What is happened to our cattle prices???

[Econ101]

Thanks, BMR, I see you have the same problems I have when it comes to cut and pasting these reports. I seemed to have a little more luck when I put it in word first but maybe Macon can give us some tips there.

 

[agman]

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

Relative to GDP that is correct but that is because your economy, as ours, is moving toward a service economy. However, that does not mean manufacturing output is declining. To the contrary, manufacturing output has grown rapidly due to rapid productivity gains. Check it out.

 

[agman]

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.

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.[/quote]

So he does not disagree with what I posted. What is wrong with that.

Do you have another conspiracy theroy in mind?

 

[agman]

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.

If you think what I stated was spin then just start your own company and produce the product cheaper as you claim. No one is standing in your way except the outcome which will be higher costs. But give it a try and back your position.

 

[Tommy]

Tommy wrote:
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?


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

Hey I am trying to learn, if I knew the answer I would not have asked.

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

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

Doug:


Yup they sure are. Maybe even a touch lower to end this week.

 

[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.

If you think what I stated was spin then just start your own company and produce the product cheaper as you claim. No one is standing in your way except the outcome which will be higher costs. But give it a try and back your position.

Agman, my point was that the excess 50/50 trim problem is a problem of excess fat...which is a problem of wrong genetics and using excess feed to try to produce prime and high choice. In your answer you illustrate the wrong mindset of the beef industry...the goal shouldn't be just to produce a cheaper product, but to produce a product that the consumer base is willing to buy and asking for! It doesn't matter how cheap it is if consumers are afraid to buy it and we will never produce beef cheaper than chicken.
I started a company that is producing a product my customer base is asking for! Take care and keep your beer cold.

 

[TSR]

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

Relative to GDP that is correct but that is because your economy, as ours, is moving toward a service economy. However, that does not mean manufacturing output is declining. To the contrary, manufacturing output has grown rapidly due to rapid productivity gains. Check it out.

Agman how has per capita income fared during this period of rapidly growing manufacturing output?

 

[mrj]

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.

roperAB, when you say "I still think the packers are the common enemy", you place yourself squarely in the R-CALF camp. That was and is their mantra, over and over and over.

I do not believe the producer will fare so well with the agrarian, small family farm only, peasant type agriculture they seem to be espousing, and that some of their friends (Resource Councils such as Dakota Rural Action and other Liberal Activist groups) are very actively promoting. "Slow food, locally produced, processed, and eaten in proper season", may sound catchy in a soundbite, or look great on an ad or protesters poster, but I sure don't want to be constrained by that system when I choose what my family eats......do you?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

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.

roperAB, when you say "I still think the packers are the common enemy", you place yourself squarely in the R-CALF camp. That was and is their mantra, over and over and over.

I do not believe the producer will fare so well with the agrarian, small family farm only, peasant type agriculture they seem to be espousing, and that some of their friends (Resource Councils such as Dakota Rural Action and other Liberal Activist groups) are very actively promoting. "Slow food, locally produced, processed, and eaten in proper season", may sound catchy in a soundbite, or look great on an ad or protesters poster, but I sure don't want to be constrained by that system when I choose what my family eats......do you?

MRJ

Careful, MRJ, you wouldn't want a reputation of converting people over to rcalf would you? :lol: What would your beloved NCBA do then? :shock:

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I do not believe the producer will fare so well with the agrarian, small family farm only, peasant type agriculture they seem to be espousing,

Hmmmmmm, this explains ALOT. So tell me MRJ, do you believe society will be better served by even fewer people living in rural communities, where family values and hard work are espoused, or is it going to be better to stuff more and more people into large city centres where you require dual incomes to stay afloat, and the children grow with Nintendo and knives?

I haven't seen anything from R-Calf that states anything other than a man should receive a fair dollar for his animal. I personally feel if 150 animals is a full time job (or 200 or whatever), then that should be enough to allow a producer to live comfortably. If the NCBA is espousing large corporate farms, then I certainly hope the membership flags to nothing and the fold up.

My kids are NOT going to be nintendo and knife kids, forced into a city by a multinational corporation and short sighted producer associations.

Rod

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Relative to GDP that is correct but that is because your economy, as ours, is moving toward a service economy. However, that does not mean manufacturing output is declining. To the contrary, manufacturing output has grown rapidly due to rapid productivity gains. Check it out.

But thats not a good thing for an economy. I don't know about manufacturing output within Canada, but manfacturing JOBS are well down from where they were 15 years ago. Who cares if company A can build 20 billion widgets compared to 5 billion from 5 years ago with half the jobs? The only people that benefit from these efficiencies are the stockholders of the company. Now, if a company were to improve efficiency AND increase the size of its plants, to keep the same number of JOBS, then I'd be applauding the gain in efficiency. Instead, all we've done is turned a $15/hr laborer into a $8/hr burger flipper. This isn't a good thing for the economy OR society.

