Cattle trade may resume soon

[RobertMac]

Cargill will double-shift the Better Beef plant which will require more cattle from the U.S. - how ironic. For those who do not know the Better Beef plant is in eastern Canada. It is much closer to ship cattle from the U.S than shipping cattle from Alberta or western Canada. Net, Cargill's purchase of the Better Beef plant should help increase demand for U.S. fed cattle in the upper mid-west. So goes the world of trade.

Agman, excellent example of why the packers want FTAs and no MCOOL...no borders and no names, just better margins!!!
While you are at it, go ahead and admit that the primary reason to open the Canadian border was to decrease the price of USA live cattle...increased USA feeders coupled with increased Canadian feeders with NO renewed exports adds up to a BIG DROP in prices!

 

[Kato]

Freight costs ... don't forget. Gas is almost a dollar a litre here now. There are about 4 litres in an American gallon. Do the math.

It makes more sense for a fat steer in Michigan to go to Ontario than to Kansas. Just as it makes more sense for us to ship fats 800 miles to Kansas than 1400 miles to Toronto.

 

[agman]

Cargill will double-shift the Better Beef plant which will require more cattle from the U.S. - how ironic. For those who do not know the Better Beef plant is in eastern Canada. It is much closer to ship cattle from the U.S than shipping cattle from Alberta or western Canada. Net, Cargill's purchase of the Better Beef plant should help increase demand for U.S. fed cattle in the upper mid-west. So goes the world of trade.

Agman, excellent example of why the packers want FTAs and no MCOOL...no borders and no names, just better margins!!!
While you are at it, go ahead and admit that the primary reason to open the Canadian border was to decrease the price of USA live cattle...increased USA feeders coupled with increased Canadian feeders with NO renewed exports adds up to a BIG DROP in prices!

Explain why cattle prices dropped while the border was closed? I am certain given your record you have some unique conspiracy theory figured out. Why did you overlook the fact that trade went both way? Rather than saying that is good to hear you chose to complain - what a life.

If opening the border gives us added leverage with Japan I am all for it. I believe it does. I too, like you, wish both actions were simultaneous.

Which will have the most price impact, opening the border or a decline in domestic beef demand? I am just curious if you can get it right.

 

[Anonymous]

RM: "Agman, excellent example of why the packers want FTAs and no MCOOL...no borders and no names, just better margins!!!"

"BWAME DA PACKAH"

If FTA's have been detrimental to the U.S. cattle industry, why did we show a 7 year $1.3 "BILLION" dollar average trade surplus in the combined trade of beef, beef variety meats, live cattle, and hides?

Do you doubt that fact Robert?

If you doubt it, why don't you seek the truth and prove those numbers wrong. If you can't prove those Dept. of Commerce - Bureau of Census numbers wrong, why would you continue to cuss FTAs?

I'll answer that for you. Because you are a blamer! It's worth more to you to blame than to know the truth.


Which of the following senerios (sp?) do you believe is more accurate?

1. When packers have better margins they pay more for cattle.
2. When packers are losing money they pay more for cattle.


I'll give you a minute to consider the difficulty of that question.

RM: "While you are at it, go ahead and admit that the primary reason to open the Canadian border was to decrease the price of USA live cattle...increased USA feeders coupled with increased Canadian feeders with NO renewed exports adds up to a BIG DROP in prices!"

The primary reason to open the border was because there was no legitimate reason to close it.

Why don't you admit that it is stupid and wreckless for R-CULT to suggest Canadian beef is "high risk" for having BSE in their native herd now that we have had BSE in our native herd.

OPEN YOUR MIND!!!!!!!!!!

HEADLINES: CATTLEMEN'S GROUP PROVES U.S. BEEF "HIGH RISK"

How can you be such a mindless follower of the gospel according to R-CULT that you cannot see the potential damage of that situation. Nobody can be that blind or stupid. I know you're not.


~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

Agman: "Explain why cattle prices dropped while the border was closed?"

Do you reckon record retail prices could have anything to do with it??? And a reduction in USA processing have got to eventually start backing up some cattle. Cheaper prices should start moving more beef(and cattle), but producers are the ones taking the hit for the cheaper beef prices...packers make their profit on volume...right??????

Agman: "Which will have the most price impact, opening the border or a decline in domestic beef demand?"

Imports are responsible for ~10% of supply...let's see, a drop in 100% of production would be bigger. What do I win?????

Got to go...hear them black helicopters comin. :shock:

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Which of the following senerios (sp?) do you believe is more accurate?

