Is it true? NCBA

[ocm]

OCM: "Do my cull cows add value to that 50/50 trim? I think the answer is yes."

The answer is SOME DO! Other cull cows supply "LEANER" hamburger for many fast food sources. One of the primary sources of cull cows for hamburger is dairy cull cows.

OCM: "Does the 50/50 trim add value to my cows? Yes, especially if foreign lean beef is hard to come by."

No, SOME OF your cull cows add value to the 50/50 trim. The supply of 50/50 trim exceeds the supply of cull cows that are available for grinding.

OCM: "By importing lean beef we are reducing the value of our cull cows. Right?"

Wrong! The supply of available cull cows DOES NOT MEET THE DEMAND. Remember, the demand is for CHEAP LEAN GROUND BEEF not retail priced lean ground beef. McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, Hardees, Taco Johns, Dominos Pizza, etc. etc. are not going to raise the prices of their hamburgers, tacos, and pizzas. Before they do that, they will feature other protein sources.

The demand for "CHEAP" lean ground beef exceeds the supply.

U.S. producers make more money when they add value to the chuck and round and source "CHEAP" imported lean trimmings to add value to all our surplus 50/50 trim from all those overfat english cattle.

OCM: "You are arguing like you think fat cattle are the only thing the US market has to sell."

Hardly! You are arguing like you fail to understand how we are better off adding as much value to our chucks, rounds, and cull cows as we can and source "CHEAP" imported lean trimmings to add value to our virtually worthless 50/50 trim.


This is a classic example of how backwards Bill Bullard's thinking is when he say's "we don't produce enough beef to satisfy our own domestic market now". That's true BUT AT WHAT PRICE BILL????? We will never meet the demand IF WE KEEP LOWERING THE PRICE!!!!!!!!!!

Typical of the depth of R-CULT's understanding of these issues.

Price is the other half of the supply and demand equation.

I always have to laugh about R-CALF's "supply and supply" logic because they always fail to mention "PRICE" and how "PRICE" factors into "DEMAND".


It's this simple OCM. You have 1000 pounds of 50/50 trim valued at $.08 per pound. Now you can source 1000 pounds of imported lean trimmings for $1.00 per pound or you can grind up 1000 pounds of chucks and rounds that are valued at $1.75 per pound.

WHICH IS GOING TO MAKE YOU MORE MONEY????

WHICH IS GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO PAY MORE FOR THE 50/50 TRIM????

Just once I would like for one of you R-CALF/OCMers to come to a logical conclusion.
~SH~

You obviously flunked kindergarten economics.

"The supply of available cull cows DOES NOT MEET THE DEMAND."

That says that my cull cows are worth more when there is not enough foreign lean trim to go around. Those were your words. You have just proven my points.

I don't think I have ever seen one of your arguments support what I said more than this one does. Think about it.

I'm not talking about grinding chuck. There is a source of income for producers besides fat cattle. You may not be familiar with it. Perhaps you have never calculated the value of a cull cow and what difference it makes to your operation when culls are highly valued.

Also consider the effect on the cattle cycle of highly priced culls.

 

[ocm]

No one has mentioned the fact that there are different qualities of cull cows.

Some people are either buying good young to mid-age culls, or using their own, feeding corn to them for a short time, and after slaughter, at least some of the meat is being used as good steaks, roasts, etc. While I don't know exact specifics of how that beef is used, or what is done with the chuck and round, I do know that when marinated with the right stuff, the prime rib roast and the t-bone steaks are wonderful. That may be the beef we are told is what we get when we order a steak meal that is under $18.00 to $20.00 in at least some parts of the USA. That obviously would cut into the amount of domestic "lean" beef available for mixing with the fatty trim from our choice and prime cattle. Also, there would be a LOT of fat on those fattened carcasses.

The leaner, older culls in the USA well may carry quite a lot of fat, at certain times of the year, for sure. Considering the various uses for such beef besides hamburger (hotdogs, luncheon meats, etc.) it is easy to see there could be a shortage of very lean, high quality beef in the USA, if one stops to really think through the possibilities.

BTW, I'm not claiming to know all there is to know on this subject, but I am capable of thought, as well as having opportunity to hear many people in various areas of the country discussing this issue and learning from them.

MRJ

Some people just sell their culls arbitrarily. We sell when the market says it's a good thing. Some we feed. Some we don't. Some are young. Some are old. High value cull sales are a significant factor in making money for our operation. When there is less foreign supply of lean trim, our culls are worth more.