Rod

 

[mrj]

I do not believe the producer will fare so well with the agrarian, small family farm only, peasant type agriculture they seem to be espousing,

Hmmmmmm, this explains ALOT. So tell me MRJ, do you believe society will be better served by even fewer people living in rural communities, where family values and hard work are espoused, or is it going to be better to stuff more and more people into large city centres where you require dual incomes to stay afloat, and the children grow with Nintendo and knives?

I haven't seen anything from R-Calf that states anything other than a man should receive a fair dollar for his animal. I personally feel if 150 animals is a full time job (or 200 or whatever), then that should be enough to allow a producer to live comfortably. If the NCBA is espousing large corporate farms, then I certainly hope the membership flags to nothing and the fold up.

My kids are NOT going to be nintendo and knife kids, forced into a city by a multinational corporation and short sighted producer associations.

Rod

Rod, NCBA is NOT "espousing large corporate farms"! NCBA members come from ALL sizes of farms and ranches. I believe if there were policy on this issue, NCBA members would say firmly that decisions regarding the size of a "legal" cattle production unit belong with the individual. We NMBA members do recognize that some people have different dreams and capabilities and should be encouraged to follow them, not told they are "too big" and "you crawl right back down into this bucket with the rest of us, now!" That attitude just doesn't do much for me, how about you?

So you think 150 or 200 animals can keep any ranch family fully employed? With even a modest investment in equipment, it seems that number should be much higher. We have heard that Deseret Ranches expects a couple to be able to care for more than a thousand cows. I don't know if that includes more than just caring for the animals, such as haying, fencing, etc. or not.

Are you saying that the price paid for your cattle should just automatically increase to accomodate inflation, your desire for a higher standard of living, number of children you choose to have, etc.? It does sound that way.

What I'm saying is that the quarter section homestead that was fairly universal back in the Homesteading era, NEVER was adequate for a family to make a living on, and some people seem to believe that farm income should have been adjusted via higher prices for crops to make it possible to have a family on every quarter section. They seem willing to ignore reality and a changing society and world. Have there been any successful societies that went backward in time? Other than Amish and others based on strict religious rules and business practices to which all citizens must conform?


MRJ

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) So you think 150 or 200 animals can keep any ranch family fully employed?

2) Are you saying that the price paid for your cattle should just automatically increase to accomodate inflation, your desire for a higher standard of living, number of children you choose to have, etc.? It does sound that way.

In my area, where we have to feed in the winter, make hay, etc etc, 150 animals can keep 1 person awful busy, often more so than a full time job. A family unit of husband, wife and child should be able to handle 250 head. Right now, 150 good animals on a well run ranch in Northern Saskatchewan can give a single guy a reasonably comfortable living.

Some areas are naturally more profitable than others, however I've noticed that most areas where the profit/animal is lower, it also means that its less labor intensive to run those animals. So instead of 150 animals, that one man can handle 300 animals.

2) As a matter of fact, there is NO REASON why a rancher shouldn't have every RIGHT to expect the price of his commodity will keep pace with inflation. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously not a rancher nor even a primary producer, and as such, has ZERO right to speak for us. And before you pull into the arguement the standard of living and number of children, at no time did I say ANYTHING about increasing a standard of living.

Lets requote me before it gets twisted around:

"I personally feel if 150 animals is a full time job (or 200 or whatever), then that should be enough to allow a producer to live comfortably."

Live comfortably, as in an AVERAGE economic existence. It is our RIGHT as human beings to expect a decent living for a decent days labor. If you want more, then by all means, work harder. Work 12 hours instead of 8. Or work smarter. But, just because you want to drive a Ferrari instead of a Dodge, do not expect us small guys to suffer because you want the bigger living.

Rod

 

[agman]

Tommy wrote:
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?


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

Hey I am trying to learn, if I knew the answer I would not have asked.

You said record cattle on feed and record weights are not the reason for lower prices then you must have another reason. Why are you unwilling to support your own comment? I have already posted numerous factors that are contributing to lower prices. Why the diversion from you. I am certain everyone wants to know your reasoning since you rejected the many reason I listed. Come on Tommy, take one for your team. I am still waiting.

 

[Charlie1948]

You are the only one out here that acts like you have some brains.We as farmer ranchers don,t need to go take the city jobs we need to be able to make a living and not have to try to farm the hole dam county.The trouble every one thinks if they can farm more cows or more corn they can make more money but usually doesn,t work out .I have seen many of my neighbors sell out the last 15 to 20 years .Maybe they will cut the bugget and no more releaf checks for the farmer then see who can make it. Thanks

 

[agman]

Relative to GDP that is correct but that is because your economy, as ours, is moving toward a service economy. However, that does not mean manufacturing output is declining. To the contrary, manufacturing output has grown rapidly due to rapid productivity gains. Check it out.

