What is happened to our cattle prices???

[agman]

agman...The mere fact that cattle on feed in the US are at a record and carcass weights are at a record high has nothing to do with the lower prices???

OK why are the cattle weights higher?

Really now...provide your view for eveyone to see. Let's have it.

 

[agman]

Is demand for US beef increasing or remaining the same to consumers domestically and internationally?

Once again Econ displays how little he knows about our markets. At the present time 96% of the total demand base for beef is the domestic market. At the height of exports the domestic market was 90% our our total demand base. The aforementioned is factual as opposed to to the preconceived notions of Econ. Simply put, Econ does not know what he is talking about. The primary driver of beef demand for your product has been and remains today the domestic market.

The fact is that domestic beef demand basically increased from 1999 into 2004. Last year beef demand declined 2.65%. First quarter 2006 beef demand is showing a modest decline. The bulk of the decline this year is supply related. Domestic demand has peaked for several reasons. First, the high protein diet craze has peaked. Second, the squeeze on discretionary income and spending due to high energy costs has slowed beef sales. Third, beef is at a cyclical price peak relative to competing meats. As such, beef is less price competitive. World wide demand for beef is increasing to answer your question per that issue.

The trough in the domestic beef production cycle is in. Domestic beef production will increase this year by approximately 1.2 billion pounds. If demand is constant and production goes up prices will trend lower-simply supply and demand working as it should. Generally, beef prices will decline 1.68% for each 1.0% increase in beef production-all other factors being equal. Bill, I hope this answers your questions.

Agman, you haven't disputed anything I have said with your post.

[/quote]

You know so little that you could not discern what I have to say anyway.

 

[Sandhusker]

Bill, "Keep diverting and spinning off topic Sandhusker you're the pro.

How much of that "trade imbalance" is energy and raw goods you need? Take a run at that one! "

I'm not the one diverting, Bill. You made a comment tying population to the level of imports, followed by a wise aleck banker comment. I'm staying on topic and waiting for you to explain why the US imports more from Canada because of a larger population, but the same just doesn't seem to apply to China. Come in, Bill, you've got a contradiction to explain.

 

[RoperAB]

Roper AB

I believe fair trade and an open border is good for both countries.

There- You just said it all... We need fair and even rules on cattle going north as well as those going south- that never occurred with Canada which always kept the Anaplas-BT trade barrier up- and we need our products identified so they can openly compete-- In other words M-COOL so that the US Packers/retailers can't remove the label from cheaper beef coming from Canada, Mexico, Australia, Euruguay, or whereever and pass it off to unknowing US consumers as a US product...The US and Canada are about the only countries left in the world that don't require COOL labeling...Guess who has kept that from happening?

We've had a free trade agreement for 10 years- but we never had a fair trade agreement on cattle......

Okay first off im not a cow/calf producer. I used to cowboy, now I train horses and day work every now and then so im no expert on the business end of this stuff.
Most of my friends are cow/calf guys and most of my info I get from them hearing them complain all the time.
Now when you buy beef retail up here lots of times its advertised as Alberta beef or Australian beef or whatever. There is nothing stoping you from advertiseing your beef up here that I know of as Montana beef or Alabama Beef,etc.
What is Cool labeling? How are we being unfair?
What is Anaplas-BT trade barrier?
And what is a Canadian cow? Example what about American feeders that come up here during the summer?
Like I agree it should be a level playing field. Example Americans should not be getting subsidized.

 

[Econ101]

Once again Econ displays how little he knows about our markets. At the present time 96% of the total demand base for beef is the domestic market. At the height of exports the domestic market was 90% our our total demand base. The aforementioned is factual as opposed to to the preconceived notions of Econ. Simply put, Econ does not know what he is talking about. The primary driver of beef demand for your product has been and remains today the domestic market.

The fact is that domestic beef demand basically increased from 1999 into 2004. Last year beef demand declined 2.65%. First quarter 2006 beef demand is showing a modest decline. The bulk of the decline this year is supply related. Domestic demand has peaked for several reasons. First, the high protein diet craze has peaked. Second, the squeeze on discretionary income and spending due to high energy costs has slowed beef sales. Third, beef is at a cyclical price peak relative to competing meats. As such, beef is less price competitive. World wide demand for beef is increasing to answer your question per that issue.

