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

We Need COOL- NOW

A

Anonymous

Guest
This is the take from Cattlenetwork's Market Notes

Canada announced another positive BSE test this week. Last week a positive result was announced on a cow nearly old enough to vote. This week’s unlucky winner, however, was only 50 months old – born well after the implementation of the 1997 ban on feeding ruminant by-products. This case will probably greatly complicate efforts by US and Canadian officials to resume trade in animals over 30 months of age. It may also complicate negotiations with the South Koreans over US beef imports. Even before this BSE announcement, Korean officials had expressed concerns about the fact that Canadian and US beef is not segregated by packers.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Hey OT why didnt it mention anything bout Japan? They are taking our beef but you boys have to try and smuggle yours into the country.

...disguised as a turkey, no less.

This seems way too choreographed.
 

feeder

Well-known member
Are we 100% for sure that only Canadian beef is going to Japan or just maybe some US beef being slaughtered in Canada is also being shipped under the diguise of Canadian beef?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
feeder said:
Are we 100% for sure that only Canadian beef is going to Japan or just maybe some US beef being slaughtered in Canada is also being shipped under the diguise of Canadian beef?

Thats the story circulating in this part of the country too, feeder---only RUMOR--no Facts...Lots of "I talked to this Canadian feeder that says"...
But since we know the Packers/USDA/CFIA sleep together it will probably never be proven either way....

I really have to question it- because from what else I've read-- there is very little Canadian beef going to Japan-- no demand for it- and I'm sure these last two BSE cases won't help...Altho one of the Canadian officials claims it is because of Canadian producers reluctance to verify birth dates....
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Altho one of the Canadian officials claims it is because of Canadian producers reluctance to verify birth dates....

they may have been reluctant 21 months ago, when the calves were born, but I would bet most are verifying age of the calves that were born last year and this year.

As of April 9, 2006 almost 1.9 million birth dates were registered in the system.
Nadine Meade, Project Manager of Database Enhancements is very pleased with
producer uptake.

Age Verification is voluntary. Alberta will make it mandatory in april 2007, I believe.
 

Jason

Well-known member
As always there are more than 1 or 2 factors involved in trade issues.

UPDATE ON CANADIAN BEEF EXPORTS

Beef exports to the end of April are down 23% compared with the first four months of 2005. Exports are currently sitting at 121,000 tonnes, down from 158,000 tonnes a year ago. Prior to BSE, exports in the first four months of 2002 totaled 163,000 tonnes. In 2002 all beef exports would have been eligible but today just beef from under thirty month cattle to key countries is accepted. The smaller exports are a reflection of the smaller kill levels posted to date in 2006.

The US is by far the largest recipient of Canadian beef this year with over 83% of beef exports heading that direction. The next closest country is Mexico at 9% followed by Hong Kong and Macau at 4%. Beef exports into the US are down 18% at 100,000 tonnes. In 2002, by this point in time, 121,500 tonnes would have been exported. Mexican trade is running less than half of what it was a year ago as higher Canadian beef prices have made US product more competitive. To April 2006 11,000 tonnes of beef have been exported to Mexico which would compare with 21,000 tonnes in 2002 or 23,500 tonnes in 2005.

Japanese trade is off to a slow start for the under 21 month product. In four months in 2006 to date 272 tonnes have been shipped or roughly 68 tonnes per month. In 2002 exports to Japan were 7500 tonnes and in 2001 they were 9,000 tonnes. The significant restrictions for exporting to Japan have undoubtedly hampered trade.


For over 30 years, CanFax has provided expert analysis of markets and trends in the ever changing North American beef industry. In this new millenium, cattlemen, feedlot managers, and agri-business professionals will continue to rely on up-to-the-minute information as an essential tool for maximizing profit in today's beef sector. Whether your operation needs to plan for three hours or three years into the future, CanFax delivers timely, accurate information for 21st Century cattle industry professionals.

We don't have the beef period to ship, not just age verified.