This factor should always be included when talking about imports.

Feeders don't care--they're the ones with the excess fat to sell. Packers don't care--they need to move the fat. But EVERY producer should care--he has a supply of lean trim that would be worth more if there were fewer imports, yet some organizations that supposedly represent the producer don't even mention it.

 

[Jason]

Some people just sell their culls arbitrarily. We sell when the market says it's a good thing. Some we feed. Some we don't. Some are young. Some are old. High value cull sales are a significant factor in making money for our operation. When there is less foreign supply of lean trim, our culls are worth more.

This factor should always be included when talking about imports.

Feeders don't care--they're the ones with the excess fat to sell. Packers don't care--they need to move the fat. But EVERY producer should care--he has a supply of lean trim that would be worth more if there were fewer imports, yet some organizations that supposedly represent the producer don't even mention it.

Interesting comments ocm, but do you really believe the best way to profit in the cow/calf sector is to have high priced culls? I am not arguing that it isn't nice and even helpful to sell your old animals for 60-80 cents a pound. I am saying it doesn't make or break a successful ranch.

Secnario 1. Rancher sells cull cows at 10 years of age. Let's use 1200 pounds and let's use 60 cents. ($720 gross) Calves are worth $1.20 at 6 wts. also $720. It takes 1 cull cow to replace the lost income of retaining 1 heifer. That heifer will not produce a calf the first year but has to be fed and cared for. (net loss)

Scenario 2. Rancher sells culls when open, average age 12 years. Other number are the same, there is still a net loss when retaining the heifer. However, in secnario 2 only 8.3% of the herd is being replaced as opposed to 10% in scenario 1. Less animals creating a loss on the rancher.

So longevity is a factor. Buying bred stock can reduce the drain, but higher cull prices leads to higher replacement costs. Look at the $1600 bred cow prices in the US this past fall.

Scenario 3. Canadian rancher sells cull cows for 30 cents or $360. Calves are worth the same $720 here. Now longevity is a huge factor as the drain per replacement is bigger. This makes the case for higher cull prices right? On the surface. Bred stock can be bought for $1000. So the drain is actually less with lower prices.

$720 cull + $720 calf = $1440 less $1600 bred = -$160

$360 cull + $720 calf = $1080 less $1000 bred = +$80

With culls at half the price, the difference is $240 per replacement.

This has nothing to do with imports or the fact that domestic culls can't take care of the US needs of lean trim.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Are you telling us that putting items "on sale" is not reducing their value and increasing demand? Anyway, that is not my arguement, just another show that you type before you think."

Such a typical, apples to elevators, Sandbag comparison.

Beef prices are featured to move product before the expiration date WHEN IT HAS TO BE DISCARDED. How can you compare that to reducing the value of chucks just so you can supply a lean ground market with U.S. beef?

Sometimes I can't believe how ignorant you blamers are.

WHY WOULD ANYONE REDUCE THE VALUE OF THEIR CHUCKS JUST SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BLEND IMPORTED TRIMMINGS WITH DOMESTIC 50/50????

WHY WOULD ANYONE REDUCE THE VALUE OF THEIR TRIM TO DOGFOOD JUST SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BLEND IMPORTED LEAN TRIMMINGS TO THAT TRIM TO ADD VALUE TO IT?????

Those are you options. How stupid can anyone be than to reduce the value of $2.00 per pound chucks to 70/30 ground beef valued at around $1.00 per pound?

GO TO WALMART AND PRICE 70/30 LEAN GROUND THEN PRICE CHUCKS THEN ASK YOURSELF WHICH IS A BETTER PRODUCT TO SELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sandbag: How is replacing product that comes from my cattle doing me any good?"

They're not replacing product that comes from your cattle. They're adding value to the chucks from your cattle and adding value to the virtually worthless 50/50 trim from your cattle by blending "CHEAP" imported lean trimmings with it WHILE THEY ADD VALUE TO YOUR CHUCKS.

THE PRICE YOU RECEIVE FOR YOUR CATTLE IS BASED ON THE PRICE THEY RECEIVE FOR THEIR BEEF. If you don't believe that, then grid pricing that pays for cattle based on carcass quality must be a figment of my imagination.