The trough in the domestic beef production cycle is in. Domestic beef production will increase this year by approximately 1.2 billion pounds. If demand is constant and production goes up prices will trend lower-simply supply and demand working as it should. Generally, beef prices will decline 1.68% for each 1.0% increase in beef production-all other factors being equal. Bill, I hope this answers your questions.

Agman, you haven't disputed anything I have said with your post.

You know so little that you could not discern what I have to say anyway.[/quote]

Dedgum, everytime I ask for a beer all I get is foam. Maybe there is no beer.

By the way, one of the plausable reasons for the inverted yield curve and the subsequent economic analysis you insisted upon was described by Bernanke already. The supply of 30 yr. bonds is quite thin. The fed has been quite adept at controlling inflation with short term interest rate adjustments. No need for long term fears on that front.

I think I ordered a beer, Agman.

 

[Anonymous]

Roper- You must be a virgin to the cattle world :wink: While the US opened the border to all Canadian cattle and beef unrestricted after the NAFTA passage- Canada never did to US cattle... They all had to be bloodtested and quarantined even after the US spent millions and showed them that the risk to Anaplas/BT was very low and in some states null...Canadians tied all US cattle into one lot and said "all US cattle are diseased." Canadians are the ones that decided there were Canadian cattle and US cattle with this trade barrier...Thats what made us all laugh so hard when Canadians tried coming up with this "North American cattle" and "North American beef" song and dance after their tit was in a ringer when the border was closed because of BSE...

COOL is country of origin labeling...Now the USDA allows Packers/retailers to import meat from 39 nations of the world to the US-- remove the country markings- relabel with a USDA inspected stamp and pass off to consumers as a US meat product.....That is fraud- and Canada, Mexico and these are countries have been riding on that fraud...All I would like to see is that the consumers are told the truth- If the meat comes from Mexico-so label it...If it comes from Canada- so label it.....Give the consumer the choice.....

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

but the same just doesn't seem to apply to China. Come in, Bill, you've got a contradiction to explain.

Primarily because them 1 billion Chinese don't have the income of a single broken down cowboy

Really though, I'm not completely sure why these free trade agreement discussions need to turn into open warfare. Both countries are guilty of unfair subsidies in a variety of markets, both real and IMAGINED. I agree we need to level the playing field EVERYWHERE for free trade to work properly. We need your P&SA. You need our M_ID. The list goes on.

Seriously though, if the EU could overcome their differences and open up free trade, and even a common currency, surely the US and Canada could do the same? Ideologically, our two countries are very similar. Hell, I got more in common with OT (gasp) than I do with someone living in Toronto.

As long as livestock producers on each side of the border fight one another, the real winners are the big players. While the border was closed, many small packers shut down, eliminating some of the competition down south. And since we had NO true competition up here, our own prices dove down. During the BSE crisis, we exported virtually the same amount of beef into the US as we did before BSE, yet our prices took a 50% slide on some weights of feeders, despite near record low feed prices. Our cull market is still in the toilet, even though many Canadians are eating steaks cut from those very 20 cent culls.

Now, your USDA is playing games with Japan, which is going to hurt your cheap cuts of beef and your cull market (which is, at least partly, what you export to them). Whose going to win this one? The multinationals of course. They have a way to make the money on all this stuff that they're paying pennies for.

Perhaps its time to lay down some hatchets, and actually talk seriously about a TRUE North American beef market. Or at the very least a Can-Am beef market. The only way cattle producers can win is to stick together. Maybe that means an R-Calf Canuck or a CCA (Can-Am Cattlemans Association)? It probably also means that you meet our most stringent beef health standards, while we do the exact same thing.

Something to chew on.

Rod

 

[Bill]

Bill, "Keep diverting and spinning off topic Sandhusker you're the pro.

How much of that "trade imbalance" is energy and raw goods you need? Take a run at that one! "

I'm not the one diverting, Bill. You made a comment tying population to the level of imports, followed by a wise aleck banker comment. I'm staying on topic and waiting for you to explain why the US imports more from Canada because of a larger population, but the same just doesn't seem to apply to China. Come in, Bill, you've got a contradiction to explain.

Because of the oil and natural and hydro (ENERGY) the US imports from Canada.

Clear enough?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

They all had to be bloodtested and quarantined even after the US spent millions and showed them that the risk to Anaplas/BT was very low and in some states null...Canadians tied all US cattle into one lot and said "all US cattle are diseased." Canadians are the ones that decided there were Canadian cattle and US cattle with this trade barrier...

