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

What factors have the most impact on our cattle prices?

A

Anonymous

Guest
What factors do you believe have the most impact on our cattle prices and what facts can you present to back that opinion?

Captive supplies?
Imports?
Market concentration?
Packer profit margins?
Imports?
Competitive meat prices?
Beef supplies?
Corn prices?
Beef supplies?


I am of the belief that the biggest threat to this industry is the ignorance of what factors affect cattle prices and to what degree. Prove me wrong with your intelligent answers BACKED WITH FACTUAL DATA TO SUPPORT THEM.

This should be interesting...........


~SH~
 

blackjack

Well-known member
...i'll bite sh... i think the price of chicken and pork have the most influence on the market ... the consumer has only so much money he or she want to spend on the red meats and will buy according to the price...also just my opinion 98 percent of the consumers could give a rats butt where the meat comes from...

...next in my opinion is operating costs... every level of the industry is experiencing higher costs due to energy and labor...since there is only so many dollars for the carcass...each business in the chain have to start cuttiing costs somewhere so the price they pay for the beef will be lower if they want to make a profit for themselves to stay in business... as a for the rancher to cut cost we can only rob from peter to pay paul for so long until peter is gone and then i guess you had better be wiser than paul...

...then it comes down to competition...so if there is none at the top to make a long story short it comes down to government policy and one would not have to look to far up here in canada to see where most of the profits have went...
 

Econ101

Well-known member
What the packers are willing to pay.

What you have offered are possible reasons of why packers pay what they pay. In the end it is thier decision.

Since this question belongs on packers.net, why don't you go ask it over there? If you did, you would just get a self serving answer so I wouldn't count on it too much.

Ask the oil companies why they charge what they charge. You will get the same self serving answers there too.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Good post Black Jack!


Now we'll address the liar's post.......

Conman: "What the packers are willing to pay.

What you have offered are possible reasons of why packers pay what they pay. In the end it is thier decision."

Are you saying that "what the packers are willing to pay" is the only factor that affects cattle prices?

Assuming that you are cognizant enough to realize that cattle prices move up and down, why wouldn't packers make all they could each and every time if there was no competition?

What were the $117 fat cattle prices we saw in 2004? Was that a period of generosity? Christmas cheer?

How do you explain the fact that cattle prices move up and down?

If packers can totally control the market and USPB is owned by producers, how do you explain the fact that USPB pays prices for fat cattle that are comparable to the other packers?


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "If packers can totally control the market and USPB is owned by producers, how do you explain the fact that USPB pays prices for fat cattle that are comparable to the other packers?"

USPB simply follows the big packers. They they offer, USPB offers.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
The supply of live cattle with respect to the desire of consumers to buy beef. Lots of producers on one side...lots of consumers on the other side...few processors in-between! The bottleneck controls the flow.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RM: "The supply of live cattle with respect to the desire of consumers to buy beef. Lots of producers on one side...lots of consumers on the other side...few processors in-between! The bottleneck controls the flow."

If the "bottle neck controls the flow", then why do cattle prices fluctuate?



~SH~
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
RM: "The supply of live cattle with respect to the desire of consumers to buy beef. Lots of producers on one side...lots of consumers on the other side...few processors in-between! The bottleneck controls the flow."

If the "bottle neck controls the flow", then why do cattle prices fluctuate?



~SH~

You didn't just ask that question...did you????????
Tell me you are just kidding!!!!!!!!!


Does the supply of cattle fluctuate???????????
Does consumer demand fluctuate????????????
Who is in the best position to take advantage of these fluctuations?????????
Are you qualified to be asking this question? :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "USPB simply follows the big packers. They they offer, USPB offers."

Hahaha!

Yet another one of those "canned" R-CALF statements. USPB is owned by producers, WHY WOULD THEY FOLLOW THE OTHER PACKERS????

That doesn't even make sense.

See how illogical your arguments are? Of course you don't!


USPB is going to pay based on what is required to keep their plants functional and give a reasonable return to the producers that invested in it.

USPB does not follow the other packers BECAUSE MOST OF THEIR CATTLE COME FROM THEIR MEMBERS.


RM: "Does the supply of cattle fluctuate???????????
Does consumer demand fluctuate????????????
Who is in the best position to take advantage of these fluctuations?????????"

Of course the supply of cattle fluctuates as well as consumer demand, SO DOES THE PRICE OF CATTLE!

So if you can't deny that the price of cattle fluctuates and you can't deny that packers periodically lose money, HOW CAN THEY CONTROL THE FLOW????

The flow of cattle is determined by the willingness of feeders to sell at a given price and the available supply.

To suggest that the packers control the flow, is to suggest that there is no competition between Excel, Swift, Tyson and USPB for the same cattle.

There is no logic in your arguments unless you can prove that the large packers are not in competition for the same cattle.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
SH: "There is no logic in your arguments unless you can prove that the large packers are not in competition for the same cattle. "

SH, there is a difference between absolutely no competition and anticompetitive activity.

You seem not smart enough to make the distinction.

Your whole argument is an all or nothing argument. Your arguments would mean that there has to be no competition in market actions to prove anticompetitive behaviors and that there is never any in between. It is almost never that way.

The argument you make is analagous to a lawyer making the claim that if the thief left you with a quarter, you were not really robbed.

After reading your many posts, I have come to the conclsion that you really are like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz that you brought up.

You have been left with part of a brain, but with you, it is all or nothing.