Sandbag: "SH, the people on this board don't sell trim, we don't sell burger, we don't sell chucks, we don't do any blending. We have no relations with Alpo. We sell cattle. You can't make the distinction that seperates packers and producers. All your arguements are for the welfare of the packer, not the producer."

Typical canned SHALLOW R-CULT arguments.

The people on this board sell cattle that become trim, burger, and chucks. The value of that trim, burger, and chucks determines the price they receive for cattle. I shouldn't have to explain this to you over and over and over just for you to come back and parrot the R-CULT blaming lines again.

Why do you suppose we have a "BEEF CHECKOFF" instead of "CATTLE CHECKOFF"???? TO PROMOTE THE SALE OF CATTLE?????

This stupid R-CULT argument of "we're in the cattle industry not the beef industry" also conflicts with your support for Country of Origin labeling which is not labeling CATTLE but labeling BEEF FOR THE PACKER AND RETAILER with the understanding that adding value to beef ADDS VALUE TO CATTLE.

I could use the same stupid argument and say that "M"COOL doesn't benefit the producer, it only benefits the packer.

Sometimes I sit here in amazement at the depths of your stupidity.

Sandbag: "Doesn't increasing demand for your product increase it's value? What does REPLACING chucks from our cattle with import do to the demand for them?"

GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!!!!!!

THE VALUE OF CHUCKS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE VALUE OF GROUND BEEF.

Yet another apples to tractors comparison.


Any other less than brilliant statements?

OCM: "That says that my cull cows are worth more when there is not enough foreign lean trim to go around. Those were your words. You have just proven my points."

Wrong again OCM!

The demand that is not met by the supply is for "CHEAP LEAN BEEF FOR GRINDING AND BLENDING".

There is a shortage of cull cows for grinding, that doesn't mean that the prices would be higher if we weren't importing lean trimmings because the demand is for LOW VALUE BLENDING GROUND BEEF which is a low priced product.

I don't know how to explain this so you'll understand it. The demand for CHEAP PRODUCT will never meet the supply. This goes back to Bullard's stupid statement about our inability to supply our own needs in the U.S. domestically.

THE QUESTION IS, DEMAND AT WHAT PRICE?????? YOU CAN ALWAYS INCREASE DEMAND IF YOU REDUCE YOUR PRICE which costs you money.

The demand that is not being met here is LOW VALUE PRODUCT. If you raise the value of cull cows you have to raise the price of ground beef. If you raise the price of ground beef, YOU MEET CONSUMER RESISTANCE.

AGAIN, THE DEMAND THAT IS NOT BEING MET IS A DEMAND FOR "CHEAP" LEAN GROUND BEEF FOR BLENDING.

Of course you can supply that market domestically, BUT AT WHAT REDUCED VALUE TO BEEF PRODUCTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY WORTH MORE AND AT WHAT REDUCED PRICE OF CATTLE FOR PRODUCERS IN RESPONSE TO THAT REDUCED VALUE OF BEEF?????

We have a product called 50/50 trim that comes from all of those overweight Y3 carcasses. Y3 is the base for most pricing grids. There is no discount for Y3s on most pricing grids. When they trim the surplus fat off those Y3 carcasses, there is lean beef that is trimmed with that fat. This is the 50/50 trim we are talking about. This 50/50 trim is only worth $.08 per pound if you don't add value to it by leaning it down. The only way to add value to it is to blend "CHEAP" lean ground beef with it. What you are trying to do is raise 50/50 trim to an edible product of at least 70% lean ground beef which is usually sold at the $1.00 - $1.50 level. As we have increased the value of our chucks and rounds in this industry and as we moved more cull cows into the "white fat" low end steak market, we reduced the supply of "CHEAP" domestic lean ground beef for blending with this trim. THAT IS A POSITIVE THING because we added value to more products.

There simply is not enough "CHEAP" lean ground beef to supply that "CHEAP" 50/50 trim market domestically. To supply that market domestically would require grinding beef products that are worth more than $1.00 per pound.

There is 3 options for the 50/50 trim here that is beyond the domestic supply of "CHEAP" cull cows:

1. Grind chucks and rounds and reduce their value to blend with 50/50 trim. NOBODY IS GOING TO DO THAT.

2. Sell the 50/50 trim for dog food. WHAT A WASTE!

3. Add value to the chucks and rounds and add value to the 50/50 trim by blending imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand with it.

I don't know how I can explain it any better. If you still don't understand it you are hopeless.

