in agriculture my entire life, raising and selling livestock, grain, and doing business plans. My education gave me a huge leg up in knowing what was right and what was wrong and how things are done properly. Like I said, I know producers who use opportunity costs on cash profit/loss statements. They've been doing for years and doing it WRONG. Is that the kind of hard fought knowledge you've been gathering?

When speaking to you, I'm reminded of a quote:

"The price of democracy is eternal vigilance"

What it means is that EVERYONE must question the moves of our government, our businesses and our people to ensure that the overall population doesn't get taken advantage of. Your blind faith in Ag Canada, our government and your unwillingness to even listen to others about damaging effects of certain market options plays right into the hands of those who would rather the population be puppets...

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

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."

Rod,

You mention being educated, how educated can you be when you make the above statement AFTER HAVING ADMITTED TO MAKING THE SAME SHALLOW MATHEMATICAL MISTAKE PREVIOUSLY?

In the above statement, you once again credited a $2.86/lb gross profit to the entire carcass which the producer received $1.40 for.

You obviously don't have a clue about processing margins and you obviously can't remember being corrected on this same mistake previously or you wouldn't make the same stupid statement AGAIN.

Before I am going to go through the effort of putting together a complete processing gross margin for you, I want to see if you even have the ability to learn or to comprehend or if your need to blame is so overpowering that you will insist on clutching to your shallow math equations?

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

Can you admit that? Yes or No?

Answer the question Rod!

If you can't even admit that you are dead wrong when you say, "So packers are getting a gross profit of $2.86/lb" due to the fact that 25% of the carcass is bone, fat, and waste, then you are not intelligent enough for me to waste anymore time on. If you can't admit that bone, fat and waste, which compromises 25% of the carcass, is not worth $5.23 per pound, then you have truly reached Conman's level of stupidity and there is no reason for me to progress any further.

So what's it going to be Rod? Can you admit that the bone, fat, and waste is not worth $5.23 or will you cling to your shallow math equation?

Answer the question Rod!

Watch the diversion dance folks....................



~SH~

 

[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

 

[Sandhusker]

I move that SH shut's up. Do I have a second?

 

[Econ101]

I move that SH shut's up. Do I have a second?

If it were only that simple. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Put up what was asked of you, SH, or do you remember your prior inability to do so when requested and the subsequent donation?

 

[Tam]

1. Banning even one legal market option because it may effect the price you recieve at the auction market is still limiting other producers option on marketing THEIR CATTLE. I seem to remember you saying your own wife was upset with you as you didn't contract yours.

2. Little smug when it was not established who I actually talked with at CCIA isn't it? :???:

3. IS it only Large producers that will benefit if the integrity of our Age vertification system stays intact by not forcing it on someone that doesn't want to comply with the rules?

4. And Rod the excuse about the website can stop as you have been told for a couple of years now to send your name into the office so you can get your free copy of the Super issue, if you really cared to know you would have done it by now. Not to mention that someone like myself who hasn't received the edition before has no way to verify whether they're being told something truthfully or not. If I've received bad information, how many others received the same bad information?

5. Rod while you were out gathering "business experience" some of us were in the huge business of Agriculture learning it the hard way.

1) Its got NOTHING to do with the prices I receive at the auction market, but rather the overall health of the industry. I won't bother reposting the numbers since you didn't understand the first time, but one unhealthy marketing option lowers auction market pricing and other contract pricing. Its a net depressive effect on the market that affects all producers, even the ones signing the poorly thought out contracts. On the other hand, all you were concerned about was the limiting of YOUR market options. You could care less that the market option was proven damaging in the grain industry in Europe and other overseas markets, and could less that its been extremely damaging to our own Canadian market.

Feeding MBMs to ruminants has not been _conclusively_ proven to cause or spread BSE, however the practice has been banned. Should we not have banned that practice because it would limit some producers on what they feed?

Some feed medications were strongly suspected of ulcerating cattle back in the 80s. It was _suspected_ these ulcers could be cancer causing, so they medications were banned. Should we have allowed their use to continue?

My point is, we have banned or outlawed practices over the years on less information, so why are we not banning one SINGLE damaging marketing option? I was never recommending eliminating all contracts, just one single damaging type of contract.

2) Tam, you didn't talk to a SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL, who is the ONLY person qualified to comment on the costs of doing system upgrades. The ONLY one. Your comments, and the comments of the CCIA rep made it clear that no-one in systems was ever contacted.

