Chicken Blaming Oversupply on Competing Meats

[Econ101]

Industry News Briefs

Production restraint key to profits in broiler, turkey sectors, says economist

May 12, 2006 - Noting that excess supplies and poor export markets have been devastating to recent broiler industry prices and margins, economist William G. Lapp told listeners at the Urner Barry Executive Conference & Marketing Seminar that production levels by broiler and turkey producers in the second half of 2006 will be crucial to profitability in both sectors.

Lapp, who operates the consulting firm, Advanced Economic Solutions, and former vice president of economic research for ConAgra Foods, said competing meat supplies have hurt poultry prices, while feed costs are trending higher due to corn costs.

The broiler industry's response in moderating supply over the past three months should help balance supply and demand, Lapp indicated. Rising broiler weights, however, are likely to continue to be problem, he said. "Margins should improve with reduced numbers, but export demand for leg quarters is problematic for the industry," he said.

Continued expansion is more of a concern for turkey industry profitability, according to Lapp. Saying that recent poult placements are of concern, he expects turkey production to accelerate during the last half of 2006. While turkey stocks remain tight, supporting prices, Lapp said he expects hen prices will appreciate more modestly this year - with prices peaking in the fall at $.75.

Lapp projected year-over-year increases in broiler meat production for the second, third and fourth quarters to be 2.1 percent, 1.8 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively. He projected year-over-year increases in turkey meat production for the second, third and fourth quarters to be 0.6 percent, 2.5 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively.


Source: staff

 

[Econ101]

SH,


"Prices(or profit margins) can't go up unless supplies come down."


SH, you are the most intellectually and maturity challenged person on this forum. Agman following your talking points puts him right there with you. I sure wish your condition could be reversed, but as I have said before, it is a condition of choice.

 

[Econ101]

Beefman, this one is for our earlier discussion on overuse of antibiotics/arsenic/lack of industry oversight:


Industry News Briefs

Johns Hopkins research finds poultry farms may make you sick

May 11, 2006 - A Johns Hopkins University research study has found that poultry farming may have serious impacts on the lungs and nervous system. According to the study-which is still being analyzed-family members may also be affected.

The findings from the study were presented May 11 at a community meeting in Pocomoke City, Maryland. The study described symptoms that plague chicken growers their first weeks on the job, which they build up an immunity to-like diarrhea.

But the problem is, the bacteria the farmers become accustomed to also builds up an immunity to the drugs used to treat it-like some E. coli cultures. The researchers are concerned the people who have built up an immunity to the bacteria may inadvertently pass it on to others. "You could be exposed to a bacteria," said Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, a professor of environmental health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "You might get sick, you might not. But from a public health perspective, one of the things we worry about is someone who doesn't feel sick walking around with an infectious disease."

The research team also looked at arsenic in chicken feed. Silbergeld said her research shows that area groundwater levels on the Lower Eastern Shore have arsenic ranges in the 50 parts per billion area. The recommended level is 10 parts per billion. She said arsenic is placed in chicken feed to keep the animal healthy and improve its appearance. However, she said that arsenic goes through the chicken and becomes waste. She said that it is then used as fertilizer on the land and is then absorbed into the ground and ground water.


Source: staff

 

[Econ101]

More on poultry:

Scientists study Campylobacter bacteria



FAYETTEVILLE, Ark., May 11 (UPI) -- University of Arkansas scientists are studying Campylobacter bacteria, a food-borne pathogen that is becoming resistant to antibiotics.

Ramakrishna Nannapaneni, a researcher at the university, and colleagues are trying to quantify Campylobacter -- a pathogen that contaminates nearly all retail raw broiler chicken carcasses -- and its emerging ability to resist an important fluoroquinolone antibiotic known as ciprofloxacin.

Research shows broilers frequently carry large numbers of Campylobacter in their intestinal contents that spread during processing onto retail raw products. Campylobacter also can occur in raw milk, fruits and vegetables, as well as in water.

Proper cooking will kill Campylobacter present on raw poultry. The problem is that people who handle raw poultry contaminated by Campylobacter then handle other foods that receive no cooking before consumption, such as salads and lightly cooked vegetables.

The researchers say their study is significant since it's the first time that trends could be determined by quantifying the total numbers of Campylobacter and the antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter found on chicken carcasses.

A report of the research appears in the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology.


Copyright Political Gateway 2006©
Copyright United Press International 2006
44

 

[agman]

SH,


"Prices(or profit margins) can't go up unless supplies come down."


SH, you are the most intellectually and maturity challenged person on this forum. Agman following your talking points puts him right there with you. I sure wish your condition could be reversed, but as I have said before, it is a condition of choice.

