What is happened to our cattle prices???

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod: " We need your P&SA."

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

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm sorry, I shouldn't laugh, because its not funny to see good producers getting overrun.

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....

We actually always had voluntary labelling of Canadian beef up here. And we have just enough Canadian owned, small packers that proudly label Canadian beef that the big boys follow suit. Although I do see that changing while doing some shopping at XtraFoods a couple days ago.

But why not Can-Am COOL, OT? I mean this seriously. Safety is in numbers. There is NO reason why we can't somehow bring all our beef regulations in line with one another, if us producers can just pull in our horns a bit and put aside some of the old prejudices. And with a wide open beef trade, some of our prime cuts will stay home so our consumers don't have to use chainsaws to eat their Safeway steak. That'll help soften the supply of prime cuts in the US, maybe bringing the price up a hair. Our culls will finally be worth something, because you guys have a use for them, and I don't think our culls coming in would affect your cull market price, at least not long term. We just don't have sufficient numbers to upset your market to that extent.

You guys get our tracking system, or a modification of it to appease your producers, and finally countries like Japan may quit ridin' your butts so hard.

There can be no losers, at least not on the producer side, in a situation like this. The multi-nationals are multi-national. Its time beef producers were too.

Rod

 

[RoperAB]

First off about Anaplas-BT trade barrier. I didnt know about it and yes I agree that it and every other type of restriction or subsidy should be dropped between our two countries. It should be a level playing field on both sides.
Just another comment. There is a bit of anti Americanism in Canada. Most of it is caused by eastern Liberal polititions that try to portray you guys as the boggyman. I know the same thing goes on to a certain degree in the States. example Not that many years ago when I was in MT the State Governer was Marc Roscoe. Well gosh almighty it was the same deal because everything and anything that was wrong down there according to him was the fault of those damn Canadians who were out to destroy the American way of life, etc.
Anyway my point is what others on here have also suggested. I think both sides should be working together.
We should not allow our polititions to divide us. I still think the packers are the common enemy.
Somebody mentioned Brail and Argentina. They have a lot of agri shows up here on the potential of these countries. If they ever get access to our markets its not going to be good. Especially Brazil. Cheap land! Its increadable how big those outfits are down there.Plus no laws<enviromental>, no taxes and almost slave labour. No way North Americans could compete.

 

[agman]

Free Trade was the election issue up here. By voteing conservative I voted for free trade.
Truth is I now have mixed feelings about it. If we cant have fair trade we might as well not trade at all.
Example Alberta has the worlds second largest oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia. American power plants and homes are feed Alberta Natural Gas through underground pipelines. Plus we export electricity directly on the grid to Americans like crazy.
Because of all this American demand for Alberta energy and because of free trade all our energy is sold on the internattional market to the highest bidder. So in other words here im living in the land of plenty with energy galore but yet im actually paying more for my energy than the guy is in California for alberta energy because im buying it back with Canadian dollars that are not worth as much as American dollars.
Anyway you guys do what you want but if that border is going to be closed to Canadian Beef, softwood lumber, or if your going to put tarrifs on our grain. Well as far as im concerned and the way I will vote in the next election is to close the border all together.
I do believe in free trade. I dont want the border to be closed. I want good US relations. But if you guys dont want Alberta beef, then you dont want our energy either. Well you may want it but if it was up to me you would not get it. Im just one guy with one vote but there are a lot of guys up here who feel the same way.

The US is running a pretty sizable trade deficit with Canada right now. You're clearly benefitting more from the open border than we are.

When we started this free trade deal with you most of our manufacturing jobs went south into your country. Not much made up here anymore. For the most part its raw materials or natural resources that are harvested up here, shipped south or exported.
There are more people in California than all of Canada. How could it ever be possible for us to buy as much goods from you as you do from us?
Plus this free trade was all your countries idea. I remember the eighties. The Reagan days with your polititions and ambassadors coming up here and telling us what we were doing all wrong and promoteing free markets, the global economy, telling us to open the border, down with socialism and all that stuff. Telling us to get rid of ag subsidies, etc.
Well guess what. We did it.
Now all we are getting out of you guys is protectionist jargon. Im meAn you either believe in the free market or you dont. Honestly what im hearing when I read some of these posts is that some of you American producers want to force other Americans to buy your product.
Okay fine close the border with Canada. Then close the border with Wyoming. Then cut off Florida. Heck why not have 50 little states down there dont trade with each other? Its basically the same thing.

Anyway I believe in the free market. I believe fair trade and an open border is good for both countries.

Roper, this would be an interestng subject for you to research. I expect manufacturing jobs are declining in Canada as you say just as they have in the U.S. However, the real issue is what is manufacturing output doing? Do you know? It might shock you to find out.

A most dangerous period is developing with the protectionists short sighted agenda in the U.S. Too many have forgotten the economic disasters caused by protectionism.

