What is happened to our cattle prices???

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Do the research and find out for yourself. The only costs I mentioned in that previous example were the ones I could think of off the top of my head which immediately shaved your initial profit estimates down to almost nothing. Just because I didn't mention other costs does not mean there is not other costs. I only mentioned the ones that I knew you missed. There is others. If you want to know what those costs are, why don't you find out rather than speculating?

I haven't speculated once on costs. Since you claim to know these costs, I've simply asked you to provide them for me. It also does not mean that I haven't been researching for myself, however every single avenue I research turns up costs FAR lower than those you quoted to me. An example is SRM removal and disposal. So far I'm getting a low side value of $50 and a high side of $80. Not even close to the $150 - $200 that was given to me.

So tell me SH. If someone told you something they claimed to be a FACT, yet you couldn't verify any of the information, wouldn't you ask that person to provide some evidence?

Rod, first of all I would like to thank you and Agman for an excellent point-counterpoint discussion

Well, I think Agman understands that I don't take what people say at face value, and ask for it to be proven to me. He may not agree with what I'm saying, but I doubt he sees any value in insulting someone who genuinely is interested in learning where his misconceptions are. On my side, Agman's never treated me with anything other dignity (perhaps strained occasionally) so why should I treat him differently because I disagree with him?

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Good posts, feeder, although the whole story is not being told here. The average price of cattle during a period will be the average price per cattle. Over the cattle cycle, or better put, the supply/demand cycle, the average price of a market with captive supplies will always be the average price of cattle with or without captive supplies during the whole cycle. The use of captive supplies as a weapon will only occur when there is a little more supply coming on the market than the current market equilibrium. During this time period the captive supply can be used to depress cattle prices lower than the normal supply/demand mechanisms with the use of market power. If there were no market power, the market would not allow this to happen. Selecting certain time periods within the cycle can tell either side of the story you want to tell.

The problem I have with the market manipulation is not that the average price of cattle is lower over the whole period, but that normal price mechanisms for quality/quantity are not being passed on to the producers. They are being subverted for greater market power concentration games. The fact that you, as a producer, have invested in good genetics and have better performing cattle will be negated by these actions if they are not corrected. This has an impact on every purebred stock producer, as well as the producers themselves.

The ultimate goal is market concentration to the point that market power can more easily be exerted and additional profits garnished from the industry at the expense of producers. This is what happened in the poultry markets and this is what is happening now in the beef markets. Tyson is using their substitutes in the protein industry to further the industry concentration with these games.

As Robert Mac says, just look at how poultry is taking market share from beef. Agman wishes to characterize the changes in price/quantity as changes in demand, and in a world without substitutes this would be true.

The fact is that there are substitutes and they are important in the price/quantity relationship; price times quantity as a measure of demand does not hold true when all other things are not held constant. Changes in the substitutes, which Tyson controls and has market power in, has huge effects in the concentration game.

When cattlemen can not garnish an effective marketing avenue for the extra value added in their production system because of a concentration in the packing industry, whether it be organic beef, grass fed beef, no antibiotic beef, better genetics which leads to better yield/grade mixes, then the normal market mechanisms have been altered for the benefit of market concentration. The policies coming out of the USDA seem to support these strategies: (Creekstone not allowed to test for foreign markets), USDA not supporting small packer plants by discriminating on food safety rules and not accomodating smaller packer plant inspection systems, not investigating producer complaints of market power (GIPSA) and no accountabilty when gross neglect is shown at the USDA (allowing JoAnn Waterfield a free walk).