OCM: "I don't think I have ever seen one of your arguments support what I said more than this one does. Think about it."

You are the one who needs to think about it. THE DEMAND HERE IS RELATIVE TO THE PRICE. THE DEMAND IS FOR "CHEAP" LEAN GROUND BEEF FOR BLENDING.

That demand for grinding meat will quickly vanish if you try to raise the price of 70/30 lean ground beef enough to supply this market domestically.

U.S. cattlemen are best served by selling their chucks and rounds at a higher value, selling as many HIGHER VALUED "white fat" cull cows as we can for the low end steak market (which also reduces the supply of cheap lean ground beef), and importing lean trimmings to blend with our surplus 50/50 that is above the U.S. supply of our blending and grinding cull cows.

That is how we OPTIMIZE the value of our cattle.

OCM: "Perhaps you have never calculated the value of a cull cow and what difference it makes to your operation when culls are highly valued."

Listen Organization for Competitive markets that are already competitive, I understand the value of cull cows. I have been experimenting with various ideas to add value to cull cows for years such as feeding for the "white fat" low end steak market. I totally understand that the cull cow market constitutes about 20% - 25% of the income on most ranches. You're not telling me something here that I don't already know.

Where you are wrong is in assuming that the demand for cull cows is driven by the demand for the same cull cow by products. It's not. Yes, a change in ground beef prices at the retail level will affect the value of cull cows. Yes, a change in the value of cull cow steaks for low end restraunts like BONANZA will affect the value of cull cows. THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS THE DEMAND FOR GRINDING BEEF which is a low valued product that fluctuates in price very little. This supplies the fast food industry where most hamburger is consumed. How often do you see the price of hamburgers fluctuating at the fast food level??? NOT MUCH!

The demand here is for LOW VALUE GRINDING BEEF which will easily be exceede by the supply because it's a LOW VALUE PRODUCT.


I'm sure that blazed right over your head again and even if you did understand it, I doubt you'd admit it.

Don't take my word for it. Go talk to some of the small mom and pop ground beef grinding outlets and hear what they have to say because I'm sure you won't believe the larger markets due to your liberal anti-corporate bias.


~SH~

 

[Mike]

SH:chucks to 70/30 ground beef valued at around $1.00 per pound?

When's the last time you bought ground beef for $1 per pound? My wife told me Thursday night it was $3.99 here.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

Ground beef is not ground beef.

90/10 could be priced that high CURRENTLY but that is not the price of 70/30 at Walmart and that is certainly not the featured price of 70/30 at Krogers or Safeway.

NEXT!


~SH~

 

[Mike]

SH:chucks to 70/30 ground beef valued at around $1.00 per pound?

When's the last time you bought ground beef for $1 per pound? My wife told me Thursday night it was $3.99 here.

70/30 ground is $2.99 per lb TODAY'S SPECIAL at Winn Dixie.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

Tell me what is the value of chucks per pound in comparison?

Tell me what is the value of 80/20 ground beef and 90/10 ground beef in comparison?

The last time you posted ground beef was $3.99 and now it's $2.99. What's it going to be next time? Or are you willing to admit that the $3.99 was not for 70/30?

Besides, the retail beef market is not the biggest mover of ground beef, the fast food industry is. How much has the price of a hamburger at McDonald's rose????

As far as the retail beef market, ALL OF THE OTHER BEEF PRODUCTS ARE ALSO PRICED HIGHER SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

If you want to raise the price of 70/30 ground beef in my example to fit current prices, FINE. Raise all the other beef products the same because a difference in the price of 70/30 also means a difference in price of higher valued products.

All beef products being higher priced does not change the basis for my argument.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Mike, ocm - it's obvious none of us know what we're talking about. SH is smarter than the three of us put together.

Until we get it thru our heads that what is best for the packer is automatically best for us, we'll only be blamers.

 

[Mike]

Mike,

Tell me what is the value of chucks per pound in comparison?

Tell me what is the value of 80/20 ground beef and 90/10 ground beef in comparison?

The last time you posted ground beef was $3.99 and now it's $2.99. What's it going to be next time? Or are you willing to admit that the $3.99 was not for 70/30?

Besides, the retail beef market is not the biggest mover of ground beef, the fast food industry is. How much has the price of a hamburger at McDonald's rose????