3) I grow weary of your scare tactics on the 'producers are going to lie about it and destroy the system'. Its a load of crap, and thankfully the Alberta gov't didn't buy into it. Unfortunately, its probably come too late to really help.

4) The super issue comes out, what? Once a year? So I can see what resolutions are passed and thats it? How do I find out whats been happening since the resolution has passed? How about a new producer that never received the super issue before? How about someone who did't know the SSGA existed until they found the website? That website is far more important than a super edition. AND the producers who pay you your $100/yr have the right to know whats happening every step of the way.

5) :roll: I've been in agriculture my entire life, raising and selling livestock, grain, and doing business plans. My education gave me a huge leg up in knowing what was right and what was wrong and how things are done properly. Like I said, I know producers who use opportunity costs on cash profit/loss statements. They've been doing for years and doing it WRONG. Is that the kind of hard fought knowledge you've been gathering?

When speaking to you, I'm reminded of a quote:

"The price of democracy is eternal vigilance"

What it means is that EVERYONE must question the moves of our government, our businesses and our people to ensure that the overall population doesn't get taken advantage of. Your blind faith in Ag Canada, our government and your unwillingness to even listen to others about damaging effects of certain market options plays right into the hands of those who would rather the population be puppets...

Rod

Rod in your previous post you stated it was only one market option you wanted ban Well thanks to the Archives I brought this forward from the original post.

Rod: Outlaw direct selling to feedlots and packers. No contract purchasing. If you want to sell an animal, whether it be a fat or a feeder, good quality or poor, you haul that thing to the sale barn and you take what the market is giving that week. If you want to buy an animal to turn into a steak or to feed out, you head on in to the sale barn (or call your buyer who goes there for you. I wouldn't want the businessmen taking the chance of getting manure on their loafers

Tims Question 1.Are you suggesting that a law should be passed which would ,in effect, make it illegal to sell cattle through any means other than an auction barn??

Rods Answer 1) Yes. And knee jerk reaction (my own at first) says, "Don't restrict me". But I say if cattlemen can't be price makers, then at the very least we need a market that is as free of manipulation as possible. Even if the current market isn't being manipulated, it is much too easy to do so.

Tim's question 2) Would it then be illegal to buy- cattle from your neighbor? - bulls from a breeder?
Rod's answer 2) I considered farm-farm deals. Its definitely a hole in the theory, although most farm-farm deals are at market average pricing, and as such, don't have an influence on the market price anyway. To keep the playing field level, it would have to be considered illegal otherwise it would end up being a loophole.

Now it looks to me by your comments and answers here it was more than one option it was all but one you wanted ban and if that doesn't say it all this was another comment from you from the same thread

Rod :Besides, I theorize if we have one avenue for marketing our cattle, we could end up with fewer regulations. Multiple marketing avenues would require multiple regulations.

And Another

Tim: Another hypothetical.........

I own a small packing company with a very specific niche market for a very specific type of beef. Econ 101 owns a small feedlot right across the road from my plant and produces exactly the type of cattle that I need.
Because of these efficiencies, I am able to pay Econ a premium of $150/head over what he could get from anyone else.
A law is passed mandating that Econ must now sell his cattle through a sale barn.He now has to load them up,haul them 30 miles and pay the commission. I can now go to the sale and buy Econ's cattle for $0.025/lb. more than market price.
Good for me(except for the dark cutters and the trucking back 30 miles to my plant)........ not so good for Econ. Be careful what you wish for!!

Rod's reply: Tim, you do bring up some valid points and there will always be exceptions. But do we allow the good of the few to take precendence over the good of the many?
So much for the "which is only ONE of the marketing options" And the two examples you used are ANIMAL HEALTH ISSUES that is a far cry from MARKET HEALTH ISSUES.

2. Your comment was smug and insulting as the identity of the people I talk to at CCIA was never established so all you can do is guess at who it was.

3. Rod you claim you stand for all producers while I on the other hand have proven I could care less about the small producers. To that I replied by asking you 5 simple yes or no questions. Them being
1. Are large producer that only ones that will be expected to trace they cattle's EVERY MOVEMENT (QUARTER TO QUARTER)?
2. Is it only Large Producers that pay Property taxes?
3. Is it only Large Producers that pay PST in Ag goods and services?
4. Is it only the large producers that use imported Ivomec to cut down on input cost?
5. Is it only Large producers that will benefit if the integrity of our Age verification system stays intact by not forcing it on someone that doesn't want to comply with the rules?
And I'll ask two more question, first being
Are there any small producers in Sask that signed up for CAIS?
And the second
Was it just large producers that got shorted on their payments because government didn't top up that program like the other provinces did?
To which I received only another smug comment. So I'm asking you Rod why didn't you answer them? Will the fact that small producers are also effected by these issues taint your comment about me.