The industry is becoming more concentrated, but it is not because of chance.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

In deciding when to deliver the cattle, rational, profit-maximizing feedlots chose to deliver marketing agreement cattle in that week which promised the highest expected spot market price because the marketing agreement cattle brought a price based on the spot market price. Because marketing agreement cattle delivered in two weeks bring a price based on the spot market price paid for cattle next week, one would expect to see a positive statistical relationship between captive supply delivered in two weeks and the expected spot market price for the next week. Similarly, one would expect to see a negative statistical relationship between captive supply delivered in two weeks and the current forecast of spot market price in two weeks. The observed statistical relationship between spot market prices and cash supply deliveries arises because expected prices are positively correlated with actual market prices. Under this scenario, deliveries of captive supply in a week do not cause spot prices during that week to be low. Rather, the expectation of low spot prices in two weeks time, which usually come to pass, leads feedlots to sell more cattle a week early and deliver them the following week later. This mechanism does not support the argument that increases in captive supply deliveries cause average spot market price decreases.

This argument I've heard before. IN effect what they're saying is the feedlots will deliver maximum animals when they expect a high spot in the market price. This is perfectly reasonable. Then the spot price drops for a week or two, mainly because demand has been satisfied. They're theorizing that the weighted average price will not be affected as more stock was delivered during the high spot than in the low spot. This would be reasonable IF everyone was able to deliver during the high spot and everyone was on contracts. However, they fail to realize that some independents and producer feedlots may not be forward contracted, and may end up having to deliver during the low spot times, in effect bringing the weighted average back down. So why wouldn't these independents deliver during the high spot price? Dozen different reasons. Thinking that next weeks prices would be even higher, not knowing about the massive delivers about to take place. Couldn't secure trucking. ect etc etc

And while I've never come right and said that packers HAVE manipulated prices (even though I've been accused of it), you have to admit if they know they can expect 20,000 head in the next two weeks, the impetus to not bid up to true price discovery is there. And not even illegal for that matter. If you know you have supply coming, why oversupply yourself? Reduce the number of cattle you buy, and in turn this will depress the price.

Rod

 

[agman]

As Robert Mac says, just look at how poultry is taking market share from beef. Agman wishes to characterize the changes in price/quantity as changes in demand, and in a world without substitutes this would be true.


The industry is becoming more concentrated, but it is not because of chance.

If you could tell the truth and just quit lying to support your view you might just have and ounce of credibility.

I will say again, I have forgotten more about supply demand analysis then you will ever know. Remember, you, the self proclaimed intellectual saviour that you think you are, did not even know the level or trend in per capita supply of beef. How foolish did that make you look. Yet you claimed you know markets were manipulated and claim to know what demand is and what it has done-what a blatant lie. Only you believe your lies, everyone else on this forum has already figured out your scheme of lies and deception.

If you can't recognize the downward shift in beef demand which occurred for a period of 19 years as opposed to a shift along an existing demand curve then you just expose once again your lack of economic understanding and analysis. Furthermore your lack of knowledge of the demand gains made by beef since the low in 1998 only reinforces your ignorance of this entire subject. What esle is new? Selling the same level of per capita product at substantially higher prices does not represent movement along any demand curve. It represents a shift upward in the demand curve. Since you are absent all fact you can hallucinate some more and contrive another phony manipulation theory. Those phony theories are result of your ignorance and lack of any real knowledge of this great industry.

 

[RobertMac]

In deciding when to deliver the cattle, rational, profit-maximizing feedlots chose to deliver marketing agreement cattle in that week which promised the highest expected spot market price because the marketing agreement cattle brought a price based on the spot market price. Because marketing agreement cattle delivered in two weeks bring a price based on the spot market price paid for cattle next week, one would expect to see a positive statistical relationship between captive supply delivered in two weeks and the expected spot market price for the next week. Similarly, one would expect to see a negative statistical relationship between captive supply delivered in two weeks and the current forecast of spot market price in two weeks. The observed statistical relationship between spot market prices and cash supply deliveries arises because expected prices are positively correlated with actual market prices. Under this scenario, deliveries of captive supply in a week do not cause spot prices during that week to be low. Rather, the expectation of low spot prices in two weeks time, which usually come to pass, leads feedlots to sell more cattle a week early and deliver them the following week later. This mechanism does not support the argument that increases in captive supply deliveries cause average spot market price decreases.