I doubt everyone else in S. Dakota is so challenged. The recent jury decision proved it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Quote:
Sandbag: "USPB simply follows the big packers. They they offer, USPB offers."


SH, "Hahaha! Yet another one of those "canned" R-CALF statements. USPB is owned by producers, WHY WOULD THEY FOLLOW THE OTHER PACKERS???? That doesn't even make sense. See how illogical your arguments are? Of course you don't! USPB is going to pay based on what is required to keep their plants functional and give a reasonable return to the producers that invested in it. USPB does not follow the other packers BECAUSE MOST OF THEIR CATTLE COME FROM THEIR MEMBERS"

In the Aberdeen trial, that is what they testified. That is why they got off. Soooo, either they were lying or you don't know what the heck you're talking about again.
 

Clarence

Well-known member
Beef supplies is the main thing, and of course demand. When producers margins become smaller, their only recourse is to increase production. at some point losses occur, only then will they start to decrease production.

It is a fact that every time prices are low the packers tell us we are over producing. Often they blame an increase of carcass weights. A 30 lb increase of carcass weight is about 5%, about what we import from Canada. I don't want to get into the import export debate, but if 5% increase of carcass wt. takes $10 off the price of fat cattle so does the imports. When you can not explain why there is a difference you should be able to see why some procucers follow R-Calf. I don't believe in their tactics.

I am not an R-Calf supporter, nor do I belong to NCBA. NCBA followers tend to believe that the big fish need to eat the small fish in order to progress.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Clarence said:
It is a fact that every time prices are low the packers tell us we are over producing. Often they blame an increase of carcass weights.

Y'know, I've often wondered about these increased carcass weights. Its seems to me that the packers have steadily led us down this path, by discounting both heavy AND light carcasses. I've seen a steady increase in carcasses up here, due mainly to producers having to hit the target weight and gain the premiums for doing so. Who sets the targets? The packers. And then they complain when quality suffers.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "In the Aberdeen trial, that is what they testified. That is why they got off. Soooo, either they were lying or you don't know what the heck you're talking about again."

Hahaha!

If Excel, Tyson, and Swift were fined for ALLEGEDLY (not proven) knowing that USDA's numbers were false and USPB just "FOLLOWED THEM", then how could they not also be fined?

You really stepped in it this time Sandbag.

Give me your spin................


Clarence: "A 30 lb increase of carcass weight is about 5%, about what we import from Canada."

How many of you guys actually believe that a 30 pound increase in carcass weight is equivalent to 5% of what we import from Canada?

Who told you that Clarence? R-CALF?


Rod,

If the packers are discounting heavier carcasses, how can you credit them with "leading us down the path" of heavier carcasses?

That doesn't even make sense.

Oh wait, yes it does......"BWAME DA PACKAH".


~SH~
 

Jason

Well-known member
Rod, the packers do set the targets, but not independently. They have contracts they need to meet and specifications for cuts come from the end user.

If they wanted to break the feeders they could just make the targets very narrow. Carcass weights 750-800 pounds. The variation in cattle management and feeding and genetics says that isn't going to offer them enough cattle.

A few economic realities, a bigger animal is cheaper per pound to kill. Feeding costs are lower per pound on heavier animals. Some genetics need to be heavier to finish acceptably. Grassed animals will be heavier than calf feds at the same finish.

Notice the packers only benefit from 1 of the 4 above economic realities.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Clarence: "A 30 lb increase of carcass weight is about 5%, about what we import from Canada."

How many of you guys actually believe that a 30 pound increase in carcass weight is equivalent to 5% of what we import from Canada?


Sh, go back and reread the above post of Clarence and use the comma this time.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Quote:
Sandbag: "In the Aberdeen trial, that is what they testified. That is why they got off. Soooo, either they were lying or you don't know what the heck you're talking about again."


SH, "Hahaha! If Excel, Tyson, and Swift were fined for ALLEGEDLY (not proven) knowing that USDA's numbers were false and USPB just "FOLLOWED THEM", then how could they not also be fined? You really stepped in it this time Sandbag. Give me your spin................"

"Allegedly", "not proven", SH? A trial was held and a jury verdict rendered. Talk about stepping in it.......... :roll:

I'll draw you a picture, not that it will do any good. The trial was on the packers KNOWINGLY directly basing prices on incorrect information. If it is true that USPB bases their prices on what the others do, their prices are only based on that bad information indirectly - they dont' look at the USDA reports, they look at the pack. It's a weak arguement, but hard to disprove.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
SH, why has the per day number of cattle processed gone from 160,000 head to 120,000 head? When packers are losing money, do they go out and find more cattle to process so they can lose more money just because they are available? When processing slows and cattle backup in the feedlots, what happens to the supply of cattle? (hint-that 30 lbs. Clarence is talking about)

Your idea that packers are like a log drifting in the market river with no control is ridiculous!
 

Clarence

Well-known member
Back to SH's pol: I don't believe that competition from pork and poultry is nearly as big a factor as some believe. They will always be there. Pork and chicken are more effecient converters, so will in most cases be cheaper. Just one of the things we have to live with.

Our advertising should be aimed at correcting some of beefs distorted image, and focus on its health benifits instead of capturing other markets. The cost difference may always be there.

For the beef producer, we should concentrate more on the feedstuf and resources that can only be used by ruminants. Our government has got some things backward. They have given beef a bad name. Then promote wastful programs that take land that could support more cattle out of production. This has increased land costs and put additional pressure on the beef producer. Efficient use of our land and other resources is just as important as are our markets and our market system.
 
Top