 

[agman]

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.

Bill is correct in pointing to population. On many items they run a per captia trade deficit with the U.S. Your diversion to China overlooks income. That is just a minor necessity not to be overlooked when talking trade. Population by itself is meaningless unless it is tied to income levels.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Roper, this would be an interestng subject for you to research. I expect manufacturing jobs are declining in Canada as you say just as they have in the U.S. However, the real issue is what is manufacturing output doing? Do you know? It might shock you to find out.

Its been a few years since I bothered snooping at this stuff, but economic output of manufacturing as it related to contributions to GDP was on the decline. In other words, it was generating fewer jobs and less income for the country. Canada was in danger of becoming a nation of systems analysts, primary producers and gas pump jockeys.

Rod

 

[Charlie1948]

The American Farmer Rancher is his own worst enemy.Just Face it we are the stuppidest people in the USA. We grow more and more get less and less.Every other business prices its products cost of production plus a proffit.We have never gotten a price unless there is a failure some where else.I use to grow 3000 acres of corn in 1972 I sold corn for $4.00 cost .08 to truck it 100 miles $50.00 imputs $14,000.00 New Combine and now it cost $ 170.00+ $250,000.00 + combine And $1.60 to $2.10 corn this fall even $1.20 at one time .It don,t take a rocket scientist to figure this out.We don,t need government handouts we need prices.Igot smart I don,t grain farm just cattle it doesn,t take as much to do this.We just have had things going our way the last year or two.Soon they will screw us just like they use to and we will just take it and bench and bench.Our farm and cattle associations all stink .I just read all the articles and just blows my mind that so many of us don,t like what is happining to our way of life but not enough of us will stand together .Every one thinks they can get bigger or wait out there neighbor.Enough Take Care

 

[RoperAB]

Roper, this would be an interestng subject for you to research. I expect manufacturing jobs are declining in Canada as you say just as they have in the U.S. However, the real issue is what is manufacturing output doing? Do you know? It might shock you to find out.

Its been a few years since I bothered snooping at this stuff, but economic output of manufacturing as it related to contributions to GDP was on the decline. In other words, it was generating fewer jobs and less income for the country. Canada was in danger of becoming a nation of systems analysts, primary producers and gas pump jockeys.

Rod

Dont forget tourism! Haha Im originally from the east Rod and I think the polititions back there expected us all to dress up like 300 years ago and wait for the tourist to come.

 

[RobertMac]

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?

Agman, don't do a SH spin job on us...the problem isn't that we can't produce lean trim, the problem is we produce too damn much fat without anything better to do with it. The excess should be used for cooking oil or biodiesel.

 

[Anonymous]

Roper, this would be an interestng subject for you to research. I expect manufacturing jobs are declining in Canada as you say just as they have in the U.S. However, the real issue is what is manufacturing output doing? Do you know? It might shock you to find out.

Its been a few years since I bothered snooping at this stuff, but economic output of manufacturing as it related to contributions to GDP was on the decline. In other words, it was generating fewer jobs and less income for the country. Canada was in danger of becoming a nation of systems analysts, primary producers and gas pump jockeys.

Rod

In the US it will be truck drivers (to haul all the imported products across the country) , MacDonalds cooks and Walmart greeters..... :wink:

 

[RobertMac]

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....

Kind of makes all the Canadians here that blame R-CALF for all their problem look like...what does SH say...hypocrites!?? :? :???:

 

[RobertMac]

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?

The key to 'free trade' becoming 'fair trade' is fixed currency exchange rate and equal access...same tariffs or lack of. There isn't a trade problem when the same companies operate on both sides of the border. Canadian beef didn't have a problem getting into the USA...as long as it came through Cargill or Tyson! Only the Canadian producer suffered! I don't know about lumber, but I'll be willing to bet Georgia-Pacific isn't cutting your trees.

 

[Econ101]

Agman: "A most dangerous period is developing with the protectionists short sighted agenda in the U.S. Too many have forgotten the economic disasters caused by protectionism."

Agman, stop trying to hide oligopolist and market power behind the illusion of free trade. Our trade negotiators make laws that allow our corporate heads to exploit resources on all sides of the border and use market power to further their own ends. I don't mind trade with Canadian producers but I do mind "free" trade with the oligopolist running both sides of the border, manipulating markets, govt. policy, cattlemen, and health issues for their own good. We don't really have a free trade policy with Canada as their lumber industry, poultry industry and other industries show. We have a free trade agreement with U.S. corporations wanting to exploit resources abroad.

Nafta didn't help the populace of Mexico as it was sold as---it only allowed a springboard to the orient cheap labor and production and, I might add, a huge transfer of intellectual property rights that are not being respected over there.

You say be careful about the dangers of protectionism, I say beware the dangers of concentrated power and the ability of greed and politicians to sell out fellow producers to increasing corporate power.

 

[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.