1. When packers have better margins they pay more for cattle.
2. When packers are losing money they pay more for cattle. "

Why continue to harp on this? We all KNOW that packers will do whatever they can in order to pay as little as possible for cattle regardless of margins just as any other business would do regarding raw materials.

They don't tithe, SH.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "Why continue to harp on this?"

Because I know how the truth bothers an ankle biter like you. Nice question divertion again.

Sandhusker: "We all KNOW that packers will do whatever they can in order to pay as little as possible for cattle regardless of margins just as any other business would do regarding raw materials."

We also know that these same packers have to compete against eachother to get those cattle bought or they don't get them bought. What they want to pay and what they have to pay are two entirely different issues.

We also know that if too much profit becomes available in the packing indusry, someone else will seize that opportunity.

That's exactly how Wilson, Swift, Armour, Cudahey, and Morris became National/USPB, Monfort/Swift & Co., Excel, Tyson/ibp, and Smithfield in an industry that some claim is "supposedly" controlled.

Once again, the obvious becomes too obvious.



~SH~

 

[agman]

Cargill will double-shift the Better Beef plant which will require more cattle from the U.S. - how ironic. For those who do not know the Better Beef plant is in eastern Canada. It is much closer to ship cattle from the U.S than shipping cattle from Alberta or western Canada. Net, Cargill's purchase of the Better Beef plant should help increase demand for U.S. fed cattle in the upper mid-west. So goes the world of trade.

Agman, excellent example of why the packers want FTAs and no MCOOL...no borders and no names, just better margins!!!
While you are at it, go ahead and admit that the primary reason to open the Canadian border was to decrease the price of USA live cattle...increased USA feeders coupled with increased Canadian feeders with NO renewed exports adds up to a BIG DROP in prices!

Did packers not record record profits when cattle prices were at record levels? Kinda shoots your phony theory right out of the saddle does it not?!!! Your one track mind just got derailed.

 

[Sandhusker]

Yada, yada, yada.

Do manufacturers do what they can to pay the lowest amount for their raw materials, inputs, etc... regardless of margins, profits, whatever or not? It's that simple, SH.

P.S. I've got a post titled "Japan won't take tested beef" that you're skirting. Anxiously awaiting your comments.

 

[Anonymous]

Yada yada yada,

Do manufacturers have to compete with other manufacturers for their raw materials, inputs, etc.....regardless of margins, profits whatever or not? It's that simple ankle biter!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Yada yada yada,

Do manufacturers have to compete with other manufacturers for their raw materials, inputs, etc.....regardless of margins, profits whatever or not? It's that simple ankle biter!


~SH~

Let me resubmit my previous question before we move on.

Do manufacturers do what they can to pay the lowest amount for their raw materials, inputs, etc... regardless of margins, profits, whatever or not?

 

[Anonymous]

Are manufacturers limited as to what they can do to pay the lowest amount for their raw materials, inputs, etc... regardless of margins, profits, whatever or not?

Yes, they are limited as to what they can do to lower their imput costs due to other companies competing for the same product.

"OPPORTUNITY" TRUMPS "ABILITY".


~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

Did packers not record record profits when cattle prices were at record levels? Kinda shoots your phony theory right out of the saddle does it not?!!! Your one track mind just got derailed.

Did not the packers raping of the Canadian producer and the packers selling that inexpensive Canadian boxed beef into the USA market at record prices help make those record profits??? And as a margin operator, isn't the same percentage of a higher price a higher margin???

 

[RobertMac]

Yada yada yada,

Do manufacturers have to compete with other manufacturers for their raw materials, inputs, etc.....regardless of margins, profits whatever or not? It's that simple ankle biter!


~SH~

Doesn't a SURPLUS of raw materials mean ALL the manufacturers can buy all they need at what ever price they want to pay???????????? That's why the price producer receives is SUPPLY sensitive!!!!! The $1.3B in exports doesn't mean a darn thing to producers, if there are TOO MANY CATTLE FOR DEMAND !!!

 

[Sandhusker]

You ever going to answer my question without tangenting off? It's pretty simple. "Yes" or "NO" will be acceptable.

 

[agman]

Did packers not record record profits when cattle prices were at record levels? Kinda shoots your phony theory right out of the saddle does it not?!!! Your one track mind just got derailed.

Did not the packers raping of the Canadian producer and the packers selling that inexpensive Canadian boxed beef into the USA market at record prices help make those record profits??? And as a margin operator, isn't the same percentage of a higher price a higher margin???

My reference was to U.S. margins-got it.

 

[Anonymous]

RM: "Doesn't a SURPLUS of raw materials mean ALL the manufacturers can buy all they need at what ever price they want to pay????????????"