This argument I've heard before. IN effect what they're saying is the feedlots will deliver maximum animals when they expect a high spot in the market price. This is perfectly reasonable. Then the spot price drops for a week or two, mainly because demand has been satisfied. They're theorizing that the weighted average price will not be affected as more stock was delivered during the high spot than in the low spot. This would be reasonable IF everyone was able to deliver during the high spot and everyone was on contracts. However, they fail to realize that some independents and producer feedlots may not be forward contracted, and may end up having to deliver during the low spot times, in effect bringing the weighted average back down. So why wouldn't these independents deliver during the high spot price? Dozen different reasons. Thinking that next weeks prices would be even higher, not knowing about the massive delivers about to take place. Couldn't secure trucking. ect etc etc

And while I've never come right and said that packers HAVE manipulated prices (even though I've been accused of it), you have to admit if they know they can expect 20,000 head in the next two weeks, the impetus to not bid up to true price discovery is there. And not even illegal for that matter. If you know you have supply coming, why oversupply yourself? Reduce the number of cattle you buy, and in turn this will depress the price.

Rod

Great post, Rod
Who knows the market better than the packers who ARE THE MARKET???
It's manipulation by default!

Think about this...the fast food industry is beef's number one customer...McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King. What has been the thrust of their advertising as of late? Their chicken sandwich! Our "big packer partners" are assisting in a market shift away from beef!

PS: My cost of turning a live animal into a retail package is roughly $.50/lb carcass wt. That's with an inefficient small packer...the big packers can surely do it much cheaper. :wink:

 

[Econ101]

As Robert Mac says, just look at how poultry is taking market share from beef. Agman wishes to characterize the changes in price/quantity as changes in demand, and in a world without substitutes this would be true.


The industry is becoming more concentrated, but it is not because of chance.

If you could tell the truth and just quit lying to support your view you might just have and ounce of credibility.

I will say again, I have forgotten more about supply demand analysis then you will ever know. Remember, you, the self proclaimed intellectual saviour that you think you are, did not even know the level or trend in per capita supply of beef. How foolish did that make you look. Yet you claimed you know markets were manipulated and claim to know what demand is and what it has done-what a blatant lie. Only you believe your lies, everyone else on this forum has already figured out your scheme of lies and deception.

If you can't recognize the downward shift in beef demand which occurred for a period of 19 years as opposed to a shift along an existing demand curve then you just expose once again your lack of economic understanding and analysis. Furthermore your lack of knowledge of the demand gains made by beef since the low in 1998 only reinforces your ignorance of this entire subject. What esle is new? Selling the same level of per capita product at substantially higher prices does not represent movement along any demand curve. It represents a shift upward in the demand curve. Since you are absent all fact you can hallucinate some more and contrive another phony manipulation theory. Those phony theories are result of your ignorance and lack of any real knowledge of this great industry.

Agman:"Selling the same level of per capita product at substantially higher prices does not represent movement along any demand curve. It represents a shift upward in the demand curve."

Econ: That only holds true "when all other things are held equal", Agman. When poultry prices and supply change, your theory of demand does not hold true.

Okay, Agman, what is the reason for chicken taking over beef stomach space on a per capita basis?

Tell us what you have forgotten.

It is your floor.

 

[agman]

As Robert Mac says, just look at how poultry is taking market share from beef. Agman wishes to characterize the changes in price/quantity as changes in demand, and in a world without substitutes this would be true.


The industry is becoming more concentrated, but it is not because of chance.

If you could tell the truth and just quit lying to support your view you might just have and ounce of credibility.

I will say again, I have forgotten more about supply demand analysis then you will ever know. Remember, you, the self proclaimed intellectual saviour that you think you are, did not even know the level or trend in per capita supply of beef. How foolish did that make you look. Yet you claimed you know markets were manipulated and claim to know what demand is and what it has done-what a blatant lie. Only you believe your lies, everyone else on this forum has already figured out your scheme of lies and deception.

