• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Imports Of Young Canadian Cattle Running High

Mike

Well-known member
DJ Jan-April US Imports Of Young Canadian Cattle Running High

KANSAS CITY (Dow Jones)--The number of feeder cattle and slaughter steers and heifers coming into the U.S. from Canada through the first four months of this year is running about 40% above the average for the same categories and time frame in 1999 through 2003.

Those years offer the latest comparison since no live cattle were allowed to be imported from there in 2004 or during those months in 2005.

Data compiled from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's weekly imported livestock reports show that through the end of April, 2006 cattle imports from Canada stood at nearly 423,000 head, with about 65% of the animals being slaughter steers and heifers sent directly to U.S. beef-processing plants.

The year-to-date figure for feeder cattle and steers and heifers imported from Canada as of April 29 is below the 2002 same-period total for all cattle, which included cows and bulls.

The U.S. imposed a ban on imports of Canadian live cattle as well as beef in May of 2003 when a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease, was found in a cow in Alberta. The ban on beef was partially lifted in August of that year, but live cattle from Canada were not allowed to enter the U.S. until mid-July of 2005, and those animals must be less than 30 months of age at slaughter.

Industry sources said there are several factors why more young Canadian cattle are being shipped south into the U.S. this year. One of the reasons is to allow the Canadian beef plants to process more of the older animals that are not allowed into the U.S. but which have built up in numbers there. Since the older animals nor beef from those animals were being shipped outside the country due to BSE bans and Canadian ranchers could not afford to simply destroy their aged cattle, the inventories built up on the farms and ranches.

Glenn Grimes, agricultural economist at the University of Missouri, said other contributing factors included the tariff that Canada had imposed on imports of U.S. corn, which along with "good" cattle prices in the U.S. have resulted in more Canadian cattle being shipped south.

Jim Robb, agricultural economist with the Livestock Marketing Information Center in Denver, said the number of slaughter-ready cattle coming into the U.S. from Canada during the first four months was about 2,600 head per week above the same period in 2003. He said that based on the number of feeder cattle that came across the border during the January-April period, Canada could have below year-ago on-feed inventories during the second half of the year.

Robb also said that LMIC expects beef imports from Canada to be down this year from a year ago and for total U.S. beef imports to be down for the year. Canada is eligible to ship beef to Japan, so more of its production from the younger animals is going there plus the Canadian beef plants are slaughtering fewer cattle this year than they were a year ago, he said.

U.S. beef processors boosted their weekend slaughter operations last week and again this week to offset the down-time from Monday's immigration day events. The combined estimated slaughter figures from this and last week resulted in 2.1% more cattle moved through the plants than during the same period a year ago.

Pork plants also made up for the closures on May 1, with the combined two-week totals running neck-and-neck with a year ago at 3.783 million this year versus 3.786 million last year.

CATTLE/HOG SLAUGHTERS

The USDA estimated this week's cattle slaughter at 624,000 head, compared with 682,000 a week ago and 654,000 a year ago. Year-to-date cattle slaughter is 10.861 million head, up 2.3% from 10.616 million a year ago.

This week's hog slaughter was pegged at 1.809 million, compared with 1.974 million a week ago and 1.858 million a year ago. Hog slaughter for the year to date was estimated at 35.531 million head, up 0.1% from 35.512 million a year ago.

TOTAL MEAT PRODUCTION

The USDA estimated total beef, pork and lamb production for the week at 845.2 million pounds, compared with 924.8 million last week and 865.7 million a year ago. Year-to-date combined meat output is 15.758 billion pounds, up 3.3% from a year ago.

Broiler/fryer slaughter this week was estimated at 154.795 million head, compared with 167.199 million a week ago and 163.999 million a year ago.

-By Curt Thacker, Dow Jones Newswires; 913-322-5178;

[email protected]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The number of feeder cattle and slaughter steers and heifers coming into the U.S. from Canada through the first four months of this year is running about 40% above the average for the same categories and time frame in 1999 through 2003.

2006 cattle imports from Canada stood at nearly 423,000 head, with about 65% of the animals being slaughter steers and heifers sent directly to U.S. beef-processing plants.