And if you stand for all producers then why would you want to ban any lucrative marketing option to any producer? Ban it until you were big enough to take advantage of it that is. Or don't you remember this comment.

My comment: In every other facet of live the bigger you get the more options you have and that is what drives everyone to better themselves.

Rods Reply : So how do I get bigger when I'm blocked from a lucrative marketing option due to my size? I raise all my own feed, and since I can background out calves cheaper than most, I'd be willing to hazard that I can finish them cheaper than most as well.

I'll continue to raise the best backgrounded cattle that I can and expand until I'm big enough to open up all my marketing options. In the meantime, I'll be calling my MLA and MP and informing them of an illegally restricted market.

And this little statement really proves who you stand for

Rod: I find your constant mentioning of 'look to better themselves' a little insulting. Thats why I and other small producers are fighting for equal market opportunities. Quite frankly, I'll put my feeders up against anyones, big or small, because all I've done is better myself year after year. So you're bigger, doesn't mean you're better.

And how were you planning to do that by limiting the large producers marketing options Rod, way to stand up for ALL PRODUCERS.

4. Rod for a Educated Smart Guy you don't seem to have a very good memory as you have been told many times those that pay that $100 get 6 issues of the magazine to keep him up to date on industry issues AND the right to come to two Provincial general meetings and his/her local zone meeting to discuss industry issues. AND the right to make and VOTE ON resolution that are for the betterment of the industry at both levels local and Provincial . Not only that if there is an issue that is of concern , no one is stopping a producers from calling the office, their local Directors, the SSGA Executive or a Committee Chairman to ask questions. If fact mamber are ask to. All the names are in every issue of the magazine and on the website. For that $100 dollars they are being represented by Producers that do cared enough to get involved to protect all Producers Rights not just those that pertain to large ranchers. BTW Since the SSGA have been around for over 90 years, long before the age of Websites. If there is a producer that doesn't know the SSGA exists I doubt a website is the problem. :wink:

5. Rod just for reference how old are you? and how long have you actually been making your living off of 50 cows? I have do doubt your education gave you a leg up as if it hadn't it was a waste of your tuition. But there is another quote that might interest you. It goes like this

Sometimes it's not what you know it is who you know that does the most good

So Rod you keep telling people you are educated and investing when you can . And I'll keep investing my $106/year (GST you know) in an organization that is trying to do something about your property tax and PST bill , and your the own use drug rights Plus Rod just for you I will keep questioning our MLA's on what is going just like I have in the last several times we have met over drinks. :wink:

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Tam, why don't you post the ENTIRE link for all to see, instead of just twisting things to suit you? What I posted was an IDEA to gain feedback on. Instead, what you twisted it to was me only wanting to allow producers one way to market. Go back and read the thread, Tam. Your reading comprehension needs work. Throughout that entire thread I never once posted my own personal beliefs, except for the one that there should not be marketing options available only to a select few but rather to ALL producers. And why don't you post later threads in which cash market basis contracts were debated?

Better yet, why don't you stick with the thread topic and debate the Canadian packer margins, instead of these pathetic little attempts of yours to discredit? If you want to discredit, start another thread. As for me, I'm still waiting for SH to come up with a balance sheet. Why don't you come up with one based on your hard won knowledge that you've gained through the years?

2) You still don't get it do you? I _know_ you weren't talking to a systems professional because of the response I received. I know what systems cost, I know what training costs.

3) Let me answer your questions with some of my own:

i) How can you stand up for voluntary age knowing full well that not all producers have access to the "premiums" associated with it? And you also know full well that lack of age verified beef is one of the reasons we don't have broader access to markets other than the US?

ii) How can stand up for a damaging style of contract knowing full well it is damaging to our industry, as has been proven overseas and in our very own grain market?

iii) How can stand our current system, knowing full well it leaves producers at the mercy of a system that is NOT within our control? Case in point: BSE testing. A healthy majority of cattle producers want it, but yet the CCA doesn't. Why aren't you speaking out in outrage against a system like this?

iv) Why do you think its ok that packers are allowed to restrict small shipments, in effect shutting out medium and small producers in Saskatchewan?

v) Why do you think its ok that packers have abused the cull animal market, hurting MANY producers, big and small? Do you have any idea what extent some producers rely on that cull animal market to fuel their own replacements, or how its affected the animal herds as a whole within Canada?