If you can't recognize the downward shift in beef demand which occurred for a period of 19 years as opposed to a shift along an existing demand curve then you just expose once again your lack of economic understanding and analysis. Furthermore your lack of knowledge of the demand gains made by beef since the low in 1998 only reinforces your ignorance of this entire subject. What esle is new? Selling the same level of per capita product at substantially higher prices does not represent movement along any demand curve. It represents a shift upward in the demand curve. Since you are absent all fact you can hallucinate some more and contrive another phony manipulation theory. Those phony theories are result of your ignorance and lack of any real knowledge of this great industry.

Agman:"Selling the same level of per capita product at substantially higher prices does not represent movement along any demand curve. It represents a shift upward in the demand curve."

Econ: That only holds true "when all other things are held equal", Agman. When poultry prices and supply change, your theory of demand does not hold true.

Okay, Agman, what is the reason for chicken taking over beef stomach space on a per capita basis?

Tell us what you have forgotten.

It is your floor.

I have not forgotten anything. What is it I am supposed to forget? It is a simple fact you just don't know about supply /demand analysis and certainly the pattern of demand for beef. Your attempt at an explanation is just plain nonsense and displays your ignorance per this subject.

The question you pose "Okay, Agman, what is the reason for chicken taking over beef stomach space on a per capita basis?" Really, it is a conspiracy!!!

Why don' you tell the world your version of why poultry surpassed beef consumption on a per capita basis. I am certain it will be another of your string of hallucinations and totally meaningless dissertations. I will give you a hint-it is called consumer preference.

 

[Econ101]

If you could tell the truth and just quit lying to support your view you might just have and ounce of credibility.

I will say again, I have forgotten more about supply demand analysis then you will ever know. Remember, you, the self proclaimed intellectual saviour that you think you are, did not even know the level or trend in per capita supply of beef. How foolish did that make you look. Yet you claimed you know markets were manipulated and claim to know what demand is and what it has done-what a blatant lie. Only you believe your lies, everyone else on this forum has already figured out your scheme of lies and deception.

If you can't recognize the downward shift in beef demand which occurred for a period of 19 years as opposed to a shift along an existing demand curve then you just expose once again your lack of economic understanding and analysis. Furthermore your lack of knowledge of the demand gains made by beef since the low in 1998 only reinforces your ignorance of this entire subject. What esle is new? Selling the same level of per capita product at substantially higher prices does not represent movement along any demand curve. It represents a shift upward in the demand curve. Since you are absent all fact you can hallucinate some more and contrive another phony manipulation theory. Those phony theories are result of your ignorance and lack of any real knowledge of this great industry.

Agman:"Selling the same level of per capita product at substantially higher prices does not represent movement along any demand curve. It represents a shift upward in the demand curve."

Econ: That only holds true "when all other things are held equal", Agman. When poultry prices and supply change, your theory of demand does not hold true.

Okay, Agman, what is the reason for chicken taking over beef stomach space on a per capita basis?

Tell us what you have forgotten.

It is your floor.

I have not forgotten anything. What is it I am supposed to forget? It is a simple fact you just don't know about supply /demand analysis and certainly the pattern of demand for beef. Your attempt at an explanation is just plain nonsense and displays your ignorance per this subject.

The question you pose "Okay, Agman, what is the reason for chicken taking over beef stomach space on a per capita basis?" Really, it is a conspiracy!!!

Why don' you tell the world your version of why poultry surpassed beef consumption on a per capita basis. I am certain it will be another of your string of hallucinations and totally meaningless dissertations. I will give you a hint-it is called consumer preference.

So when asked, you only produce foam---no beer, as you say.

If you were in charge of the beef division of a major company and this is the only answer you came up with, you should be fired.

I would like an elaboration, if you don't mind. Maybe you could reach into all the demand information you continuously say you forgot.

 

[agman]

Agman:"Selling the same level of per capita product at substantially higher prices does not represent movement along any demand curve. It represents a shift upward in the demand curve."

Econ: That only holds true "when all other things are held equal", Agman. When poultry prices and supply change, your theory of demand does not hold true.

Okay, Agman, what is the reason for chicken taking over beef stomach space on a per capita basis?