But thats not a good thing for an economy. I don't know about manufacturing output within Canada, but manfacturing JOBS are well down from where they were 15 years ago. Who cares if company A can build 20 billion widgets compared to 5 billion from 5 years ago with half the jobs? The only people that benefit from these efficiencies are the stockholders of the company. Now, if a company were to improve efficiency AND increase the size of its plants, to keep the same number of JOBS, then I'd be applauding the gain in efficiency. Instead, all we've done is turned a $15/hr laborer into a $8/hr burger flipper. This isn't a good thing for the economy OR society.

Rod

In all fairness you need to rethink your position. Not every one is a burger flipper. In fact that is a gross misconception. Wages are higher in service industries than in manufacturing. To imply we would be better off having twice as many people producing one-half as many manufactured goods is incorrect. Why not leave the plant size the same and employ technology to produce twice the goods with the same labor force? Do you know how much manufacturing productivy has improved? Check it out, it is shocking and positive for the economy. Have a cool one.

 

[Econ101]

Relative to GDP that is correct but that is because your economy, as ours, is moving toward a service economy. However, that does not mean manufacturing output is declining. To the contrary, manufacturing output has grown rapidly due to rapid productivity gains. Check it out.

But thats not a good thing for an economy. I don't know about manufacturing output within Canada, but manfacturing JOBS are well down from where they were 15 years ago. Who cares if company A can build 20 billion widgets compared to 5 billion from 5 years ago with half the jobs? The only people that benefit from these efficiencies are the stockholders of the company. Now, if a company were to improve efficiency AND increase the size of its plants, to keep the same number of JOBS, then I'd be applauding the gain in efficiency. Instead, all we've done is turned a $15/hr laborer into a $8/hr burger flipper. This isn't a good thing for the economy OR society.

Rod

In all fairness you need to rethink your position. Not every one is a burger flipper. In fact that is a gross misconception. Wages are higher in service industries than in manufacturing. To imply we would be better off having twice as many people producing one-half as many manufactured goods is incorrect. Why not leave the plant size the same and employ technology to produce twice the goods with the same labor force? Do you know how much manufacturing productivy has improved? Check it out, it is shocking and positive for the economy. Have a cool one.

Agman, I think this materialism thing has gone to your head. It is not all about money. My wife and I lived in a major metropolitan area and decided to move out to the country to have a slower pace of life.

I think it is a shame we have all been brainwashed somehow into thinking we have to work for the Tyson's of the world so busily so they can have their houses in the Carribean and buy any politician they want so they can change the rules in their favor. Rural communities have been dying for a long time due to our U.S. cheap food policy and free trade policy.

That twice as many goods with the same labor force has helped corporations, not individuals. Ask any producer.

 

[T3023]

RoperAB Alberta Wrote:


Free Trade was the election issue up here. By voting 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 international 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 tariffs 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 don't want the border to be closed. I want good US relations. But if you guys don't want Alberta beef, then you don't want our energy either. Well you may want it but if it was up to me you would not get it. I'm just one guy with one vote but there are a lot of guys up here who feel the same way.

Canada are our allies and I don't believe America wishes any ill-repute, but the FTAA is not good for America or Canada. This will be a loss to all territories, lands and freedom. So please remember, stay at home and trade within, Canada should do the same as America, because you are the next ones up and next ones in line. Canada is at the same mercy as America. Your just as much at jeopardy as we are. Stay within and barter cautiously.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Relative to GDP that is correct but that is because your economy, as ours, is moving toward a service economy. However, that does not mean manufacturing output is declining. To the contrary, manufacturing output has grown rapidly due to rapid productivity gains. Check it out.

But thats not a good thing for an economy. I don't know about manufacturing output within Canada, but manfacturing JOBS are well down from where they were 15 years ago. Who cares if company A can build 20 billion widgets compared to 5 billion from 5 years ago with half the jobs? The only people that benefit from these efficiencies are the stockholders of the company. Now, if a company were to improve efficiency AND increase the size of its plants, to keep the same number of JOBS, then I'd be applauding the gain in efficiency. Instead, all we've done is turned a $15/hr laborer into a $8/hr burger flipper. This isn't a good thing for the economy OR society.

Rod

In all fairness you need to rethink your position. Not every one is a burger flipper. In fact that is a gross misconception. Wages are higher in service industries than in manufacturing. To imply we would be better off having twice as many people producing one-half as many manufactured goods is incorrect. Why not leave the plant size the same and employ technology to produce twice the goods with the same labor force? Do you know how much manufacturing productivy has improved? Check it out, it is shocking and positive for the economy. Have a cool one.

"Now, if a company were to improve efficiency AND increase the size of its plants, to keep the same number of JOBS, then I'd be applauding the gain in efficiency. " This is what I said from my first post, which pretty echoes your thoughts about leaving plant size the same and produce twice the goods with the same labor force. However, this hasn't been the reality within Canada. Output on an individual plant basis may have increased (I still haven't looked to see if overall output within the country has increased) however they've also downsized the plants at the same time.

So we've got twice the output with 1/2 the labor force (numbers not real, just for illustration purpose) versus 4x the output with the same labor force.

And as far as service jobs being higher paid than manufacturing, thats not a reality up here.

Rod