Does the united States need a beef export market ?

[Longcut]

Atta-boy Sandhusker:


You finally put it altogether in just two paragraphs. You are exactly right. I know this is not the way some on this board really feel, but it does appear to me that they want to chase the export market so bad that they forget about our own domestic market.

I suppose my point of view differs from some, but as I look back at history, I see that our country was built on the concept of providing opportunities for the fellow who was near the bottom but wanted to reach upward. Today it appears that those near the top want to remain where they are but to h---l with the little fellow. When I mention arrogant these are the people I refer to.

This is my problem with large multi-nationals that are direct competitors with small business. They import products from countries that don't have our rules, regulations, restriction, taxes, and, not to mention, abuse of their labor force and they are driving small USA businesses out of business!

Yep. And what really burns my rear is the fact that small business' are the driver of our economy, but our clods in Washington do what big business wants even when it hurts small business! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

What facts do you have to back that statement?

 

[Longcut]

It is one thing to know so little about a topic but quite another to show every one.

Do you have any idea on how the most populous countries are growing in terms of disposable income and their desire to eat more than rice? The US domestic market is very small compared to the potential of the rest of the world.

Selling beef involves much more than just selling steaks.

Why are the packers that control your industry not jumping on those markets with your beef????????????

From what I had read on this site, I thought you were part of the beef industry as well.

 

[Sandhusker]

This is my problem with large multi-nationals that are direct competitors with small business. They import products from countries that don't have our rules, regulations, restriction, taxes, and, not to mention, abuse of their labor force and they are driving small USA businesses out of business!

Yep. And what really burns my rear is the fact that small business' are the driver of our economy, but our clods in Washington do what big business wants even when it hurts small business! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

What facts do you have to back that statement?

It's common knowledge down here.

 

[QUESTION]

Such a complicated simple question. Needs and wants are 2 completely different things. Need no - then the US could decrease reliance on imports but the imports are mainly for cheap cut and processed meats. So US beef producer would have to accept lower revenues. Of course you guys want that. :roll: Wants yes- to make the production of beef more lucrative for the the US producer.

 

[Sandhusker]

Such a complicated simple question. Needs and wants are 2 completely different things. Need no - then the US could decrease reliance on imports but the imports are mainly for cheap cut and processed meats. So US beef producer would have to accept lower revenues. Of course you guys want that. :roll: Wants yes- to make the production of beef more lucrative for the the US producer.

That's the packer's arguement from their perspective. If lean beef is what they need to balance things out, US producers can provide it. The real issue is what packers want to pay, not where they have to source their inputs.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Yes, I know about disposable incomes rising in certain countries in the world and the opportunity to market into those economies. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to get in those markets. What I'm saying is that we are smack dab in the middle of the best market in the world and our FIRST PRIORITY has to be to maximize our efforts here. Only a fool would concentrate on $100 sales 1000 miles away when there are $200 sales to be had in 10 miles away. After your first priority of maximizing sales in your backyard is reached, your SECOND PRIORITY is to protect that lucrative turf. Your THIRD PRIORITY is working those outside markets.

Sandhusker & Clarencen, the United States dosen't consume all of the product our beef industry produces, what do you believe should be done with that surplus?

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Sandhusker]

Yes, I know about disposable incomes rising in certain countries in the world and the opportunity to market into those economies. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to get in those markets. What I'm saying is that we are smack dab in the middle of the best market in the world and our FIRST PRIORITY has to be to maximize our efforts here. Only a fool would concentrate on $100 sales 1000 miles away when there are $200 sales to be had in 10 miles away. After your first priority of maximizing sales in your backyard is reached, your SECOND PRIORITY is to protect that lucrative turf. Your THIRD PRIORITY is working those outside markets.

Sandhusker & Clarencen, the United States dosen't consume all of the product our beef industry produces, what do you believe should be done with that surplus?

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

You're starting to drift into the packer's business, but if I was the packer, I'd try to sell it locally and if I couldn't or if it was more lucrative to export it, I'd put the wheels under it.