Probably a pretty good reason- along with all the other area (Mexico, Aus.,etc.) high beef imports- that the slaughter prices are running $15 below last year and the feeders are losing money on every head....

I wonder how many of these cattle received the Canadian BSE subsidy payment along the way....

So if the warehouses are so full of protein- why are they importing more :???:
 

Bill

Well-known member
I wonder how many of these cattle received the Canadian BSE subsidy payment along the way....

Why don't you tell us all how much per head the big Canadian BSE "subsidy" was Oldtimer. Your bean counters at R-Clan headquarters must have a handle on it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill said:
I wonder how many of these cattle received the Canadian BSE subsidy payment along the way....

Why don't you tell us all how much per head the big Canadian BSE "subsidy" was Oldtimer. Your bean counters at R-Clan headquarters must have a handle on it.

This one Bill:


NFU: Canadian Cattle Subsidies Unfair to U.S. Producers


WASHINGTON (July 26, 2005) – National Farmers Union is urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to take immediate action to ensure that subsidized Canadian cattle production does not compete with the U.S. beef industry.

In response to U.S policy to protect the domestic cattle herd from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the Canadian government instituted $200 per head subsidy payments to Canadian cattle producers. Now that the border has been re-opened to Canadian cattle and beef imports, these payments constitute an unfair subsidy of Canadian exports to our country.

“U.S. cattle producers have experienced a drop in prices since the reopening of the border,” NFU President Dave Frederickson said. “We need to ensure we are not giving foreign producers a competitive advantage over U.S. producers.”

Although this program has been suspended, subsidized cattle are coming into the United States and are in direct competition with domestic cattle. NFU has asked USDA to take the following action:

Request Canada to immediately suspend shipping subsidized Canadian cattle to the United States.
Investigate the Canadian subsidy to see if it violates the WTO or NAFTA trade agreements .
If the Canadian government resists ending subsidization of their cattle industry, initiate a countervailing duty investigation and immediately establish import tariffs to protect the economic interests of U.S. cattle producers.
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Bill said:
I wonder how many of these cattle received the Canadian BSE subsidy payment along the way....

Why don't you tell us all how much per head the big Canadian BSE "subsidy" was Oldtimer. Your bean counters at R-Clan headquarters must have a handle on it.

This one Bill:


NFU: Canadian Cattle Subsidies Unfair to U.S. Producers


WASHINGTON (July 26, 2005) – National Farmers Union is urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to take immediate action to ensure that subsidized Canadian cattle production does not compete with the U.S. beef industry.

In response to U.S policy to protect the domestic cattle herd from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the Canadian government instituted $200 per head subsidy payments to Canadian cattle producers. Now that the border has been re-opened to Canadian cattle and beef imports, these payments constitute an unfair subsidy of Canadian exports to our country.


.Ot.. At least you could post an current article . :roll: .$200.00 yeah right. :lol:
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The number of feeder cattle and slaughter steers and heifers coming into the U.S. from Canada through the first four months of this year is running about 40% above the average for the same categories and time frame in 1999 through 2003.

2006 cattle imports from Canada stood at nearly 423,000 head, with about 65% of the animals being slaughter steers and heifers sent directly to U.S. beef-processing plants.


Probably a pretty good reason- along with all the other area (Mexico, Aus.,etc.) high beef imports- that the slaughter prices are running $15 below last year and the feeders are losing money on every head....

I wonder how many of these cattle received the Canadian BSE subsidy payment along the way....

So if the warehouses are so full of protein- why are they importing more :???:

Do I detect some bitterness OT?

You need to hear a few more things to make your smile even brighter.

I read some information that refutes what Mike has to say - but in my research I could not find it. I know it is out there - but where? Then again maybe I did not read it - maybe I thought I did? :D

I did find some other interesting info though.

I admit some of this information surprized me.

First - at least according to Canfax - the U.S. of A. is the largest importer of beef in the world. Ahead of Russia, all of Europe, the middle east, Japan and assorted others. 2005 figures.