The numbers above don't show that we are only exporting 50% of our kill. We used to ship 70%.

Yes the US is our biggest customer, but at 83% of 50%, we have only sent 100,000 tonnes. We also have imported from the US.

Since BSE the Canadian kill is no longer tied at the hip to what happens in the US. Sometimes our industry is more current, making money or vice versa when the US is in the red.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
As always there are more than 1 or 2 factors involved in trade issues.

UPDATE ON CANADIAN BEEF EXPORTS

Beef exports to the end of April are down 23% compared with the first four months of 2005. Exports are currently sitting at 121,000 tonnes, down from 158,000 tonnes a year ago. Prior to BSE, exports in the first four months of 2002 totaled 163,000 tonnes. In 2002 all beef exports would have been eligible but today just beef from under thirty month cattle to key countries is accepted. The smaller exports are a reflection of the smaller kill levels posted to date in 2006.

The US is by far the largest recipient of Canadian beef this year with over 83% of beef exports heading that direction. The next closest country is Mexico at 9% followed by Hong Kong and Macau at 4%. Beef exports into the US are down 18% at 100,000 tonnes. In 2002, by this point in time, 121,500 tonnes would have been exported. Mexican trade is running less than half of what it was a year ago as higher Canadian beef prices have made US product more competitive. To April 2006 11,000 tonnes of beef have been exported to Mexico which would compare with 21,000 tonnes in 2002 or 23,500 tonnes in 2005.

Japanese trade is off to a slow start for the under 21 month product. In four months in 2006 to date 272 tonnes have been shipped or roughly 68 tonnes per month. In 2002 exports to Japan were 7500 tonnes and in 2001 they were 9,000 tonnes. The significant restrictions for exporting to Japan have undoubtedly hampered trade.


For over 30 years, CanFax has provided expert analysis of markets and trends in the ever changing North American beef industry. In this new millenium, cattlemen, feedlot managers, and agri-business professionals will continue to rely on up-to-the-minute information as an essential tool for maximizing profit in today's beef sector. Whether your operation needs to plan for three hours or three years into the future, CanFax delivers timely, accurate information for 21st Century cattle industry professionals.

We don't have the beef period to ship, not just age verified.

The numbers above don't show that we are only exporting 50% of our kill. We used to ship 70%.

Yes the US is our biggest customer, but at 83% of 50%, we have only sent 100,000 tonnes. We also have imported from the US.

Since BSE the Canadian kill is no longer tied at the hip to what happens in the US. Sometimes our industry is more current, making money or vice versa when the US is in the red.

Its only because the packers want it that way. We could have been shipping beef to Japan with Creekstone except for the fact that the polticians want to make policies that favor their supporters instead of the industry as a whole.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Its only because the packers want it that way. We could have been shipping beef to Japan with Creekstone except for the fact that the polticians want to make policies that favor their supporters instead of the industry as a whole.

More unsubstanitated BS.

Packers don't want to sell into a more profitable market?

Perhaps you don't understand business basics. Sell for MORE than your costs to make money.

Oh right packers are losing money on purpose to get bigger.

Explain that so I can lose money and buy more land. :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Its only because the packers want it that way. We could have been shipping beef to Japan with Creekstone except for the fact that the polticians want to make policies that favor their supporters instead of the industry as a whole.

More unsubstanitated BS.

Packers don't want to sell into a more profitable market?

Perhaps you don't understand business basics. Sell for MORE than your costs to make money.

Oh right packers are losing money on purpose to get bigger.

Explain that so I can lose money and buy more land. :roll:

You are the one that thinks Tyson's different divisions or different country locations are in real competition with themselves, Jason, not me.

It is the worst case of not knowing market fundamentals there is.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Econ if there is soooooo much money to be made in the packing industry from screwing people out of every last cent they can on the animals why arent you and all your r-calf buddies in the packing biz?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Econ if there is soooooo much money to be made in the packing industry from screwing people out of every last cent they can on the animals why arent you and all your r-calf buddies in the packing biz?