 

[Clarencen]

I am not usually in sandhuskers camp, but on this issue I believe I am.
I believe that we can produce and fill our domestic demand with the kind of beef that the consumers want, and can do it in such a way that all segiments of the industry can make a profit if we just want to and will try.

We do not need to market cows lips or eyeballs. Yes there are some products from beef that are harder to move, yet something can be made of them. If the packer can market them for extra profit, more power to him. But the problem today is that we don't keep our eye on where the real market is, or try to keep it profitable for both producers and packers. If we really are a consolidated, concerned, and joint industry. we should be for fair prices for all involved. We hear all the time that we are in the beef industry, are beef producers not cattle producers. That is what the packers want us producers to believe, but they do not believe or practice it themselves.

 

[Longcut]

Yep. And what really burns my rear is the fact that small business' are the driver of our economy, but our clods in Washington do what big business wants even when it hurts small business! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

What facts do you have to back that statement?

It's common knowledge down here.

Nothing to back your claim? You wrote that small business is the driver of the US economy? Back up your statement and show us proof that they are larger players than Corporate America.

 

[Anonymous]

Small business is the backbone of the U.S. economy, creating two out of every three new jobs, employing half the private work force, accounting for 40 percent of America's total gross national product.
George HW Bush

Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.
Ronald Reagan

 

[Sandhusker]

What facts do you have to back that statement?

It's common knowledge down here.

Nothing to back your claim? You wrote that small business is the driver of the US economy? Back up your statement and show us proof that they are larger players than Corporate America.

Why do I need to prove anything to you? If you don't believe me, do a quick Google search.

 

[mrj]

Sandhusker, as per usual, your belief that imported beef sold in the USA "actually costs US producers due to lost sales" doesn't make a lot of sense. That is beef we did not HAVE in the USA! It does not displace any beef produced here. Sure, we probably could eventually build up our numbers and sell that increased beef, however, we are not currently doing so, are we?

You may not have specifically written we should not trade/export beef......but, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.......what are we to believe? It sure isn't an eagle!

I fear the REAL competitors, the 'other white meat' and poultry more than I fear imports. When very lean imported beef adds value to the excess fat which is a consequence of producing high Choice or Prime grade beef, it is demonstrably a benefit to the US cattle producers who do raise those higher quality cattle. When imported lean beef displaces those new beef cuts such as the Flat Iron steak which US producers are selling for more money than when chucks were turned into hamburger, we benefit.

Now, you are in the camp that denies all that increased value, and I can't help you there, but I darn sure do not intend to let my cattle subsidize your denial of the facts.

You keep insisting that NCBA does not advertise US produced beef. Pray tell, what beef are they advertising if not ALL beef sold in the USA? IF imports are at 20% of beef sold in the USA, at least 80% of all beef sold in the USA is produced here! At the minimum, we are advertising about 80% US produced beef. Considering that only about 5% of imported beef is sold at retail, it could reasonably be argued that 95% of advertising IS for US produced beef, since nearly all advertising is aimed at retail customers.

You are in denial about the financial facts of wealth of non-US citizens, too, it seems. It's almost funny.....not so many years ago, there were rumors that mid-level US restaurants could not get the best US beef because people in Japan, Singapore, and several other Asian nations demanded that highest quality beef and paid far more than any but the very top US restaurants could/would pay. Now, you question their ability to buy the beef we want to sell! I think there is more wealth in Asian nations, and even more among the middle income levels than you seem to believe is there. I know a young man who is among many US citizens making huge money working construction jobs in China, for instance. I also know some who have been there as missionaries/teachers. China has the most English speaking people in the world! It IS growing and changing in many ways, and the people like and want to become more like the US. Instant communication is changing the world very rapidly and we need to be ready to serve those consumers, IMO. No one has to tell me that! It seems very apparent when talking with travelers and watching more than just the local news channels.