Why can't you answer the many question I posed to you after you made a fool out of yourself with your attempted supply/demand analysis while attempting to appear intellectual.

What do call it when beef prices go up as supply goes up and the competing meat supply goes up. I am quite certain Bill Lapp, who I know quite well, knows the correct answer. You have previously evaded the answer which is your MO because it simply blows your foolish statement apart. As a matter a fact you don't ever answer a direct question. You just dream up another phony accusations and post a meaningless and lengthy dissertation.

You are so ignorant of supply/demand situations within the meat industry that you trap yourself in foolish statements. Such as "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". How much are you willing to bet that I can show exteded periods of time when that foolish statement by you got demolished by the realities in the marketplace-a marketplace you know nothing of substance about.

Bill Lapp knows the difference that under current circumstances, with lost export markets which are a component of total demand, supply must be reduced to balance supply and demand. His comment in no way supports your elementary and unsupportable comment.

It is a nice attempt for you to hoodwink readers again. The reality is that anyone with a pea for a brain figured you out a long time ago as a total intellectual fraud. All talk and unsupported accusations-always short on facts.

 

[Brad S]

You are so ignorant of supply/demand situations within the meat industry that you trap yourself in foolish statements. Such as "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". How much are you willing to bet that I can show exteded periods of time when that foolish statement by you got demolished by the realities in the marketplace-a marketplace you know nothing of substance about.

Easy on 101 - he'd know a little more if he'd gotten to 520 micro, but he does pretty good for a 101 student.

101, can you say DEEE MAAAAND SHIFT. Go on and take Agman's wager, I dare ya. Really it will be fun.

 

[Econ101]

SH,


"Prices(or profit margins) can't go up unless supplies come down."


SH, you are the most intellectually and maturity challenged person on this forum. Agman following your talking points puts him right there with you. I sure wish your condition could be reversed, but as I have said before, it is a condition of choice.

Why can't you answer the many question I posed to you after you made a fool out of yourself with your attempted supply/demand analysis while attempting to appear intellectual.

What do call it when beef prices go up as supply goes up and the competing meat supply goes up. I am quite certain Bill Lapp, who I know quite well, knows the correct answer. You have previously evaded the answer which is your MO because it simply blows your foolish statement apart. As a matter a fact you don't ever answer a direct question. You just dream up another phony accusations and post a meaningless and lengthy dissertation.

You are so ignorant of supply/demand situations within the meat industry that you trap yourself in foolish statements. Such as "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". How much are you willing to bet that I can show exteded periods of time when that foolish statement by you got demolished by the realities in the marketplace-a marketplace you know nothing of substance about.

Bill Lapp knows the difference that under current circumstances, with lost export markets which are a component of total demand, supply must be reduced to balance supply and demand. His comment in no way supports your elementary and unsupportable comment.

It is a nice attempt for you to hoodwink readers again. The reality is that anyone with a pea for a brain figured you out a long time ago as a total intellectual fraud. All talk and unsupported accusations-always short on facts.

Agman, as you well know, the comment I made was for a particular circumstance. Anytime you have an elastic commodity and reduce the supply (and that of substitutes) you have greater impact on price than your little QP formula for determining "demand shifts" . Your own numbers that you posted validated exactly what I was saying.

There are many short term things that could be in play that could look like demand shifts. Many are under the control of the packers. One of the main ones that I have argued and was elemental in the argument we were having when I made the statement was the supply of competing meats, of which tyson has the largest and most commanding control over. The analysis by Schroeder includes poultry as a determinite of "demand shift" as you call it. In real economic terms demand shifts hold all other things equal. That almost never happens. If tyson is in control of one of the major factors of "demand shift", namely poultry supply and hence price, then the "demand shift" as you call it, is largely under the control of Tyson.

I seem to remember a particular complex in Fl. that tyson shut down to help in this "demand shift" that helped reduce the supply of poultry. I even had a tyson employee tell me that after they contracted the supply they were disappointed that the industry was not playing the contracted supply out in the meats industry out further, which would have increased the profitability period tyson was aiming for. When tyson has this much control over "demand shifts" your arguments that allude to "demand shifts" being something that tyson does not have that much control over are ludicrous. I know you work with the numbers to know all of this stuff on a much more technical level so unless you are totally stupid, you are willing to perpetrate these mistaken illusions that you yourself have indicated are independent factors.

Give me a break.

Brad S., your comments are elementary to the previous discussion.

Tell me Agman, is the money in your left pocket owned by a different person than the money in your right pocket?