Tell us what you have forgotten.

It is your floor.

I have not forgotten anything. What is it I am supposed to forget? It is a simple fact you just don't know about supply /demand analysis and certainly the pattern of demand for beef. Your attempt at an explanation is just plain nonsense and displays your ignorance per this subject.

The question you pose "Okay, Agman, what is the reason for chicken taking over beef stomach space on a per capita basis?" Really, it is a conspiracy!!!

Why don' you tell the world your version of why poultry surpassed beef consumption on a per capita basis. I am certain it will be another of your string of hallucinations and totally meaningless dissertations. I will give you a hint-it is called consumer preference.

So when asked, you only produce foam---no beer, as you say.

If you were in charge of the beef division of a major company and this is the only answer you came up with, you should be fired.

I would like an elaboration, if you don't mind. Maybe you could reach into all the demand information you continuously say you forgot.

Evidently my answer was over your head again as it must be difficult for you to dream up a case where consumers conspired to reduce beef consumption and increase their consumption of chicken. In your phony world consumers do not make choices on their own.

Do you really think I need to waste my time on a fool such as yourself who did not even know the level or trend in beef consumption and clearly stated that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". From that statement it has to follow and one must conclude that - prices cannot go down unless supply goes up. POOF, that shoots all your endless manipualtion theories down the hole.

...and you are going to give me a lesson on supply/demand analysis. I am still waiting - give the world a break from your fantasies.

Sorry, you are so ignorant of the facts that you are not worth answering. You have been crushed at every turn and are just too foolish to recognize your own total lack of knowledge per this subject. You can go back to your night shift at 7-11 and hallucinate some more.

 

[Econ101]

Agman:

Evidently my answer was over your head again as it must be difficult for you to dream up a case where consumers conspired to reduce beef consumption and increase their consumption of chicken. In your phony world consumers do not make choices on their own.

Do you really think I need to waste my time on a fool such as yourself who did not even know the level or trend in beef consumption and clearly stated that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". From that statement it has to follow and one must conclude that - prices cannot go down unless supply goes up. POOF, that shoots all your endless manipualtion theories down the hole.

...and you are going to give me a lesson on supply/demand analysis. I am still waiting - give the world a break from your fantasies.

Sorry, you are so ignorant of the facts that you are not worth answering. You have been crushed at every turn and are just too foolish to recognize your own total lack of knowledge per this subject. You can go back to your night shift at 7-11 and hallucinate some more.

Agman, I think you present the illusion that you have beer but are all foam. Posts like this prove that.

You have sat here on this post singing your own praises and denigrating others while I have asked a simple question.

Please stop telling us how much you know and start showing it with a little more substance in your posts instead of the ranting present here.

If you don't know the answer, stop acting "superior" about it and just admit it.

 

[agman]

Agman:

Evidently my answer was over your head again as it must be difficult for you to dream up a case where consumers conspired to reduce beef consumption and increase their consumption of chicken. In your phony world consumers do not make choices on their own.

Do you really think I need to waste my time on a fool such as yourself who did not even know the level or trend in beef consumption and clearly stated that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". From that statement it has to follow and one must conclude that - prices cannot go down unless supply goes up. POOF, that shoots all your endless manipualtion theories down the hole.

...and you are going to give me a lesson on supply/demand analysis. I am still waiting - give the world a break from your fantasies.

Sorry, you are so ignorant of the facts that you are not worth answering. You have been crushed at every turn and are just too foolish to recognize your own total lack of knowledge per this subject. You can go back to your night shift at 7-11 and hallucinate some more.

Agman, I think you present the illusion that you have beer but are all foam. Posts like this prove that.

You have sat here on this post singing your own praises and denigrating others while I have asked a simple question.

Please stop telling us how much you know and start showing it with a little more substance in your posts instead of the ranting present here.

If you don't know the answer, stop acting "superior" about it and just admit it.

Who really cares what you think-nobody? Everyone has your phony game figured out. You never answer a direct question because you lack the knowledge to do so while you expect others to answer yours. As a diversion you ramble on and on divulging your hallucinations.