OT, two wrongs don't make a right though. You tied all Canuck cattle together and said "BSE Infected".

I'm not a virgin by any means to the US/Canada beef market, and this is actually the first I've ever heard of it. SO please don't blame all us producers for something that probably few of us know about. Our policians lie to us too.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

agman...The mere fact that cattle on feed in the US are at a record and carcass weights are at a record high has nothing to do with the lower prices???

OK why are the cattle weights higher?

Really now...provide your view for eveyone to see. Let's have it.

I believe Tommy ordered a beer also.

 

[Anonymous]

Rod- If our two countries could actually drop all these barriers on cattle and beef- and we had exactly the same BSE safeguards with all the safeguards originally proposed in place- and the US M-COOL law were being enforced so all purchasing decisions could be left to the consumer--- I'd be one of the first to be saying that the border should open wide...
BUT
As I understand it- the Anaplas/BT rule that Canada said they would drop if they could get beef and cattle back across the border, still hasn't been dropped.... So Canada is still saying all US cattle are diseased....

 

[agman]

Broke-T, "Most of the imported beef into the US other than from Canada is in the form of lean trimmings to mix with all the fat trimmed from fat slaughter cattle. Without these trimmings we would have to throw away a lot of fat."

We don't have to use imported lean. It is not the only product that can be mixed with fat - chucks from domestic supplies work great. We're just told that we have to have imported lean when the fact is this is simply the most economical for the packers. They make more money REPLACING US product with imports - and then tell us it's good for all of us. We're supposed to swallow this and not ask how reducing demand for our product is good for us.

For your information that is already being done. Approximately 70% of imports is in the form of lean trim. We simply cannot produce enough lean trim economically to compete with imported trim. Don't you think end product buyers and consumers have any say in the price they are willing to pay. If the consumer would pay for it a packer would grind tenderloins.

Using chucks for higher valued product is good for the U.S. producer. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Rod- If our two countries could actually drop all these barriers on cattle and beef- and we had exactly the same BSE safeguards with all the safeguards originally proposed in place- and the US M-COOL law were being enforced so all purchasing decisions could be left to the consumer--- I'd be one of the first to be saying that the border should open wide...

2) As I understand it- the Anaplas/BT rule that Canada said they would drop if they could get beef and cattle back across the border, still hasn't been dropped.... So Canada is still saying all US cattle are diseased....

1) But why do you need a US-COOL, why not Can-Am COOL? Our beef isn't that much cheaper than yours, at least not our yearling stuff. Its not like we're pawning off sub-par beef onto the US. Heck, I betcha your unhealthy barley fed beef thats sitting in your freezer tastes pretty much exactly the same as my unhealthy barley fed beef. Maybe we should both be eating fish? And besides, we only make up 4% of your domestic market, so we're hardly making any kind of dent in your prices. And I argue that the closed border, or restricted border is hurting producers on BOTH sides of the border far more than that 4% of your domestic market is.

2) Let me do more digging on this before I even attempt to discuss it. As I said, us producers up here are not always kept informed as we should be, by either our politicians OR our producer associations.

Rod

 

[agman]

What does population have to do with it?

You think it is a fair comparison of what 35 million people import as compared to 350 million? A banker should be able to figure that one out per capita.

How much of that "trade imbalance" is energy going into the biggest energy using country in the world?

Trade agreements are not single commodity as has explained here over and over and over and over. :roll: :roll:

OK, keep your brain humming and explain our even larger deficit with China - they have a few times more folks than we do.

What is their income base? As incomes grow their imports from the U.S will grow. China is already the third largest importer in the world; a fact you would summarily dismiss.

 

[Anonymous]

1) Rod- If our two countries could actually drop all these barriers on cattle and beef- and we had exactly the same BSE safeguards with all the safeguards originally proposed in place- and the US M-COOL law were being enforced so all purchasing decisions could be left to the consumer--- I'd be one of the first to be saying that the border should open wide...

2) As I understand it- the Anaplas/BT rule that Canada said they would drop if they could get beef and cattle back across the border, still hasn't been dropped.... So Canada is still saying all US cattle are diseased....