BTW, who says the domestic market ISN"T the first PRIORITY for Beef Checkoff programs? It most certainly is! The great majority of Checkoff dollars IS spent promoting domestic beef, since some 80% of ALL
beef sold in the country IS domestic.

RobertMac, have YOU thought about the 'free ride' some people promoting COOL plan to get at YOUR expense? You have done your own ID and marketing of your beef to your customers and built a nice market niche. Government mandated "origin" is believed by some to pretty much do what you and others have done on their own with the implication that all USA produced beef is better and safer than any imported beef. Is that fair? Honest?

clarence, I'm sorry you have fallen into the trap of class envy. While I don't have the numbers before me, and am not concerned enough to look it up, occasionally there is news giving the lie to claims of the liberal media that the 'little people' cannot make it and are being kept down by the 'elite' (aka your "arrogant" people). Don't you see the great efforts to make us believe that there is little hope for people "near the bottom" and the damage it does us to believe that or even think that? It takes away incentive to strive for better educations needed to achieve upward mobility. I happen to believe that is no accident. It serves political hacks well to have 'needy' people that need to be 'cared for' by government because we are incapable of doing better for ourselves, IMO.

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Sandhusker, as per usual, your belief that imported beef sold in the USA "actually costs US producers due to lost sales" doesn't make a lot of sense. That is beef we did not HAVE in the USA! It does not displace any beef produced here. Sure, we probably could eventually build up our numbers and sell that increased beef, however, we are not currently doing so, are we?"

You're telling me that when somebody buys a Canadian steak, it doesn't displace a US steak because we didn't have one available? When a packers uses Aussie lean to make burger, it does't displace a US chuck or US cull because there was none available? :shock: Maybe you should ask yourself why our numbers are down? Do you think profitabilty may have something to do with it?


MRJ, "You may not have specifically written we should not trade/export beef......but, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.......what are we to believe? It sure isn't an eagle! "

Quotes of mine, "I didn't say that we don't need exports." "I didn't say we shouldn't try to export beef, we should". Why do you think I'm so torked at Creekstone not being able to test for their EXPORT market if I'm against exports?

MRJ, "I fear the REAL competitors, the 'other white meat' and poultry more than I fear imports. When very lean imported beef adds value to the excess fat which is a consequence of producing high Choice or Prime grade beef, it is demonstrably a benefit to the US cattle producers who do raise those higher quality cattle. When imported lean beef displaces those new beef cuts such as the Flat Iron steak which US producers are selling for more money than when chucks were turned into hamburger, we benefit. "

Imported lean is a benefit to PACKERS. It lowers cull prices and reduces demand for chucks - you can't use up a chuck making flat irons. If you can show me a direct correalation between packer profits and cattle prices, your arguement has merit. However, neither Agman nor SH could do that, so I doubt you can, either.

MRJ, "Now, you are in the camp that denies all that increased value, and I can't help you there, but I darn sure do not intend to let my cattle subsidize your denial of the facts."

I don't deny the increase in value to the PACKER at all. It's obvious why they replace your competitor's product with yours - it's cheaper. Once again, please show me the direct correalation between packer profits and cattle prices.

MRJ, "You keep insisting that NCBA does not advertise US produced beef. Pray tell, what beef are they advertising if not ALL beef sold in the USA?.... "

You can stop right there. All beef sold in the USA is not US produced beef.

MRJ, "You are in denial about the financial facts of wealth of non-US citizens, too, it seems. It's almost funny.....not so many years ago, there were rumors that mid-level US restaurants could not get the best US beef because people in Japan, Singapore, and several other Asian nations demanded that highest quality beef and paid far more than any but the very top US restaurants could/would pay. Now, you question their ability to buy the beef we want to sell! I think there is more wealth in Asian nations, ...."

Where did you come up with me questioning their ability to buy our beef? Go back and look at what my third priority is.