As far as the animal health versus economic issues go, so what? Economic issues are JUST as important as health issues, and in many cases, tie in side by side. Whats the point in having traceback and the world's best animal health if we can't sell our stock for decent dollars, or having them stolen by multinational corporations?

You say you represent all producers, but I believe you only represent yourself and you don't give a damn about other producers. Just because your interests occasionally cross paths with small producers, as they do with the questions you posted, doesn't mean you actually stand for them.

And I will NEVER take advantage of cash basis contracts because they are damaging. Again, you quote me out of context simply to further your own agenda.

4) Tell me Tam, what happened to the BSE testing resolution after the CCA voted it down? Was that in your magazine? Why didn't BMR answer me? So the only way to truly find out about your organization is pay the bucks first? What if I don't like it? Do I get my money back? How do I find out whats happened in the past? Do I get all the free back issues I want so I can track events that are important to me? Do you believe the buy before you try hard sale is a good one?

5) How old I am is none of your business Tam. I have 18 years of successful corporate business experience, a lifetime of cattle husbandry, a family whose been involved with livestock since the early 1800s (that we know of, it may go back further but the relative who was working on the family history passed away before she got further back). I've worked for small livestock producers and 2000 head+ producers. I've been involved in all facets of marketing those animals from weaned calves up to fed animals. I used my livestock skills to help me with spending money as a teenager, and to work my way through University. So I guess you could say I've been 'making a living' at livestock my whole life.

I no longer have 50 units, but have hit the triple digit mark. I spose that now qualifies me as a large producer, at least in so far as Saskatchewan numbers are concerned. As such, if I chose to feed out my animals, I would have access to direct shipping to packers. However, I will continue to fight against a system that punishes small producers for being small, or helps to prevent them from being big.

Anyway, Tam, I'm done with you. If you wish to continue the discrediting, go ahead. I won't be listening, nor, I suspect, will many others.

Rod

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Tam,

You have made some darn good points and I ll still be reading your posts!! Keep up the good work!!

 

[Tam]

Tam,

You have made some darn good points and I ll still be reading your posts!! Keep up the good work!!

Thanks MR I could care less if Rod reads as he has proven that his is the only opinion that counts. If you prove him wrong you have some how twisted his words. If you don't agree with him on the cost of something well its those that work with the system everyday that are the ones that are wrong. If I as a producer feels it is better to allow the market to guide the Age verification program as to mandate it and chance the integrity of our system on protesting producers I'm selfish and only looking out for myself. If I don't critize the packers for everything they do I'm a packer lover that can't think for myself. If I don't go along with restricting all producers rights of marketing THEIR cattle then I'm out to destroy the industry. His type prove one thing and that is "It takes all kinds to made a World" :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Tam, do you put opportunity costs on the balance sheet? Do you even know what they are? How about you, MR, do you? How about a balance sheet, do you know how to fill one out?

Self prescribed ignorance is well deserved.

 

[Anonymous]

Rod,

Why do you refuse to answer this simple question?

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?

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."

Can you admit that this statement is wrong because it assumes the processor got $2.86 for the entire carcass instead of the 75% of the carcass that was saleable meat.

There is no reason for me to try to educate you about packer processing margins if you are incapable of learning.

For the fourth time, answer the question.


Then you can tell me how you arrived at $5.23 for all the cuts within a carcass WHICH IS MOSTLY GROUND BEEF.

Then you can tell me how you arrived at a 20% retail margin. Only a complete idiot would sink his teeth into your numbers and assume they were correct.

What portion of that $5.23 should we attribute to discarded product and "featured prices"?

Are you actually ignorant enough to believe that retailers sell all of their beef at suggested prices? You are? That's so sad.


Let's go back to your simplistic approach. What is your local locker plant charging you to process a critter? How many pounds of saleable beef will you get back? What is the value of that beef? Let's figure out how much money your local locker plant is making shall we?

My local locker plant has to pay someone to haul his ofal away.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Here's another dandy......