Second - Once again - according to Canfax - and if I read it correctly - Mexico is your largest export market. And CANADA is your second largest export market. 2005 figures.

Third - The U.S. of A. holds only 9% of the worlds cattle inventory - far behind India, Brazil and China - Canada holds far less than the U.S. of A, at only 1.5% of the world cattle inventory. 2005 numbers.

Fourth - Canada imports beef - 89% of the imports that go into Canada - come from the U.S. of A. 2005 numbers.

Fifth - Canada exports to the following markets as of 2005:

U.S. of A.
Mexico
Hong Kong
Caribbean
Central Europe
Central and South America
South East Asia
EU 25

Percentages unavailable for Canada exports - the tonnage was there but I did not feel like working out the math.

U.S. of A. export markets in order of size are as follows 2005 numbers so Japan will have moved but I left it where it stood:

Mexico - 64%
Canada - 25%
Japan - 2%
Other Central America - 2%
Other Far East - 1%
Other - 6%

So OT - the U.S. of A. is importing. Oviously the producers are not able to meet domestic demand with what is presently produced. The biggest imports come from down south with Canada well behind.

The way I read the Canfax reports - and I do not claim to be an expert - therefore I am quite fallable - the final thing that I read - and was quite surprized to read - In 2003 the U.S. of A. led world production of Beef and Veal. In 2003 there was a substantial drop in production - and it has yet to rise to the 2003 numbers.

Almost every other country in the world has increased the growth and production of beef and veal. Despite the news I continue to read on the herd sizes and the increased production - the U.S. has fallen behind. Could this be due to the high prices offered over the past year? Over selling?

I have a tough time believing it is the importation of cattle that is causing the lion share of the problem. It is a combimation of many factors. As it stands right now, the U.S. of A. cannot feed itslf - or there would be no need to import. To be able to consume all of the domestic supply places the U.S. of A. in a wonderful position. But to handle ANY export market - that beef must be replaced with something - hence the importation of beef.

In closing I believe there are also additional factors which will cause the price of cattle to fall. I am often unpopular when I bring up captive supply - but the fact is it is easy for the big boys to control the price when they have production sitting outside in the pens.

Oh, yeah - the Canucks got a bunch of money for their beef during a disaster. Anyone wants to get into a - pointy finger - who got what in a subsidy war / fight / discussion with their neighbours is lower than a snakes belly in a wagon wheel rut.

We - certainly almost all of us - have benefitted from assistance, subsidies and "call them what you will" in one manner or another - anyone says different is a straight out and out liar. You know it. I know it.

Happens on both sides of the border.

And so does almost everyone on this board know it. So perhaps we could stay away from that one. Unless of course you want to start listing all the benefits and subsidies you recieved? And your neighbour recieved over the past years? And then we could get a few Canucks to do the same?

The U.S. of A. puts more into ag in almost any one State in the U.S. of A. than Canada does for the WHOLE country. And that is a fact. Be happy for those that receive when they need it and never be spiteful when someone gets something that help them keep their head above water.

You of all people should know this and live by it if you have as many cross border friends as you claim.

The tone of your comment demeans you - not what I would have expected from you.

B.C.
 

Silver

Well-known member
OT, try to get this through your head. You've been told and told and you still haven't figured this out..... The $200.00 per head was to take those yearlings OFF THE MARKET. Not a subsidy.
....Read you books, tell you stories, and you still know @#[email protected] all. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brokecowboy
So OT - the U.S. of A. is importing. Oviously the producers are not able to meet domestic demand with what is presently produced. The biggest imports come from down south with Canada well behind.

That the reason we need M-COOL so US consumers can choose....
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
OT- Youve got to get a life and cant keep hanging onto the past. These cattle would not be eligible to go to the USA because they would be older than 30 months by now. Most of them likely went for slaughter already. OT quit your whining before we get you some cheese to go with your whine...... :lol: :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Manitoba_Rancher said:
OT- Youve got to get a life and cant keep hanging onto the past. These cattle would not be eligible to go to the USA because they would be older than 30 months by now. Most of them likely went for slaughter already. OT quit your whining before we get you some cheese to go with your whine...... :lol: :wink:

That wouldn't be no fun- I couldn't make all the Canucks howl :wink: ....

And I am killing time- farrier got here about an before dark- Need 4 horses shod- and he's got 1 1/2 done...He may be at it until midnite...

I'm trying out the kid from Scobey that everyone has been raving about--He has to get them done today because tomorrow he's heading for Alberta to ride on a community pasture and said he won't be back until July...
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
In response to U.S policy to protect the domestic cattle herd from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the Canadian government instituted $200 per head subsidy payments to Canadian cattle producers. Now that the border has been re-opened to Canadian cattle and beef imports, these payments constitute an unfair subsidy of Canadian exports to our country.

Hmmmm, they certainly know how to twist things around, don't they? That $200 was only if the animals were retained for an entire year, which is approximately the cost of feeding an animal for the year. If you opted for the 8 month program, it reduced to $120. Most producers went with the 8 month program. And it only applied to 1/3 of your calf crop. And it was 2 years ago, so those cattle are long since slaughtered and have no bearing on the prices today.

OT, I know RCalf is torqued off about Canadian imports, but you need to do yourself a favor and logon to the Ag Canada websites and read the actual support payment documents, versus believing the press releases of a variety of committees and lobby groups who haven't bothered to find out the actual truth. You strike me as a reasonably intelligent man, and you should do yourself that justice.

As an example, we have the CAIS program up here. Its the Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization program. Long story, short: Its supposed to take a 5 year average of a farmers income, and through a insurance-like structure (you can insure for X% of your income, and pay a premium), provide a top-up should your income for a year drop below that X%.

Example: To insure at the 100% level, a farmer would pay a premium of say, $5000. It would depend on what his level of income was of course. This money is deposited into an interest bearing account, with the interest being paid by the government. The only thing that makes the CAIS program attractive is that the interest is at a higher level than investments are currently at. Lets say in this case his 5 year average was $50,000. In the year in which he insured himself, should his income drop below that $50,000, he would recieve a payment equal to the difference, UP TO the amount he had in his CAIS account. So if it was his first year, and his income dropped $10,000 and he only had the $5000 in the account, he'd get $5000, plus a little interest. And next year, he would have to stay in CAIS, but he couldn't trigger a payout because he can only recieve a payout every 2 years.

Sound like a good deal? Not really, as there are so many little loopholes and caveats that many people can't trigger a payout. They would be further ahead to place that money into an investment account. A fine example is myself. In 2003, my income from the cattle ranch was off by close to $12,000. This was even after an expansion fueled by cattle profits. So I decided to give the CAIS program a whack. I submitted my documents, with my 5 year averages (two years of which were BSE years, artificially depressing the average, but no correction was made). I chose the 70% level, deferred my payment into the CAIS account (special one-time deal to help producers deal with BSE), and was content. A few months later, I recieved a letter stating I was eligible, at my 70% level, to recieve a special advance of $3855. So I sent in the documents saying, heck yeah, gimme my money. A month later, I got a letter in the mail stating that I'd missed the deadline (I was 1 month early) and that I was no longer eligible. It took me 4 months of fighting and phone calls to my MP before I finally saw that cheque.

Last week, I opened up my mail, and there was another letter from CAIS. My 2004 eligibility was $0, so that means I have to pay back the $3855 advance. Heres the kicker: My 2004 cattle income was at 95% of my 5 year average, but ONLY because I'd taken money from my other job and fueled another expansion. Even though my income was close to my average, my profit/animal was still lower than than my average. I was running at 60% of normal. So they've got my premiums I paid in, AND they want the advance back as well.

Those are the massive subsidies we recieve up here OT. I've actually less money than I started with because if I withdraw from CAIS, I don't get all my funds back. And I plan on expanding for the next 10 years or so, so I'll never trigger a payout.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Its 11PM and the horsehoer just finished- luckily the old troopers went faster....

Rod- Yeah I'm aware that the program went sour...

Makes you wonder tho- why didn't they take back all the money the packers made off that program :???:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Its 11PM and the horsehoer just finished- luckily the old troopers went faster....