MRJ, "BTW, who says the domestic market ISN"T the first PRIORITY for Beef Checkoff programs? It most certainly is! The great majority of Checkoff dollars IS spent promoting domestic beef, since some 80% of ALL beef sold in the country IS domestic"

Saying that our future lies in exports gives a pretty good clue.... If the domestic market is their first priority, they need to take a basic marketing class, because they're doing a crappy job. In your priority market, it should be unacceptable for your competitor to make any sales - you don't shrug off 20% of it. You don't stand by with your thumb up your tail while your government lowers health standards on your product. When you can stop pathogens like e-coli from entering your priority market easily, you do it. When somebody is trying to pass your competitor's product off as yours, you do all you can to stop it.

 

[Clarencen]

MRJ:
I am surprised that you of all people would accuse me of class envy. I do not envy anyone who has more money than I, nor more influence than I. I don't care weather they earned it, inherited it or married it. I am well aware though, that there are some who put greed above need just because they have the means to do so. Maybe they try to justify this by calling it just good business. If that makes them feel better I guess that is alright, but they are blind to the fact that they might be depriving some smaller operator a better opportunity.

If you want to talk about a big one, there is Ted Turner. I wonder how many smaller ranchers could set up good ranching operations on the land he owns. But we don't have to just look at him, I have seen it in my own neighborhood.

I would rather create opportunities than dole out welfare. A small taste of success is one of the best incentatives there is. I really don't know what it would take to motivate some people. We to often say education and training for better job skills, but without the desire these do little.

I do not like to see people fail, I don't want to be the cause of it. Some can handle failure and bounce back but most really can not. it always takes it's tole.

 

[mrj]

clarence, I'm sorry you feel offended. Actually, I don't intend it as you being envious of those who may have more than you, but as that form of 'class envy' which these days seems to be so force-fed to us all by the liberals in media, government, and education, IMO.

It seems so obvious to me that anyone who 'has more', or is even PERCEIVED to have more than the 'average Joe' is under attack and very often is held up as a symbol of greed.

When it serves politicians and 'do-gooders' (usually with taxpayer money) best to have a 'needy' constituency 'needing' care/help from government agencies of treatment centers, we are going to have those pols and career 'do-gooders' pushing to keep and to grow those constituencies, IMO.

Though I don't like to give Ted Turner credit and don't approve what he is doing with his wealth, I do have to admit he does employ quite a number of people on his ranch in my neighborhood who probably would not otherwise be able to ranch, even if they had been able to buy one of ranches which was sold to Turner here. Some of them probably were too small to make a living on even in the "good old days".

Nor do I like to see people fail. I truly do believe that PART of the problem is people who are successful on ranches usually work harder than people should, pay attention to the business of behaving; in that they have solid marriages and don't hang around the bars too much, and don't let recreation take too much time and money off the ranch. Many young families see the ease and shorter work week for people who work for other businesses and like that life style better than the hard work and dedication it ALWAYS has taken to be successful on a ranch in this part of the country. A large part of the problem is that the homesteads in this part of the country were NEVER large enough, given our climate and soil types, for a family to make a living from, UNLESS they were lucky and'or had the means (savings from prior efforts) to purchase additional land to add to their original 160 acres. It takes AT LEAST 25 acres and probably more like 40 or more acres on an all grass, no farming, outfit to run a cow and her calf for a year. That's assuming good grass management and properly located water sources.

I totally agree with you on the opportunities and success for incentives and frustration over motivation, or lack thereof in too many people. That is a tragedy for our country, IMO.

My apologies for not making clear that I wasn't accusing you of a personal feeling of envy. It simply troubles me that so many people do assume people of varying degrees of wealth do not have compassion and the interests of others in their hearts.

I know many leaders (not just officers or staff, as well as members of NCBA, who quietly do so much to benefit their fellow man, as well as the cattle industry, with no thought of rewards or acclaim. We don't hear or read much about that, but it happens. I happen to enjoy people and finding the good in as many as possible.

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "I know many leaders (not just officers or staff, as well as members of NCBA, who quietly do so much to benefit their fellow man, as well as the cattle industry..."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: Holy disillusionment, Batman!

What has NCBA done that has enhanced US producer's long-term profitability?