Only if you have more raw materials (live cattle) than you have manufacturers (packers). In Canada's case, that was true when the border closed and what were they doing to accomodate that?

EXPANDING SLAUGHTER CAPACITY!

That is not true in the United States. We have enough slaughter capacity to cover our own cattle and Canadian live cattle imports.

WHERE DO YOU THINK CANADIAN CATTLE WERE BEING SLAUGHTERED BEFORE THE BORDER CLOSED?????

Hello?

Once again Robert Mac, the obvious is too obvious for you!

The only way your market manipulation conspiracy theories would have any merit is if the large packers were not competing with eachother. The fact that live cattle prices trend with boxed beef prices proves the falacy of that ridiculous notion.

An increase in supply does not mean the packers can pay whatever they want. We have fluctuations in supply every single day and guess what packers still have to pay according to what the price of retail beef is minus their processing costs and still realize a small profit if possible. Sometimes they have to buy cattle at a loss but that is only short term until cattle prices fall in line with retail beef prices.

THE FACT THAT PACKER MARGINS EVER FALL INTO THE RED PROVES WITHOUT DOUBT HOW FLAWED YOUR PACKER MARKET MANIPULATION CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE.

Would packer willingly go into the red if they could control cattle markets?

What don't you understand about live cattle prices trending with boxed beef prices? Do you really need to see a chart to show this???

Is the retail price affected by an increase in supplies? Of course it is but that doesn't allow the packers to pay any price they want to pay. It forces them to pay less due to the corresponding price of beef. If that was not true live cattle prices would not trend with boxed beef prices would they?

I must be a complete idiot to go over this and over this with you. You don't want to know the truth, you want to blame.

"BWAME DA PACKAH"

RM: "That's why the price producer receives is SUPPLY sensitive!!!!!"

There it is, the ol' R-CULT "supply and supply" theory!

The price producers receive is also "DEMAND" sensitive.

Demand is a price quantity relationship!

MORE BEEF SUPPLY EQUALS REDUCED RETAIL BEEF PRICES TO MOVE PRODUCT. REDUCED RETAIL BEEF PRICES TO MOVE PRODUCT MEANS LOWER FAT CATTLE PRICES TO REFLECT THOSE LOWER BEEF PRICES?

Are you getting this? Am I going too fast?

RM: "The $1.3B in exports doesn't mean a darn thing to producers, if there are TOO MANY CATTLE FOR DEMAND !!!"

What an absolutely ridiculous statement!

First, the $1.3 Billion is not the value of exports alone. It is the net value between imports and exports.

Secondly, if we have too many cattle for demand, our export market becomes that much more important to move those extra cattle.

OUR EXPORT MARKETS ARE IMPORTANT NO MATTER WHAT THE SUPPLY BECAUSE IT CREATES MORE DEMAND!

For a guy who sells retail beef, I can't believe what you type sometimes.

RM: "Did not the packers raping of the Canadian producer and the packers selling that inexpensive Canadian boxed beef into the USA market at record prices help make those record profits???"

Didn't those same packers that own the U.S. plants that used to slaughter those Canadian cattle have to close plants and shut down shifts to accomodate for the lack of cattle?

WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT DOES TO PROFIT MARGINS???

Once again, you only see what you want to see. You can't ever see the bigger picture. Typical of someone who is driven by blame!



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Do manufacturers do what they can to pay the lowest amount for their raw materials, inputs, etc... regardless of margins, profits, whatever or not?"

No, sometimes they increase the price of their end product and pay more for the raw materials.

How do you like them apples?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "Do manufacturers do what they can to pay the lowest amount for their raw materials, inputs, etc... regardless of margins, profits, whatever or not?"

No, sometimes they increase the price of their end product and pay more for the raw materials.

How do you like them apples?


~SH~

I see. :shock: So sometimes manufacturers will willingly pay a higher price for inputs than they have to because they can simply raise prices to compensate? :shock: OK...... :shock: When was the last (or first) time Tyson did this? :roll:

I guess that coming from an individual who refuses to recognize meeting a customer's demands is crucial to success, I shouldn't be surprised.

You're up a tree..........again.........

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "So sometimes manufacturers will willingly pay a higher price for inputs than they have to because they can simply raise prices to compensate?"

Nice spin job! I never said anything close to that!


Who pays for fat cattle Sandman?

Answer - the packers do!


Does the price of fat cattle ever increase Sandman?

Answer - yes it does!


The conclusion that anyone but a flaming idiot would reach would be that packers sometimes have to raise the price of their raw materials in order to get them bought.


Treed?

You've never even saw me next to a tree let alone in one.


EVEN STEERS CAN TRY!



~SH~