The Hong Kong government's Centre for Food Safety has resumed processing applications for imports of bone-in beef from Canada, effective Monday.
The centre said in a statement Monday that it will "partially" lift its suspension of Canadian bone-in beef imports, which dates back to the discovery of Canada's first case of BSE in an Alberta cow in 2003.
The Hong Kong special administrative region resumed imports of boneless Canadian beef in late 2004.
"At the initial stage, only beef rib cuts and other bone-in products (except vertebral column cuts) from cattle less than 30 months old are allowed to be imported from Canada," the centre said Monday.
"Each and every consignment of bone-in beef products must have the (centre's) prior written permission and be accompanied by a health certificate."
The centre also said it will "closely monitor the situation and review our import requirements as and when necessary."
Quoted on the U.S. meat industry website Meatingplace.com on Wednesday, Philip Seng, president of the U.S. Meat Export Federation, said the resumption of Canadian bone-in beef exports to Hong Kong could give Canada a new edge in that market.
U.S. boneless beef until now has been gaining market share in Hong Kong while Canada's has declined, Seng said, but the popularity of bone-in short ribs in Hong Kong, where U.S. bone-in beef remains prohibited, may alter that trend in Canada's favour.
"While the quality of U.S. beef has made it a popular choice in this region, we certainly have some catching up to do in terms of market access," Seng was quoted as saying.
mrj said:Why would there be, the R-CALF mindset says US producers don't benefit from what the evil corporations ship out as exports!!!!
mrj
mrj said:Sandhusker, some of your big promoters on radio in SD say that producer don't get a bit of benefit from EXPORTS. One of them is a director, so it should be safe to believe he doesn't speak AGAINST 'company policy', shouldn't it????
AND, if it sells MORE of US produced fatty trim to put some imported lean trim with it, obviously whoever produced the fat cattle benefits from selling more pounds of their critters as part of a higher value leaner hamburger product than if the fatty trim was sold at the lower fatty hamburger price, don't they?
mrj
mrj said:SAndhusker, are you saying that when farmer feeders get paid more for their fattened cattle, they are not willing to pay more for the feeders they buy? BTW, I don't look at ranchersnet every day, let alone every five minutes as you seem able to do.
mrj
Sandhusker said:mrj said:SAndhusker, are you saying that when farmer feeders get paid more for their fattened cattle, they are not willing to pay more for the feeders they buy? BTW, I don't look at ranchersnet every day, let alone every five minutes as you seem able to do.
mrj
No, I'm not saying that, MRJ. You are always implying that packers will pay more for our cattle when they're making more money. Therefore, we should be supportive of whatever helps them maximize profits, even if that would be imported lean.
I'm challenging that thinking by asking for actual facts that would support that. I'm asking you to show a direct correalation between packer profits and fed cattle prices that would justify a producer concern for those packer profits.
Richard Doolittle said:Sandhusker said:mrj said:SAndhusker, are you saying that when farmer feeders get paid more for their fattened cattle, they are not willing to pay more for the feeders they buy? BTW, I don't look at ranchersnet every day, let alone every five minutes as you seem able to do.
mrj
No, I'm not saying that, MRJ. You are always implying that packers will pay more for our cattle when they're making more money. Therefore, we should be supportive of whatever helps them maximize profits, even if that would be imported lean.
I'm challenging that thinking by asking for actual facts that would support that. I'm asking you to show a direct correalation between packer profits and fed cattle prices that would justify a producer concern for those packer profits.
Is there a direct correlation between bank profits and rates paid on deposits?
Sandhusker said:MRJ, "CAN a packer pay MORE , or LESS, for cattle depending upon whether or not they make a PROFIT, or suffer a LOSS? "
They CAN pay more. You CAN pay more at the grocery store, if you choose. You CAN raise your own bid at an auction, but WILL you? CAN THEY is not the question, WILL THEY is.
I have asked you many time, MRJ, to show me a direct correalation between packer profits and cattle prices. You can't do it. That should tell you something! Since you can't figure it out, I'll tell you; REGARDLESS OF PROFITS, PACKERS WILL ALWAYS PAY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE FOR CATTLE. Therefore, what sense does it make for producers to support the packers replacing our product with the product of our competitors just to enhance their profitabilty? IT DOESN'T!.
You NCBA types keep presenting this foreign lean importation deal like it's a give and get thing for US producers, but THERE'S NO GET IN IT FOR PRODUCERS! That would be shown by the connection of packer profits and US cattle prices, BUT YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT. Regardless of whether they bring in Aussie lean to replace US culls or US chucks, THEY WILL STILL PAY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE FOR US CATTLE.
Cinch said:Sandhusker said:MRJ, "CAN a packer pay MORE , or LESS, for cattle depending upon whether or not they make a PROFIT, or suffer a LOSS? "
They CAN pay more. You CAN pay more at the grocery store, if you choose. You CAN raise your own bid at an auction, but WILL you? CAN THEY is not the question, WILL THEY is.
I have asked you many time, MRJ, to show me a direct correalation between packer profits and cattle prices. You can't do it. That should tell you something! Since you can't figure it out, I'll tell you; REGARDLESS OF PROFITS, PACKERS WILL ALWAYS PAY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE FOR CATTLE. Therefore, what sense does it make for producers to support the packers replacing our product with the product of our competitors just to enhance their profitabilty? IT DOESN'T!.
You NCBA types keep presenting this foreign lean importation deal like it's a give and get thing for US producers, but THERE'S NO GET IN IT FOR PRODUCERS! That would be shown by the connection of packer profits and US cattle prices, BUT YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT. Regardless of whether they bring in Aussie lean to replace US culls or US chucks, THEY WILL STILL PAY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE FOR US CATTLE.
You're right Sandhusker. The market is not even SUPPOSED to work that way. Regardless of profitability, the packers are supposed to price cattle according to supply and demand. When the supply of cattle is tight, the price is supposed to go up, because there are more packers chasing fewer cattle. Over the long haul packers, and everybody else, must have profitabilility in order to stay in business. Packer profit is also affected by packer customers, mostly retailers, who are market manipulators even more effectively than the packers. So while the retailers manipulate the packers and reduce packer profits, the packers turn around and do the same to us, just in order to stay in business.
Kato said:And up to the day before the border closed we had also record high cattle prices. It was that part of the cattle cycle where the prices were good, and you would have had them anyway. Who knows when they'll be back, because it seems like the cattle cycle has become a thing of the past.