Rod- Yeah I'm aware that the program went sour...

Makes you wonder tho- why didn't they take back all the money the packers made off that program :???:
You should be aware the program went sour as it has been explained here numerous times by different people but in typical R-Calf fashion you keep briinging it up. Reminds me of the boy who cried wolf until he had no credibility.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So OT, are you really trying to suggest that consumer demand, increased carcass weights, excessive supplies of chicken, and higher fuel prices ARE NOT INFLUENCING OUR CATTLE PRICES???

Once again, the old R-CALF view from looking down the import pipe.


~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Makes you wonder tho- why didn't they take back all the money the packers made off that program :???:

I've seen reference to this, but haven't found any information about which program sent money to the packers. CAIS isn't available to them. Nor was the retained calf program as it was only for primary producers and feedlots who owned animals at the time of its inception. Do you know which program sent money to the packers, OT? I ask this question in all honesty, as I would like to find out. I agree that support payments should not go to packers, unless they already owned cattle (which I don't agree with, but we don't have any laws which prevents packer ownership. Neither does the US, from my understanding), and agreed to keep those animals off the market.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Oldtimer said:
Makes you wonder tho- why didn't they take back all the money the packers made off that program :???:

I've seen reference to this, but haven't found any information about which program sent money to the packers. CAIS isn't available to them. Nor was the retained calf program as it was only for primary producers and feedlots who owned animals at the time of its inception. Do you know which program sent money to the packers, OT? I ask this question in all honesty, as I would like to find out. I agree that support payments should not go to packers, unless they already owned cattle (which I don't agree with, but we don't have any laws which prevents packer ownership. Neither does the US, from my understanding), and agreed to keep those animals off the market.

Rod

Rod- Not sure how or thru what agency they doled it out- but I think it was just a 1 time legislated BSE relief payment....
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
The subsidy program was called CABSERP,most of that subsidy money went to the packers.It was the first program after the initial BSE,is this what you were talking about??
 

Mike

Well-known member
Canada: meatpackers profit from BSE crisis
By David Adelaide
23 August 2004

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

A recently released report by Alberta’s auditor general reveals that the major meatpacking companies reaped windfall profits from Canada’s BSE crisis, while the social cost of the crisis fell onto cattle producers, including small farmers and farm workers, and the public treasury.

In May 2003, a single Alberta cow was discovered to have been infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), or Mad Cow Disease, which has been linked with the fatal human neurological condition variant Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease (vCJD). Canadian beef was immediately barred access to all of its major export markets. Entire ranching communities in Alberta, the province in which Canada’s beef industry is centered, faced economic ruin, as the price for fed cattle plunged from $C107 per hundredweight to between $C65 and $C85 per hundredweight.

A blitz of ad campaigns and nationalist appeals from politicians encouraged Canadians to support the beleaguered industry by continuing to buy “Canadian beef.” These appeals, which paid scant regard to any and all questions of public health and safety, were largely successful, and, as Fred Dunn, the auditor general, notes in his report, Canadians actually consumed 5 percent more beef in 2003 than they had in 2002.

Fearing the steep fall in cattle prices would drive many ranchers into bankruptcy, provincial and federal governments announced subsidy programs for cattle producers, such as the Canada Alberta BSE Recovery Program (CABSERP). CABSERP gave producers a “deficiency” payment for 90 percent of the difference between what they sold slaughtered cattle for and what comparable product would have gone for in US markets during the same period.

With the export of live cattle to the United States barred indefinitely and winter approaching, producers were compelled to sell their cattle to the meatpacking plants at prices far below normal. The terms of CABSERP further encouraged a glut of cattle for slaughter, thereby placing even greater downward pressure on prices, as they stipulated that the subsidy would only be applicable to cattle slaughtered by an early cut-off date.

Auditor General Dunn cites a Statistics Canada report that says farm cash receipts for cattle were 34 percent lower in 2003 than in 2002, although more cattle were slaughtered. Wholesale and retail prices for beef, however, remained substantially unchanged. According to Dunn, Alberta’s three largest meatpackers—the multinationals, Lakeside Packers, Cargill Foods and XL Foods—made off with an average of $C176 profit per head of cattle during the second half of 2003, an increase of 281 percent over the figure of $C46 per head recorded during the period preceding the BSE crisis. While exploiting the BSE crisis to drastically increase the differential between the prices they paid ranchers for their cattle and the prices they charged consumers for beef, the meatpackers also received tens of millions of dollars in payouts from CABSERP, since they were themselves owners of large cattle herds.

In early 2004, farmer and consumer groups and opposition politicians began to complain about this obvious case of profiteering. The three meatpacking companies were subpoenaed to appear before a federal parliamentary committee and ordered to open their books to scrutiny. They refused to appear and were subsequently held to be in contempt of parliament. A motion that would have fined the recalcitrant corporations was blocked by Conservative and Bloc Quebecois MPs.

The companies, however, did prove willing to hand over their financial records to Alberta’s auditor general, doubtless because they expected that any report made on the orders of the right-wing Tory government of Ralph Klein would treat them with kid gloves. Canada’s longest-serving premier, Klein has won the accolades of the Wall Street Journal for his cuts to public and social services and advocacy, in the name of “free enterprise,” of deregulation and privatization.

The meatpacking companies were not disappointed. While Dunn makes a number of very limited criticisms of the CABSERP subsidy program, the main thrust of his report is to portray the meatpackers’ obvious profiteering as an entirely unavoidable and even legitimate consequence of “supply and demand” in a “distorted market.” According to Dunn, “the issue is not that the packers received program funds destined for producers, but rather, to the extent that CABSERP caused cattle prices to fall, the cost of the program increased.”

It is undeniable that the way in which the subsidy program was structured helped drive down prices and thereby facilitated the meatpackers’ price gouging. But even without any subsidy to cattle producers, the big meatpacking concerns, under conditions whereby the export of live cattle had been completely halted, would still have been able to use their monopoly position to squeeze a low price out of the cattle producers while balking at any lowering of beef prices.

That the three multinational meatpackers took advantage of the BSE crisis to make off with record profits, while passing on its social costs to small producers and society as a whole is acknowledged parenthetically by the auditor general’s report. Dunn writes: “There is no doubt, however, that there has been a shift in the value obtained from cattle between the producers and the packers since the discovery of BSE. Producers now receive less for their cattle than prior to the discovery of BSE and to that extent, the decrease in value represents a transfer of value from the producers to the packers.”

The substance of Dunn’s recommendations to government, leaving aside various ritualistic invocations of greater accountability, is a call for increased slaughter capacity within Canada (and, therefore, reduced dependence on US exports).

Dunn also proposes increased testing for BSE, but rejects the call for testing of all cattle at slaughter. Significantly, at no point in the arguments he cites against 100 percent testing is any sort of public health imperative considered. Rather, Dunn argues against blanket testing on the grounds that such a measure would not ensure export markets are reopened to Canada’s cattle industry. “No nation,” writes Dunn, “has stated that it would accept Alberta beef even if it were 100 percent tested for BSE. Assuming Alberta moved to 100 percent testing, there would still be uncertainty whether the border with any other nation in the world would immediately re-open.”

Just as Canada’s meatpackers have sought to increase their profits from the BSE crisis, so various states, Canada included, have exploited the very real concerns about public health to bar their markets to foreign producers and wage trade wars. Recent reports have increased the estimate of the health threat posed by BSE and vCJD. Yet capitalism’s division of the world into competing nation-states and subordination of all social needs to the profit requirements of multinational corporations prevents a rational response to this international crisis.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
"Recent reports have increased the estimate of the health threat posed by BSE and vCJD. Yet capitalism’s division of the world into competing nation-states and subordination of all social needs to the profit requirements of multinational corporations prevents a rational response to this international crisis."
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
I can remember on May 20,2003 we had a pen full of fats ready to go and they did go a few weeks later and we got around .35 a pound live weight. Was real depressing to sell them for that but they had to go for that and you knew the packer was going to make a bunch of $$$$ off of them.
 

Latest posts

Top