 

[mrj]

Sandhusker, just put aside you bias........ooops! I should know better than to expect that from you.

I thought it was quite clear I referred to those people as individuals, not as the association.

There has been cinsiderable information presented as to what NCBA does, all aimed at benefitting cattle producers, despite what you and a few others claim.

However some, maybe all, the cattle producers who use the information and practices (BQA, for one) DO benefit. Some are profitable. Some are not.

There is much more to profitability than simply doing what dad did, or even following good managment practices. Luck plays a part.

There isn't much room for mistakes or bad luck, including divorce, illnesses without adequate insurance coverage, too much time playing instead of working.........including on the computer!

There must be nearly as many reasons for profitability problems as there are ranchers who are not profitable, aren't there? It is not ALL
the packers fault!!!!

I heard the R-CALF Director/Hero, Johnny Smith, state only this morning on his propaganda program, aka Ft. Pierre Livestock Market Report, that current calf and yealing prices are not high enough because the packers won't give the feeders enough money for fat cattle. Now, how do you suppose the packer is supposed to GET the money to GIVE to the feeders???? Maybe packers could tell the several businesses in the chain between packer and retailers to raise the price of beef to consumers. When that happens, all too often the consumers buy pork and poultry (the REAL competition for beef) instead of beef, you know!

mrj

 

[Jason]

As usual it comes back to land prices, not packers that are the limiting factor for profitable cattle production.

I was just told that barley is being contracted for April delivery at $5 per bushel. I have never seen that price before.

That price will pressure ranch land values more as farmers want to get more land into crops. Any tame farage acres are in danger for sure.

How are the resident packer blamers going to spin this as a way the packers "refuse to give producers enough for their fats"?

It's a nice platitude, but reality says any business cannot pay its suppliers more than they earn. I have rarely had a bull buyer concerned for my profitability, giving me "enough for my bulls".

The packers are not in business to keep producers in business. Their job is to convert cattle into beef. All the expenses from the 40 acres per pair to the meat counter guys wages come from the final consumer, the person who eats the beef.

Let's blame the consumer for refusing to give enough for our beef! We'll see how far that gets anyone.

 

[RobertMac]

There has been cinsiderable information presented as to what NCBA does, all aimed at benefitting cattle producers, despite what you and a few others claim.

Since the beginning of the check-off and NCBA 'til now...

USA cattle numbers are down

USA cattle producer numbers are down

Beef imports into the USA are up

The percent of the consumer's dollar the cattle producers receives is down

Which of these facts aren't true and which benefit the cattle producer?

 

[RobertMac]

As usual it comes back to land prices, not packers that are the limiting factor for profitable cattle production.

I was just told that barley is being contracted for April delivery at $5 per bushel. I have never seen that price before.

That price will pressure ranch land values more as farmers want to get more land into crops. Any tame farage acres are in danger for sure.

How are the resident packer blamers going to spin this as a way the packers "refuse to give producers enough for their fats"?

It's a nice platitude, but reality says any business cannot pay its suppliers more than they earn. I have rarely had a bull buyer concerned for my profitability, giving me "enough for my bulls".

The packers are not in business to keep producers in business. Their job is to convert cattle into beef. All the expenses from the 40 acres per pair to the meat counter guys wages come from the final consumer, the person who eats the beef.

Let's blame the consumer for refusing to give enough for our beef! We'll see how far that gets anyone.

Jason, a lot of truth in what you say. The beef industry is structured today as a commodity industry. A commodity industry is structure for tight margins and high volume of sales for profitability. A producer has to own/lease enough land to run enough cattle at low input cost to reach consistent profitability. Everyone that owns a producer's calf through the chain to the consumer is trying to secure some profit. The problem is there isn't enough profit to last from the first in line(retailer) to the last in line(producer). The way to increase profitability in a commodity industry is to own more profit points...vertical integration. As a producer, would you rather be a part of bottom up VI or top down VI?

Then there is the problem of horizontal integration.