Econ101 said:
This is the effect of "swinging" the cattle cycle with the price manipulation argued in the Pickett case. These swings lose market share to more stable poultry and pork that can quicker react to the markets than cattle.
Tam, I have stated before, the U.S. does not need to import any beef from Canada. The importation of cattle is the packer's game. If prices were more stable and profitable, the domestic supplies would be higher. I personally think trade with Canada is a good thing, but that issue should not detract from the economic scams that the packers are playing on all producers, Canadian producers included. The cattle producers are hitting each other with the crossfire on these little rabbits that are being tossed out so the big game can get away. You are one of the biggest shooters, Tam.
You finally answered a question I posed to you some time ago. You don't understand the cattle cycle.
Packers are in no way responsible for controlling the heifer retention rates or cull down of herds.
Drought first and foremost is the factor that shapes the national cowherd. Without water and pasture producers cannot increase production no matter what the price of calves is doing.
Second to say poultry and pork are easier to adjust production levels. That is true. Again is it packer manipulation that makes a cow have 1 calf and a sow have 13 piglets? Or are the packers responsible that it takes a few short weeks to get a chicken to slaughter but a calf can be 14-30 months?
Just the biological factors of cows make it harder to have a steady supply of beef than of chicken and pork. Those same factors allow us to turn cheaper non arible land acres into high quality protien.
When calf prices climb and there is feed, producers tend to keep more heifers. This shorts the beef supply and tends prices higher in the short term. Then when prices fall many sell all their heifers to pay the bills, again affecting the supply but flooding it for a period of time.
This simple fact, shows that an arbitrary support on calf prices would not work. It would lead to a non demanded increase in supply. Then the price would have to fall unless you propose the government just pays ranchers for being ranchers. Sounds like wellfare to me.