1) But why do you need a US-COOL, why not Can-Am COOL? Our beef isn't that much cheaper than yours, at least not our yearling stuff. Its not like we're pawning off sub-par beef onto the US. Heck, I betcha your unhealthy barley fed beef thats sitting in your freezer tastes pretty much exactly the same as my unhealthy barley fed beef. Maybe we should both be eating fish? And besides, we only make up 4% of your domestic market, so we're hardly making any kind of dent in your prices. And I argue that the closed border, or restricted border is hurting producers on BOTH sides of the border far more than that 4% of your domestic market is.

2) Let me do more digging on this before I even attempt to discuss it. As I said, us producers up here are not always kept informed as we should be, by either our politicians OR our producer associations.

Rod

I think in a few years- as soon as the Tyson/Cargills etal get there hands into the cheap South American beef imports Canadian producers will be screaming for a M-COOL law in Canada too....

 

[Econ101]

Rod: " We need your P&SA."

You can have ours, Rod, we are not using it anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

Rod: " We need your P&SA."

You can have ours, Rod, we are not using it anyway.

:lol: :lol:

 

[agman]

Is demand for US beef increasing or remaining the same to consumers domestically and internationally?

Once again Econ displays how little he knows about our markets. At the present time 96% of the total demand base for beef is the domestic market. At the height of exports the domestic market was 90% our our total demand base. The aforementioned is factual as opposed to to the preconceived notions of Econ. Simply put, Econ does not know what he is talking about. The primary driver of beef demand for your product has been and remains today the domestic market.

The fact is that domestic beef demand basically increased from 1999 into 2004. Last year beef demand declined 2.65%. First quarter 2006 beef demand is showing a modest decline. The bulk of the decline this year is supply related. Domestic demand has peaked for several reasons. First, the high protein diet craze has peaked. Second, the squeeze on discretionary income and spending due to high energy costs has slowed beef sales. Third, beef is at a cyclical price peak relative to competing meats. As such, beef is less price competitive. World wide demand for beef is increasing to answer your question per that issue.

The trough in the domestic beef production cycle is in. Domestic beef production will increase this year by approximately 1.2 billion pounds. If demand is constant and production goes up prices will trend lower-simply supply and demand working as it should. Generally, beef prices will decline 1.68% for each 1.0% increase in beef production-all other factors being equal. Bill, I hope this answers your questions.

Agman, you haven't disputed anything I have said with your post.

[/quote]

No need to, this subject is way over your head as are most other subjects. You are a deer in the headlights. Your limited knowledge does not allow you to dispute my post. Is this all you have..."Agman, you haven't disputed anything I have said with your post." That will keep me awake tonight!!

 

[Econ101]

Econ do you actually have Cattle or are you one of these button pushers that wouldnt know the front end of a cow from the back end? I have to vote for the latter.. This website is for the serious cattle Rancher not a wannabe like you!!!

Here we have Bill saying rcalf is ruining the U.S. market for beef over bse and we have AL markets that show better results than your little markets for the bull example Rod posted.

Looks like a pretty easy case of concentration and thin markets being worse for producers than what Bill claims rcalf's bse objections cause on producer prices.


MR I saw your website on your profile. So why don't you tell us a good explanation for a producer like Rod getting what he got for his bull? Seems like you have a little work to do in Canada before you start coming down to the U.S. and try to fix things.

 

[agman]

Broke-T, "Most of the imported beef into the US other than from Canada is in the form of lean trimmings to mix with all the fat trimmed from fat slaughter cattle. Without these trimmings we would have to throw away a lot of fat."

We don't have to use imported lean. It is not the only product that can be mixed with fat - chucks from domestic supplies work great. We're just told that we have to have imported lean when the fact is this is simply the most economical for the packers. They make more money REPLACING US product with imports - and then tell us it's good for all of us. We're supposed to swallow this and not ask how reducing demand for our product is good for us.

Chucks are already ground when they are price competitive with lean trim. To produce enough chucks to absorb all of our 50/50 trim would would lower the value of all cuts. Production of other cuts would not remain static. I have yet to see a steer of heifer that just produced chucks. Perhaps you have the genetic engineering secret to accomplish that feat.

Consumers do not have an infinite source of income to spend either. They have a say in what they will pay for ground beef. The mix is not dictated by the packer but rather consumer demand for various levels of lean ground beef. Do you have any idea which segment of ground beef is growing the fastest?