MR, who said there was a lot of money in it? I only explain the business systems that create barriers of entry in the packing business that doesn't allow real competition. Without real competition, producers do not get the money they deserve out of the market.

Heck, Jason doesn't get enough to fix his own roof.

If you would spend a little more time in reality, you might have a chance of changing the circumstances. If you ignore it, your roof may not be able to be fixed in the future either.

The ecomomic pie for agriculture production is shrinking. I guess your solution is to buy into the businesses that help make that shrinkage occur. I happen to think we should have better policies and more competence in our government than to have to buy into some large oligopolistic (another 100 dollar word there) company that happens to be affecting policy so that they can maintain their barriers to entry that make this happen.

If you were just a little smarter, you might see that before you asked such a stupid question.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Econ if there is soooooo much money to be made in the packing industry from screwing people out of every last cent they can on the animals why arent you and all your r-calf buddies in the packing biz?

MR, who said there was a lot of money in it? I only explain the business systems that create barriers of entry in the packing business that doesn't allow real competition. Without real competition, producers do not get the money they deserve out of the market.

Heck, Jason doesn't get enough to fix his own roof.

If you would spend a little more time in reality, you might have a chance of changing the circumstances. If you ignore it, your roof may not be able to be fixed in the future either.

The ecomomic pie for agriculture production is shrinking. I guess your solution is to buy into the businesses that help make that shrinkage occur. I happen to think we should have better policies and more competence in our government than to have to buy into some large oligopolistic (another 100 dollar word there) company that happens to be affecting policy so that they can maintain their barriers to entry that make this happen.

If you were just a little smarter, you might see that before you asked such a stupid question.


Well econ you keep shooting your mouth off about the packers, without them where is the cattle biz, its in the toilet!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "I only explain the business systems that create barriers of entry in the packing business that doesn't allow real competition. Without real competition, producers do not get the money they deserve out of the market."

You don't explain anything because you don't know anything. All you do is make stupid unsubstantiated statements that sound good to other blamers.

FACT: THE FALL OF 2005 SAW THE HIGHEST FEEDER CALF PRICES EVER RECORDED IN US HISTORY.

FACT: THE CANADIAN BORDER WAS OPENED IN THE FALL OF 2005

FACT: THE FALL OF 2005 DID NOT SEE PACKERS LESS CONCENTRATED.

FACT: THE 5 MAJOR PACKERS ARE IN COMPETITION FOR THE SAME CATTLE, IF THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, THE MARKETS WOULD NOT MOVE.

FACT: CONTROLLED MARKETS DO NOT MOVE.


Conman cannot refute any of these facts. All he can do is make cheap statements and pretend he's something he's not. The guy is a complete idiot and proves it with virtually every post. Why anyone would even listen to him is beyond me. Watch him divert having to challenge any of these facts with more cheap talk. That's all blamers have is cheap talk.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Econ101 said:
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Econ if there is soooooo much money to be made in the packing industry from screwing people out of every last cent they can on the animals why arent you and all your r-calf buddies in the packing biz?

MR, who said there was a lot of money in it? I only explain the business systems that create barriers of entry in the packing business that doesn't allow real competition. Without real competition, producers do not get the money they deserve out of the market.

Heck, Jason doesn't get enough to fix his own roof.

If you would spend a little more time in reality, you might have a chance of changing the circumstances. If you ignore it, your roof may not be able to be fixed in the future either.

The ecomomic pie for agriculture production is shrinking. I guess your solution is to buy into the businesses that help make that shrinkage occur. I happen to think we should have better policies and more competence in our government than to have to buy into some large oligopolistic (another 100 dollar word there) company that happens to be affecting policy so that they can maintain their barriers to entry that make this happen.

If you were just a little smarter, you might see that before you asked such a stupid question.


Well econ you keep shooting your mouth off about the packers, without them where is the cattle biz, its in the toilet!

I guess Canada found that out, huh MR?
 