You are a total fraud lacking almost any knowledge of this industry. I do not claim to have superior knowledge to everyone who post but I certainly have superior knowledge to you regarding this great industry. You remain at the most elementary level; you don't register on the radar screen. The only thing you have proven adept at is making false statements and endless unsupportalbe accusations, a direct result of your lack of any real knowldge.

 

[Econ101]

Agman:

Evidently my answer was over your head again as it must be difficult for you to dream up a case where consumers conspired to reduce beef consumption and increase their consumption of chicken. In your phony world consumers do not make choices on their own.

Do you really think I need to waste my time on a fool such as yourself who did not even know the level or trend in beef consumption and clearly stated that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". From that statement it has to follow and one must conclude that - prices cannot go down unless supply goes up. POOF, that shoots all your endless manipualtion theories down the hole.

...and you are going to give me a lesson on supply/demand analysis. I am still waiting - give the world a break from your fantasies.

Sorry, you are so ignorant of the facts that you are not worth answering. You have been crushed at every turn and are just too foolish to recognize your own total lack of knowledge per this subject. You can go back to your night shift at 7-11 and hallucinate some more.

Agman, I think you present the illusion that you have beer but are all foam. Posts like this prove that.

You have sat here on this post singing your own praises and denigrating others while I have asked a simple question.

Please stop telling us how much you know and start showing it with a little more substance in your posts instead of the ranting present here.

If you don't know the answer, stop acting "superior" about it and just admit it.

Who really cares what you think-nobody? Everyone has your phony game figured out. You never answer a direct question because you lack the knowledge to do so while you expect others to answer yours. As a diversion you ramble on and on divulging your hallucinations.

You are a total fraud lacking almost any knowledge of this industry. I dol not claim to have superior knowledge to everyone who post but I certainly have superior knowledge to you regarding this great industry. You remain at the most elementary level; you don't register on the radar screen. The only thing you have proven adept at is making false statemnts and enless unsupportalbe accusations, a direct result of your lack of any real knowldge.

Was there an answer in there?

 

[RobertMac]

Careful Econ, too much foam will make you burp! :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Fedup,

Nobody needs your forum police evaluations. Perhaps someone should give you a striped shirt and a whistle for Christmas. If the previous posts are any indication, Agman has just as little tolerance for Conman the liar as I do. If you don't like it, I don't care!

Rod: "I haven't speculated once on costs."

You speculated on profits. That's where you were wrong. Did you admit it? NO! You didn't even know enough to consider the red meat yield from the carcass. You made a phony assumption on packer and retail profits based on a shallow retail beef price accredited to an entire carcass to support your need to blame packers. I started listing costs and you started shaving and you didn't end up with anywhere near where you started. What you presented was typical of those who want to blame packers for excessive profits and don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Rod: "Since you claim to know these costs, I've simply asked you to provide them for me."

Since you claimed to know the profit margin with your simplistic retail beef price attributed to the entire carcass example, WHY WOULDN'T YOU KNOW THE COSTS???

Usually people know what the hell they are talking about before claiming to know what retail beef profits and packer profits are.

I didn't claim to know ALL the costs but I know enough of them to know how wrong your simplistic explanation of packer and retail profits was. You obviously didn't know what any of the costs were before you presented your example.

Rod: "It also does not mean that I haven't been researching for myself, however every single avenue I research turns up costs FAR lower than those you quoted to me. An example is SRM removal and disposal. So far I'm getting a low side value of $50 and a high side of $80. Not even close to the $150 - $200 that was given to me."

Are you comparing apples to apples??? SRM removal is not SRM removal. Different age cattle have different requirements.

What costs did I quote you and what were the costs you came up with?

Rod: "So tell me SH. If someone told you something they claimed to be a FACT, yet you couldn't verify any of the information, wouldn't you ask that person to provide some evidence?"