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

Clear enough?

OK, Bill. By your divertion off the population/importes comment of yours, I think my point has been made.

 

[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?

OK, Bill. By your divertion off the population/importes comment of yours, I think my point has been made.

Your point has been made? What point is that?

Agman wrote:

Bill is correct in pointing to population. On many items they run a per captia trade deficit with the U.S. Your diversion to China overlooks income. That is just a minor necessity not to be overlooked when talking trade. Population by itself is meaningless unless it is tied to income levels.

I will give you credit Sandhusker, you have the spinnining and diverting WITHOUT making a point down to a science.

 

[Econ101]

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

Clear enough?

OK, Bill. By your divertion off the population/importes comment of yours, I think my point has been made.

Your point has been made? What point is that?

Agman wrote:

Bill is correct in pointing to population. On many items they run a per captia trade deficit with the U.S. Your diversion to China overlooks income. That is just a minor necessity not to be overlooked when talking trade. Population by itself is meaningless unless it is tied to income levels.

I will give you credit Sandhusker, you have the spinnining and diverting WITHOUT making a point down to a science.

Agman is correct about one thing in this discussion, we are exporting U.S. wealth abroad. Selling the store, you might say. I hope he is right about some of these other countries starting to be the consumers instead of the U.S. population carrying the burden of fuelling the world economy.

Right now we are in hock to them with the current fiscal/tax strategy by this administration. We are selling the rights to tax our children to the Japanese and Chinese just so it looks like there is no affect to our spending ways.

Put it on the credit card, your children will pay it.

 

[tempdoug]

Are cargill and tyson buying canadian fat cattle for $73.00US and down? doug

 

[RobertMac]

Econ, I got to disagree with you on the tax strategy. From what I understand, every time tax rates are decreased, tax revenues increase! Surely you will agree that the government is not a good place to invest our money!

 

[Econ101]

Econ, I got to disagree with you on the tax strategy. From what I understand, every time tax rates are decreased, tax revenues increase! Surely you will agree that the government is not a good place to invest our money!

Some of the reason for that is the structure of investment. Most stock appreciation is not taxed until the stock is actually sold. We also have long term capital gains rates. Given that scenario, when there is a tax break, some of the stock is sold and the tax paid on the appreciation. It looks as if tax revenue went up because tax rates were dropped, but in reality it was accrued taxes that went into the treasury.

I totally agree that money spent in govt. has to pay a dividend and measuring that dividend is not easy. How do you measure the value of the police force, roads, or schools? They are all investments in a civil society.

Because it is hard to measure, it is easy for govt.s to waste money in these areas. Good governors know how to wring that waste out and keep tax rates to a minimum. Our fed. govt. is not doing that very well right now, just look at the waste in Iraq and those mobile homes sitting out in Arkansas black gumbo.

I agree with you, Robert Mac, that govt. wastes a lot of our assets and that tax rates need to generally be lower with more efficiency in govt. services and assets. I don't see that happening right now. The answer to that quandry is to reduce the amount of money govt. recieves and make them get by with less. Unfortunately, the pres. has decided to tax less and not cut govt. but to expand it. We are borrowing money from the rest of the world for that expansion and putting our kid's future tax liability as payment to our indescretions right now. Our kids will be paying the chinese for our not handling the economy correctly. Basically we are living on a credit card in our country right now with our national fiscal policy.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Here's some real canadian numbers for you Econ. From Assiaboia livestock last week.
Good Steers 800-900 lbs. Avg. 1.04 And Sold Up To 1.12
Good Steers 700-800 lbs. Avg. 1.13 And Sold Up To 1.21
Good Steers 600-700 lbs. Avg. 1.25 And Sold Up To 1.42
Good Steers 500-600 lbs. Avg. 1.39 And Sold Up To 1.47
Good Steers 400-500 lbs. Avg. 1.46 And Sold Up To 1.57
Good Steers 300-400 lbs. Avg. And Sold Up To
Good Heifers over 900 lbs. Avg. And Sold Up To
Good Heifers 800-900 lbs. Avg. 0.99 And Sold Up To 1.02
Good Heifers 700-800 lbs. Avg. 1.02 And Sold Up To 1.15
Good Heifers 600-700 lbs. Avg. 1.12 And Sold Up To 1.20
Good Heifers 500-600 lbs. Avg. 1.19 And Sold Up To 1.27
Good Heifers 400-500 lbs. Avg. 1.26 And Sold Up To 1.35
Good Heifers 300-400 lbs. Avg. And Sold Up To

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Southern Alberta prices yesterday.


Steers


Live $ 84.25-87.00



Flat Rail 140.00-144.30








Heifers


84.25-87.15


140.00-143.75



In the cow and bull trade in Southern Alberta yesterday:

D1, D2 cows 38.00-42.50


D3 cows 34.00-38.00



Bulls 32.00-35.00