Jason

Well-known member
Add to the list of facts SH posted, that Canadian exports to the US were higher in the fall of 2005 than currently.

Smaller Canadian supplies has led to lower US prices.... only in a dream world.

But but but Tyson is losing money so they can rule the world....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "I only explain the business systems that create barriers of entry in the packing business that doesn't allow real competition. Without real competition, producers do not get the money they deserve out of the market."

You don't explain anything because you don't know anything. All you do is make stupid unsubstantiated statements that sound good to other blamers.

FACT: THE FALL OF 2005 SAW THE HIGHEST FEEDER CALF PRICES EVER RECORDED IN US HISTORY.

Econ: So what? It was a case of supply and demand. Supply was short and so prices went up. Part of the reason supply was short was the Pickett manipulation by packers. Tyson took those market conditions to the bank with their poultry division.

FACT: THE CANADIAN BORDER WAS OPENED IN THE FALL OF 2005

Econ: Yes, you point is what here? Are you going to just keep rattling off a bunch of facts and then conclude you are a genius? In that case, my set of encylopedias has you beat hands down. Usually I think of people being smarter than books, even gopher trappers. I might have to make an exception to that rule for you, SH.

FACT: THE FALL OF 2005 DID NOT SEE PACKERS LESS CONCENTRATED.

Tyson made huge profits from their poultry division. Did the packers who did not have poultry do the same?

FACT: THE 5 MAJOR PACKERS ARE IN COMPETITION FOR THE SAME CATTLE, IF THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, THE MARKETS WOULD NOT MOVE.

Econ: The definition of competition is under question here, not your ignorant conclusion.

FACT: CONTROLLED MARKETS DO NOT MOVE.

Econ: Where did you get that? They do all the time.


Conman cannot refute any of these facts. All he can do is make cheap statements and pretend he's something he's not. The guy is a complete idiot and proves it with virtually every post. Why anyone would even listen to him is beyond me. Watch him divert having to challenge any of these facts with more cheap talk. That's all blamers have is cheap talk.


~SH~
 

fedup2

Well-known member
sh:[FACT: THE 5 MAJOR PACKERS ARE IN COMPETITION FOR THE SAME CATTLE, IF THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, THE MARKETS WOULD NOT MOVE.
FACT: CONTROLLED MARKETS DO NOT MOVE]


How much control are you talking about? How much control is needed to influence a market? These statements of yours are total bull$hit!

Controlled markets do move & in the direction that those with influence want them to! Are you saying that opec has no control over oil prices because prices are moving! :shock:

Ever watch the price of gold when some central bank ‘suggests’ they might be selling some in the future? :shock:

You call those statements facts! :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Jason

Well-known member
OPEC has lost control of the markets. Traders control it and respond to fears and whims. Look at the recent price spikes even though stocks are climbing.

If the packers controlled the markets they would always lower the price of cattle. Why would they raise them? Just generous?
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Jason: [OPEC has lost control of the markets. Traders control it and respond to fears and whims. Look at the recent price spikes even though stocks are climbing.
If the packers controlled the markets they would always lower the price of cattle. Why would they raise them? Just generous?]


You cannot tell me that opec has no influence in the oil market! Not by any stretch of the imagination! That is total bull$hit Jason! I am not talking complete control. You state: [Traders control it and respond to fears and whims] If you don’t believe opec can influence some of those fears, you need to get out more! All they have to do is mention they will cut back production & prices soar!

I have never claimed packers totally control the cattle market! (nor have I made any other claims about packers for that matter!) Can they influence prices? Damn right they can! You nor anyone else will ever prove they have zero influence over cattle prices! Again, what degree of control are we talking about.

You are desperately reaching for something here Jason, with those statements. They are pure bull$sit! This is the second time you tried to tell me something about trading. I have been trading the commodity futures markets for 14 years. How long have you been trading futures? Must be a long time as you hold yourself up to be some kind of expert!
Have a nice weekend!
 
Top