Depends on how badly I wanted to know the truth. The packer blamers in this industry have been claiming outrageous packer and retail profits as FACT for years. I finally saw so many contradictions in their statements that I did my own research and found out how tight packer and retail margins really were. I suggest you do the same insteady of searching for what supports your biased need to blame packers.

You weren't on a fact finding mission. You had an obvious bias which was presented in your phony example of attributing a retail beef price to the entire carcass including bone and fat. If you would just admit that you were wrong to do so it would show a desire to know the truth.


Conman,

You wouldn't have a clue what "REAL FACTS" were. Your "SO CALLED" real facts have led to losses in every court decision you packer blamers have been involved in and you will continue to lose until you start telling the truth.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

"Conman,

You wouldn't have a clue what "REAL FACTS" were. Your "SO CALLED" real facts have led to losses in every court decision you packer blamers have been involved in and you will continue to lose until you start telling the truth.


~SH~"

SH, I have not been involved in a court case yet. The ones we have discussed on this forum have shown exactly what I have been alleging. We now have judges not litterally interpreting the law. They base their judgements on their own decisions, while showing the world their economic ignorance in their appellate decisions.

I think it is pretty easy to connect the dots.

Deep Throat always said, "Follow the money." I don't think you can go wrong with that advice, even when it does not follow "conventional wisdom" and falls under the category of a conspiracy theory.

These things usually work themselves out, as Richard Nixon, and more recently, Tom Delay found out.

 

[agman]

Agman:


Agman, I think you present the illusion that you have beer but are all foam. Posts like this prove that.

You have sat here on this post singing your own praises and denigrating others while I have asked a simple question.

Please stop telling us how much you know and start showing it with a little more substance in your posts instead of the ranting present here.

If you don't know the answer, stop acting "superior" about it and just admit it.

Who really cares what you think-nobody? Everyone has your phony game figured out. You never answer a direct question because you lack the knowledge to do so while you expect others to answer yours. As a diversion you ramble on and on divulging your hallucinations.

You are a total fraud lacking almost any knowledge of this industry. I dol not claim to have superior knowledge to everyone who post but I certainly have superior knowledge to you regarding this great industry. You remain at the most elementary level; you don't register on the radar screen. The only thing you have proven adept at is making false statemnts and enless unsupportalbe accusations, a direct result of your lack of any real knowldge.

Was there an answer in there?

Was there ever a question worth answering-no? You didn't know what questions to ask because of your ignorance of the facts and your endless self reliance on phony accusations. Your accusations and false claims don't cut it. Truly foam and no beer on your part.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, I have not been involved in a court case yet. The ones we have discussed on this forum have shown exactly what I have been alleging. We now have judges not litterally interpreting the law. They base their judgements on their own decisions, while showing the world their economic ignorance in their appellate decisions.

I think it is pretty easy to connect the dots."

No, you can't accept the truth so you have to come up with some lame ash conspiracy theory to support what you want to believe. Judge Strom overturned the verdict, the 11th circuit UNANYMOUSLY supported that verdict, THE SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO HEAR IT. YOU LOST, YOU LOST AGAIN, AND YOU LOST AGAIN!

You packer blamers cannot support your packer blaming conspiracy theories with supporting facts and that's why you continue to lose.

You need someone or something to blame so you come up with every hair brain conspiracy theory you can to justify that need to blame.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Who really cares what you think-nobody? Everyone has your phony game figured out. You never answer a direct question because you lack the knowledge to do so while you expect others to answer yours. As a diversion you ramble on and on divulging your hallucinations.

You are a total fraud lacking almost any knowledge of this industry. I dol not claim to have superior knowledge to everyone who post but I certainly have superior knowledge to you regarding this great industry. You remain at the most elementary level; you don't register on the radar screen. The only thing you have proven adept at is making false statemnts and enless unsupportalbe accusations, a direct result of your lack of any real knowldge.

Was there an answer in there?

Was there ever a question worth answering-no? You didn't know what questions to ask because of your ignorance of the facts and your endless self reliance on phony accusations. Your accusations and false claims don't cut it. Truly foam and no beer on your part.

Why has consumer preference gone to chicken over beef, Agman?

I will give you a hint---follow the money.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

You speculated on profits.

So I knew what the animal sold for, I knew what the end product would be bought for? Thats not speculation. Its not my fault that YOU DON"T KNOW the difference between net profit and gross profit. It was painfully obvious in the initial message that I was speaking of gross profit.

Since you claimed to know the profit margin with your simplistic retail beef price attributed to the entire carcass example, WHY WOULDN'T YOU KNOW THE COSTS???

It was GROSS PROFIT and I never ONCE attributed retail to the ENTIRE CARCASS. I used a 63% yield, which by the way, I noticed Agman using in an analysis. As soon as you pointed out my error, I kicked it down to 40%, which by the way, is an erroneous number. Which leads me to believe you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to processing cows.

I didn't claim to know ALL the costs but I know enough of them to know how wrong your simplistic explanation of packer and retail profits was.

You don't know what ANY of the costs are. NONE. At least I admitted that I was researching the costs. You can't even admit that you don't know and are simply spewing packer numbers in an attempt to sound educated and knowledgeable.

Are you comparing apples to apples??? SRM removal is not SRM removal. Different age cattle have different requirements.

When I call 40 different butcher shops, who process ALL ages of beef and ask them for their average SRM disposal and removal costs, which by the way, they know like the back of their hands, and they give me those numbers, I'd say its WAY more accurate than any drivel that the packers are spewing.

You weren't on a fact finding mission. You had an obvious bias which was presented in your phony example of attributing a retail beef price to the entire carcass including bone and fat. If you would just admit that you were wrong to do so it would show a desire to know the truth.

Once again, it wasn't on the entire carcass. I'm sorry you feel the need to warp the truth when I keep beating you at every corner. Of course, you don't actually have anything other SPECULATION to back you up.

Rod

 

[agman]

1) Also, if you actually believe the retailer makes 20% you should get out of the cattle business and open a retail outlet immediately.

2) For beginners, a cow at $70 yields 47% which takes the wholesale to $149 just to cover live cost-no processing. Do you know what it costs to process a cow? Then you have to go to retail and all its associated cost. Get the picture. It won't take long and we will be at that 25% figure I quoted. Where did I try to convince you that packers lost money for four years killing cows? I never made or implied such.

1) Actually I _KNOW_ the retailer gets a 20% markup average on beef. I'm friends with the local Co-op and IGA manager and they've allowed me to look at their books. Canfax also reported an average 20% retail markup. From that 20% they have to pay employees, keep the lights on, etc etc etc. Its doggoned tough for a retailer to make it on 20%.

2) I was simply going by numbers that you, SH, and Jason gave me when I was doing my simply cost breakdown from before. Since the packers were only making $60/animal at 30 cents/lb live by the time we were done, adding another 40 cents to the cost of the cow would drive us into HEAVY losses.

So lets take your $1.49/lb rail - no processing. To only be 25% of retail, that means the retail value of that animal $5.96/lb. Not sure what hamburger sells for in your area, but my area doesn't get that high.

Agman, I keep hearing people asking me what it costs to process the beef, SRM removal, etc etc. Since you, SH and others seem to be in the know, please provide us with a breakdown so can be similarly enlightened.

Rod

1) Markup is not profit. They are two distinctly different items. Do you know the average net retail margin on beef?

2) Correction, your math is wrong. Live-to-retail is approximately 25%. As such your $70 cow converts to an average retail of $2.80, a far cry from the $5.96 you calculated.

3) In U.S dollars when U.S packers are running kills at 680,000+ head per week the kill and process costs will approximate $132 - $140/head. When kills are reduced as they are now, due to the inability to raise product values, the kill costs are between $155-$170/head depending upon how many hours are reduced and the number of plants involved in the kill reduction. Taking a plant down for one day increases costs by $25-$32 per head.

Cow kill and process costs are generally between $83-$95 per head.

I hope this info helps you to better understand the packer cost structure.