Rod: "You know what else I didn't take into account? The AVERAGE price that producers received on ALL animals. That $1.40? That was feeder animals. I didn't even bother to count culls at 70 cents."

Once again, you display your total ignorance of this industry.

IN ORDER TO INCLUDE CULL ANIMALS, YOU WOULD BE ASSUMING THAT CULL COW BEEF IS AVERAGING $5.23 PER POUND. ARE YOU HONESTLY THAT STUPID????

Most cull cow beef ends up as lean ground beef with a lot of it selling through food service outlets. Any steaks that might be salvaged from cull cows ends up in lower end restraunts such as the old "BONANZA". You don't know anything do you?


Here's another question that still needs to be answered. Can you agree with the following data, YES OR NO?

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.

What kind of profit is being made on beef?
It is possible to compare the live cattle price and the wholesale price of boxed beef. This calculation will yield a gross margin, but it is important to consider that over-head operating and packaging costs still need to be applied. Gross margin does relate directly to profitability.

This is again true at the retail level. Operational over-head and packaging costs must also be applied.

If you cannot even agree to the following carcass breakdown, it's absolutely senseless for me to go through the effort of getting current Canadian retail beef numbers even though the toll free number has been provided in the article I posted.

I believe entrenched packer blamers like you are incapable of learning. You proved it when you once again did your shallow math equation of crediting the entire carcass to a retail beef price without factoring in bone, fat, and waste. REAL EDUCATED THERE ROD! You couldn't even remember that much from the last time.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH, if Rod was giving the carcass hanging weight price, the breakdown is unimportant. It is minutia that makes no difference. There could be a difference between the initial hanging weight and shrinkage of water but I doubt that will make that much difference to the points made.

Can you provide the information requested?

 

[Jason]

There is a huge difference between hanging carcass weight and price, and final retail price.

How does the carcass get to retail? It has to be broken down (cost), trimmed (cost), cut to size (cost), packaged (cost), transported (cost), stored (cost), advertised (cost), and last of all sold (cost of store and employees, then finally income).

I have sold beef at retail, and I make an extra $100-200 an animal after all my extra costs, but not my time are factored in.

I never calculated the the 200 pounds of hamburger I donated to charity because I was getting too much in the freezer, a donation (without a reciept) is the same as a loss of product.

 

[Econ101]

There is a huge difference between hanging carcass weight and price, and final retail price.

How does the carcass get to retail? It has to be broken down (cost), trimmed (cost), cut to size (cost), packaged (cost), transported (cost), stored (cost), advertised (cost), and last of all sold (cost of store and employees, then finally income).

I have sold beef at retail, and I make an extra $100-200 an animal after all my extra costs, but not my time are factored in.

I never calculated the the 200 pounds of hamburger I donated to charity because I was getting too much in the freezer, a donation (without a reciept) is the same as a loss of product.

Jason, how big of a packer are you and is your example indicative of the industry?

I can see where political influence/donations/bribes may not have a receipt, but those should not be counted anyway. That statement was for the large packers, not your donation, which was probably much appreciated by the charity you donated to.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

Your contribution to this discussion, or any other for that matter, is irrelevant. You're such a damn idiot and a liar I don't know why you even bother to post. I could care less what you think. Run away! So stalk someone else you freak.


~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Ok SH:

$5.23 is the WEIGHTED AVERAGE PRICE OF ALL BEEF SOLD IN CANADA, as reported by Canfax. This includes cull beef, roasts, steaks, hamburger and ALL BEEF FROM ALL GRADES. Man, you need to learn how to read.

20% retail markup, as I said before, is the CANFAX REPORTED RETAIL MARKUP on average between all beef cuts and grades. Verify with your good buddy Jason if you want.

The $100 slaughter and processing costs are CANFAX REPORTED, pre-BSE numbers. Add in the $35 SRM removal and disposal, as reported in the ABP report I told you to read.

Now, take those numbers that I calculated out, which BTW were based on the Ag Canada carcass break downs, and do me a bloody balance. Do it and display your great wise intelligence.

But I know you won't, because you can't. You're not smart enough, nor do you have anywhere near the level of knowledge that you think you do. Do the balance sheet or shut up. Your bluster is getting tiresome.

Put up or shut up, SH. 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.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

Rod, "Put up or shut up, SH. 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. "

Beginning? BEGINNING? How slow do you think we are on this board, Rod? :lol: :lol: :lol: