TimH
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
:roll: :roll:
Here it is again Dicky,-
...."
One more time........ which way is it???
:roll: :roll: :roll::roll: :roll:
Here it is again Dicky,-
One more time........ which way is it???
:roll: :roll: :roll:
A
Anonymous
Guest
TimH said:Oldtimer said:
:roll: :roll:
Here it is again Dicky,-...."
One more time........ which way is it???
I told you -- both-- prices went up- records began breaking almost immediately- altho the top records weren't set til later in the run...The price steadily increased... But now that the border has reopened it is steadily going down.....
I was just looking at some cattle prices from some of my sales from those years - 2002 we had $20-$30 culls (I bought bred shorttermers for $350), 2003 (after the border closure) they went into the $50-60 range (record), 2004 and 2005 they went into the $60-70's with bulls selling for as much as $90 (top record)....Culls are still holding in the $45-60 range with bulls down in the $50 range...And a Cow Buyer told me thats even with the whole system glutted with cow meat/lean imports- (6-7 hour waits on the truck at the slaughter house due to cutback kills..(drought and Australia?- low demand time of the year for cull meat))
550-600 lb Calves in 2001, 2002 were in the $70's low $80's, 2003 (after the border closure) they were up to over $100, 2004 were in the $120 range (record) , 2005, before the Canadians were being accessed much again, was in the $130-140 range (top record), but now with the Packers/feeders again glutted, with access to their captive supply to manipulate down fat prices, and the increased expenses, they are back down around the $100-$110 range and dropping like a rock...
Maybe its all just coincidence- but I'd like to see the border slammed shut tight and see for sure... Wouldn't you like to know for sure :???: Why should we continue importing if we don't need it :???:
Manitoba_Rancher
Well-known member
OT- You keep blameing this price slump on Canadian cattle. This price slump on cattle has very little to do with our cattle going down there. Corn and Barley prices are at a very high level and they are both climbing daily. I know how much the cost of gain affects the price we can pay for cattle on a daily basis. If you understood the basics of a modern day feedlot you would realize why the price of cattle have fallen.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Manitoba_Rancher said:
I have said all along that that is a factor, along with fuel prices- but you will never convince me that importing something we don't seem to need doesn't effect the price...I'm trying to do you a favor- leave all those calves and cows up north so Canada can make all that profit off the added value the Packer backers always claim we are making with all the imports :wink: :lol:
Mike
Well-known member
First Canadian beef enters U.S., public to comment on live cattle
Truckloads of boxed beef from Canada began crossing the border Sept. 10, the first shipments since a ban was imposed last May.
Thirty countries banned imports of beef from Canada following the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in an Alberta cow last May.
Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman said Sept. 17 that only "low risk" Canadian beef products are currently being accepted and that a rule for lifting the ban on Canadian cattle younger than 30 months of age is several weeks away. The first step will be publishing a notice in the Federal Register for public comment.
Lifting the ban will cause problems for U.S. exporters. Two major buyers of U.S. beef, Japan and Korea, are now requiring exporters to certify that shipments contain no Canadian meat.
That means meat plants will incur additional costs to segregate Canadian and domestic product throughout the production and shipping processes. Veneman said USDA would take the additional costs into account when developing the proposal.
She said that once the proposal is published, it could still take several months before a final rule is adopted.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association is urging USDA to ensure that current Canadian practices of using animal health issues as trade barriers be addressed before making a move to resume trade of live cattle with Canada.
"As negotiations on reopening the border with Canada occur, we believe USDA-APHIS must seize the opportunity to create a harmonization of animal health standards to allow an equitable flow of cattle in both directions," said NCBA.
"Continued testing requirements by Canada for anaplasmosis and blue tongue should not be tolerated. There is no science, today, that support the requirements that Canada has imposed on the U.S. cattle industry."
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the international agency that sets animal health standards, met Sept. 22-26 to update the content and improve understanding of current OIE international standards on BSE.
OIE's 164 member countries asked the organization to provide additional clarification on the interpretation of the BSE standards. They also asked for OIE's help in carrying out an appropriate risk assessment in accordance with international standards so that safe imports of animals and animal products can be done even from countries identified with BSE risk.
The present OIE Code has never suggested a total embargo of animals and animal products coming from BSE infected countries, not even from countries considers as having "high BSE risk."
OIE acknowledged that the code has not yet served to avoid major trade disruptions, primarily because many countries failed to implement international standards.
OIE said, "In some cases, embargoes are carried out without a science-based risk analysis. This situation penalizes countries with a good and transparent BSE surveillance, declaring cases while perfectly controlling the disease."
On Oct. 2, Mexico followed the U.S. lead, lifting its ban on frozen and processed beef less than 30 months of age. Canada is Mexico's second largest provider of beef, providing between 15 percent and 20 percent of Mexico's total beef imports and about 30 percent of its breeding cattle.
The Canadian beef industry has lost more than $1 billion since the bans were imposed. Beef cattle numbers reached a record 15.7 million as of July 1, prompting warnings that a mass slaughter is needed.
"We still have a portion of the industry that is dreadfully short of feed," said Trevor Yarchuk, Alberta Agriculture beef specialist. "So its going to come to a reality where if we don't have a profitable market, or at least a market, and we don't have the feed, we need to look for other alternatives."
Truckloads of boxed beef from Canada began crossing the border Sept. 10, the first shipments since a ban was imposed last May.
Thirty countries banned imports of beef from Canada following the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in an Alberta cow last May.
Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman said Sept. 17 that only "low risk" Canadian beef products are currently being accepted and that a rule for lifting the ban on Canadian cattle younger than 30 months of age is several weeks away. The first step will be publishing a notice in the Federal Register for public comment.
Lifting the ban will cause problems for U.S. exporters. Two major buyers of U.S. beef, Japan and Korea, are now requiring exporters to certify that shipments contain no Canadian meat.
That means meat plants will incur additional costs to segregate Canadian and domestic product throughout the production and shipping processes. Veneman said USDA would take the additional costs into account when developing the proposal.
She said that once the proposal is published, it could still take several months before a final rule is adopted.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association is urging USDA to ensure that current Canadian practices of using animal health issues as trade barriers be addressed before making a move to resume trade of live cattle with Canada.
"As negotiations on reopening the border with Canada occur, we believe USDA-APHIS must seize the opportunity to create a harmonization of animal health standards to allow an equitable flow of cattle in both directions," said NCBA.
"Continued testing requirements by Canada for anaplasmosis and blue tongue should not be tolerated. There is no science, today, that support the requirements that Canada has imposed on the U.S. cattle industry."
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the international agency that sets animal health standards, met Sept. 22-26 to update the content and improve understanding of current OIE international standards on BSE.
OIE's 164 member countries asked the organization to provide additional clarification on the interpretation of the BSE standards. They also asked for OIE's help in carrying out an appropriate risk assessment in accordance with international standards so that safe imports of animals and animal products can be done even from countries identified with BSE risk.
The present OIE Code has never suggested a total embargo of animals and animal products coming from BSE infected countries, not even from countries considers as having "high BSE risk."
OIE acknowledged that the code has not yet served to avoid major trade disruptions, primarily because many countries failed to implement international standards.
OIE said, "In some cases, embargoes are carried out without a science-based risk analysis. This situation penalizes countries with a good and transparent BSE surveillance, declaring cases while perfectly controlling the disease."
On Oct. 2, Mexico followed the U.S. lead, lifting its ban on frozen and processed beef less than 30 months of age. Canada is Mexico's second largest provider of beef, providing between 15 percent and 20 percent of Mexico's total beef imports and about 30 percent of its breeding cattle.
The Canadian beef industry has lost more than $1 billion since the bans were imposed. Beef cattle numbers reached a record 15.7 million as of July 1, prompting warnings that a mass slaughter is needed.
"We still have a portion of the industry that is dreadfully short of feed," said Trevor Yarchuk, Alberta Agriculture beef specialist. "So its going to come to a reality where if we don't have a profitable market, or at least a market, and we don't have the feed, we need to look for other alternatives."