As far as the retail beef market, ALL OF THE OTHER BEEF PRODUCTS ARE ALSO PRICED HIGHER SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

If you want to raise the price of 70/30 ground beef in my example to fit current prices, FINE. Raise all the other beef products the same because a difference in the price of 70/30 also means a difference in price of higher valued products.

All beef products being higher priced does not change the basis for my argument.


~SH~

My point is that you posted ground beef was $1.00 per pound. My wife told me a few days ago it was $3.99.

I then looked at the Winn Dixie sale prices and found out that 70/30 was $2.99. By simple deduction the $3.99 must have been more lean.

What's your problem? I only asked when was the last time you got ground for $1.00?

Have you got a complex? Geez, why are you so paranoid? It was a simple damn question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sandhusker]

MIke, I just checked out the local grocery flyer. Shoulder roasts for $2.19. I guess our 50/50 trim all of a sudden isn't "worthless". :roll: :lol:

 

[Mike]

MIke, I just checked out the local grocery flyer. Shoulder roasts for $2.19. I guess our 50/50 trim all of a sudden isn't "worthless". :roll: :lol:

My guess would be if the roasts are $2.19 retail, the packer is getting about $1.29-$1.49? Just wondering.

I haven't made up my mind on this importing lean to mix with the 50/50 business yet. I might want to sit back and learn a little more about it.

Depends on how much of course, but I saw first hand how the Mexican leans were coming in down here and hurting the cull market before our packer shut down.

Label me. Still studying.

 

[ocm]

Some people just sell their culls arbitrarily. We sell when the market says it's a good thing. Some we feed. Some we don't. Some are young. Some are old. High value cull sales are a significant factor in making money for our operation. When there is less foreign supply of lean trim, our culls are worth more.

This factor should always be included when talking about imports.

Feeders don't care--they're the ones with the excess fat to sell. Packers don't care--they need to move the fat. But EVERY producer should care--he has a supply of lean trim that would be worth more if there were fewer imports, yet some organizations that supposedly represent the producer don't even mention it.

Interesting comments ocm, but do you really believe the best way to profit in the cow/calf sector is to have high priced culls? I am not arguing that it isn't nice and even helpful to sell your old animals for 60-80 cents a pound. I am saying it doesn't make or break a successful ranch.

Secnario 1. Rancher sells cull cows at 10 years of age. Let's use 1200 pounds and let's use 60 cents. ($720 gross) Calves are worth $1.20 at 6 wts. also $720. It takes 1 cull cow to replace the lost income of retaining 1 heifer. That heifer will not produce a calf the first year but has to be fed and cared for. (net loss)

Scenario 2. Rancher sells culls when open, average age 12 years. Other number are the same, there is still a net loss when retaining the heifer. However, in secnario 2 only 8.3% of the herd is being replaced as opposed to 10% in scenario 1. Less animals creating a loss on the rancher.

So longevity is a factor. Buying bred stock can reduce the drain, but higher cull prices leads to higher replacement costs. Look at the $1600 bred cow prices in the US this past fall.

Scenario 3. Canadian rancher sells cull cows for 30 cents or $360. Calves are worth the same $720 here. Now longevity is a huge factor as the drain per replacement is bigger. This makes the case for higher cull prices right? On the surface. Bred stock can be bought for $1000. So the drain is actually less with lower prices.

$720 cull + $720 calf = $1440 less $1600 bred = -$160

$360 cull + $720 calf = $1080 less $1000 bred = +$80

With culls at half the price, the difference is $240 per replacement.

This has nothing to do with imports or the fact that domestic culls can't take care of the US needs of lean trim.

In the scenario you used the replacement cost made more difference than the cull price.

The price of replacements has less to do with imports than cull cows prices have to do with imports. If there is a separate demand for lean trim, that would affect cull prices but not replacement prices.

 

[ocm]

Mike, ocm - it's obvious none of us know what we're talking about. SH is smarter than the three of us put together.

Until we get it thru our heads that what is best for the packer is automatically best for us, we'll only be blamers.

Yeah, but sometimes it's fun just selling him rope.

 

[Clarence]

I am like Mike. I have always wondered about thhe imported trim added to our so called 50-50. Is someone just trying to appease us. When ground beef in labled 70% importeed 90-10 trim 30% 50-50 domestic I will believe it.

 

[mrj]

A few points re. cull cow sales.

We had record lean imports in 2004......and high cul cow prices!

Imports were down in 2005.......and so were cull cow prices.

Remember: DEMAND is part of that equation.

What we learned from closing the border:

1. Canadians added 10,000 head per week in slaughter capacity.
2. They learned how to background cattle, spreading their marketing time out.
3. We lost 32 small cow slaughter plants in Wisconsin, with other major losses in Idaho and Nebraska......and one in MN on the brink. Can you agree this will significantly impact cull cow prices in the USA, and more so at the bottom of the cattle cycle predicted in a very few years?

Some have already seen the loss of non-fed packing capacity affecting cull prices in Northern CA and in NE.

Don't forget how the drought in TX, OK, AR, MO and KS which already is seeing runs of cattle going to market far earlier than normal. There just isn't any other place for these calves to go but the feedlots.

There is no wheat pasture or spare grass anywhere in the southern plains. Maybe the good thing, if there is any good in drought, is that it is slowing the herd expansion plans.

Can anyone tell us how it can be better for cattle producers if the shoulder clod sells for hamburger prices instead of at the higher prices for new cuts from those parts?

Why is one considered a "packer backer" when they can understand that there are factors other than packer greed driving market prices for cattle?

MRJ

 

[ranch hand]

A few points re. cull cow sales.

We had record lean imports in 2004......and high cul cow prices!

Imports were down in 2005.......and so were cull cow prices.Remember: DEMAND is part of that equation.

What we learned from closing the border:

1. Canadians added 10,000 head per week in slaughter capacity.
2. They learned how to background cattle, spreading their marketing time out.
3. We lost 32 small cow slaughter plants in Wisconsin, with other major losses in Idaho and Nebraska......and one in MN on the brink. Can you agree this will significantly impact cull cow prices in the USA, and more so at the bottom of the cattle cycle predicted in a very few years?

Some have already seen the loss of non-fed packing capacity affecting cull prices in Northern CA and in NE.

Don't forget how the drought in TX, OK, AR, MO and KS which already is seeing runs of cattle going to market far earlier than normal. There just isn't any other place for these calves to go but the feedlots.

There is no wheat pasture or spare grass anywhere in the southern plains. Maybe the good thing, if there is any good in drought, is that it is slowing the herd expansion plans.

Can anyone tell us how it can be better for cattle producers if the shoulder clod sells for hamburger prices instead of at the higher prices for new cuts from those parts?

Why is one considered a "packer backer" when they can understand that there are factors other than packer greed driving market prices for cattle?

MRJ

Cull cow prices for 2005 were about 2.5% higher than 2004 prices.

 

[Mike]

I am like Mike. I have always wondered about thhe imported trim added to our so called 50-50. Is someone just trying to appease us. When ground beef in labled 70% importeed 90-10 trim 30% 50-50 domestic I will believe it.

One of my questions is.............since a lot of cattle are sold on the grid and premiums are being paid for Good Yield Grades, that means we are getting paid less for the fatter cattle, right?

Now turn that around, if we are not being paid for the fat to start with and the packer is using that trim and adding value, we are on the losing end of the proposition?

 

[Sandhusker]

I am like Mike. I have always wondered about thhe imported trim added to our so called 50-50. Is someone just trying to appease us. When ground beef in labled 70% importeed 90-10 trim 30% 50-50 domestic I will believe it.

One of my questions is.............since a lot of cattle are sold on the grid and premiums are being paid for Good Yield Grades, that means we are getting paid less for the fatter cattle, right?

Now turn that around, if we are not being paid for the fat to start with and the packer is using that trim and adding value, we are on the losing end of the proposition?

But Mike, that trim is "worthless" and is actually a liability until imported lean is added - it's a salvage operation. :roll: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike]

I am like Mike. I have always wondered about thhe imported trim added to our so called 50-50. Is someone just trying to appease us. When ground beef in labled 70% importeed 90-10 trim 30% 50-50 domestic I will believe it.

One of my questions is.............since a lot of cattle are sold on the grid and premiums are being paid for Good Yield Grades, that means we are getting paid less for the fatter cattle, right?

Now turn that around, if we are not being paid for the fat to start with and the packer is using that trim and adding value, we are on the losing end of the proposition?

But Mike, that trim is "worthless" and is actually a liability until imported lean is added - it's a salvage operation. :roll: :lol: :lol:

Yea, I understand. But who is getting salvaged? :lol: :lol: :lol: