What is happened to our cattle prices???

[RoperAB]

I still dont think that the price the producer gets has much to do with the retail price.

 

[RobertMac]

HGL, I'm not implying you are saying anything...I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.

 

[RobertMac]

I still dont think that the price the producer gets has much to do with the retail price.

40-50%

 

[RoperAB]

Here is an idea
Make it easier to butcher your own beef and sell it locally. Get rid of stupid regulations example having to have co-ed bathrooms for employees, etc. Have more government inspecters to inspect the beef at your rural locations.
Just get rid of all of these regulations that make it impossible for the average producer to process and sell his own beef.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

now at my store there 7.49 a lb sorry not going to happen with a family of 5, can't do er".

And theres the dig right there. No one can blame HGL for having to feed his (her? Sorry didn't notice) family protein alternatives when decent beef is at 7 bucks a pound. Is that 7 bucks for the best you can buy? Or are there higher valued cuts in the US today?

Can someone here tell me what rail price is per pound in the US today? A buck? Buck and a half? According to SH, 80/20 ground beef is selling at $2.20. So we have a spread of $2.20 to $7.00. Since it costs a small butcher shop 50 cents/lb (Cdn, whats that, 46 cents US today?) to process a beef, including SRM removal, keeping the lights on, paying employees, and paying himself, why does it cost the large packer so much more?

Rod

 

[Econ101]

With all of this said, Agman and SH, why does/did Rod get less for his cows than U.S. producers and if he did get less, and the prices out the packer door was the same, where did the money go?

Another meaningless question from Econ. For starters, he in in Canada and not the U.S. and there is no reason he should get the same price, adjusted for currency valuations, as a U.S. producer unless all factors influencing supply and demand are identical which they are not.

The previous statement renders your remaining question as mute or totally irrelevant.

Are you talking the packer selling side of beef or the buying side of cattle, there, Agman?

 

[Anonymous]

RM: "In order for beef to compete with chicken on a pure price basis, producers will have to produce and sell live cattle at a lose...THAT IS WHAT YOU ADVOCATE!!!!!!!!! No wonder you are not in the cow/calf business!"

Wow Robert Mac, two lies in one statement. Do they send you packer blamers to some school somewhere to teach you how to lie?

I NEVER ADVOCATED A DAMN THING!!!!!!!!!!!

I simply pointed out the fact that we compete with $.99 chicken. I DIDN'T SAY BEEF WE SHOULD STRIVE TO SELL BEEF FOR $.99. Where you got that hair brain idea from I'll never know.

Would you like to debate whether or not we compete with chicken selling for $.99 per pound?

Secondly, I am in the cow/calf business and I have been in the cow/calf business my entire life. Want to quiz me on any facet of it, step up to the plate. That was your second lie. Obviously you must feel so insecure and so desperate that rather than debating the issues from a factual merit, you feel no option but to resort to discrediting lies. You blamers are all the same.

RM: "Do you think packers cutting back on kill numbers had anything to do with cattle backing up in the feedlots?????"

Packers cut back on kill numbers because feeders were unwilling to sell at the bid price. Packers do not want to lose money any more than feeders.

RM: "Why do you have a problem with my post to Fedup2?"

I don't have a problem with your post to Fedup2. I just think it's funny how you need a support group.

RM: "By the way, the reason people don't like you is because your post are immature and classless...has nothing to do with your positions, just in the way you present them."

I could care less what anyone on the forum thinks of me. Why can't you blamers understand that? The opinion of a blamer means absolutely nothing to me. I have a low tolerance level for liars and deceivers and that attitude will continue to be reflected in my posts until I am banned. If you don't like it, I DON'T CARE!

Anyone that would try to judge somebody solely on words on a computer screen is an idiot that I wouldn't want to associate with anyway. I don't keep the company of blamers so this forum has helped me sort real friends.

I once thought about growing my hair down to my ars just to sort out my real friends from the superficial ones.

You guys just can't grasp the fact that I absolutely could care less what any blamer thinks of me. I didn't expect to win any popularity contests by introducing import blamers and packer victims to their own ignorance.


~SH~

 

[agman]

I still dont think that the price the producer gets has much to do with the retail price.

If you measure a short time period, one or two month, your are right. Retailers prefer not to change prices weekly for one reason, they lose sales. A relatively stable price or one that is advanced or reduced in an orderly manner maintains the best level of demand. Over longer periods of time retail does reflect the live cost. You must keep in mind however the live costs approximate only 25% of retail. If you chose not to believe that then there is very little I can do to help you understand the retail pricing structure. I have appreciated your concerns and dialog.

All the money that flows to an industry and to producers is a derivative of consumer spending. The sooner producers learn that basic fact the sooner they will get involved to better this industry and sustain it for future generations. An industry or company that is not growing demand is an industry headed for extinction-ask GM. The market knows no names nor does it know size. The future of this great industry is dependent upon growing demand, not lawsuits.

 

[Econ101]

Lucky and Roper,

I wish I had more hope for what you are going through. We are going to continue to see wage suppression as long as we have free trade agreements that do not address these issues. Our average salaries will continue to be drug down to the lowest common denominator on the globe.

I noticed in the Wall Street Journal today that the Chinese partner of GM will soon be building vehicles that will compete with GM. As you might know, China requires that foreign companies have Chinese partners. It seems GM's Chinese partner has already learned how to build the vehicles. China can build the autos cheaper and out compete GM on labor. We have a trade deficit with China and there have been some rumblings of charges brought to the WTO about China not allowing U.S. to sell auto parts without tariffs.

The real deal with China is that we will allow them to use our technology and their cheap labor so that they can then sell to us cheaper products. Instead of sharing large amounts of that wealth with their populace, keep it in the hands of the few, with govt. controls of course, and then buy our debt so it will not seem like the U.S. overspending is affecting the U.S. economy or interest rates. The Republicans and China both make out. One gets to spend all they want to "buy" elections and the other gets to buy tax liabilities of our children. Meanwhile, the social structure of our economy gets taken down to the global lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately, we are not at the bottom yet. China has a whole lot more cheap labor out there and they can be just as productive with the combination of technology and labor as we are. Heck, our corporations taught them how to do it!

By the way, the richest 1% of Americans own 33.4% of the nation's net worth in 2004. The next 9% held 36.1% of the net worth in the nation making the top 10% owning 69.5% of the net worth in the U.S.

The other 30.5% was held by the bottom 90% of the population.

Maybe the answer isn't in making beef cheaper, maybe it is in making your income greater. I think our politicians have given up on that idea and a lot of people have followed them.

I would not have as much of a problem with trade with China or anyone else if the wealth wasn't being concentrated in the hands of the few. If the Chinese could actually keep more of their money, they could spend it on more of our products. That is how free trade is supposed to work. As it is now, my children and grandchildren will be paying taxes to some rich Chinese families.

Sometimes we have to ask ourselves if our trade negotiators know what the heck they are doing. I think the politicians have it figured out.

 

[Anonymous]

Rod: "Why do you think I said 63% Carcass?"

Quit diverting and just admit to your red meat yield ignorance on cull cows.

Rod: "A fat 2 yr old heifer is NOT going to drop from 63% down to 50% carcass."

Your original statement, as quoted was in regards to cull cows two of which you stated were heiferettes.

A cull cow does not dress at 63%. A cull cow in decent condition dresses from 48% - 50%.

Your worse than Sandbag for twisting and spinning. You can't change what you wrote.

Rod: "I shipped the 1140 lb fat culls back whenever I wrote that first message."

Doesn't change what you wrote. Quit diverting!

You attached your crazy 50% red meat yield to an 1140 pound cull cow.

Even your first calf heifer didn't have a 50% red meat yield.

Rod: "This 1100lber was a first calf heifer that didn't make the cut, so she got fattened and we're eating her. Diffferent animals SH. 440 lbs of hamburger on an 1100 lb animal is 40% PLUS I've got roasts and steaks in there too. Another 50 lbs of meat and I'm up to my 44%."

That's right, different animals. Cull cows don't yield 44% red meat.

Rod: "THATS WHAT LIVE WEIGHT SHRINK IS! Live weight - 4%, which is what you would get if you left meat out. Theory is that the packer is therefore only paying for meat, no water in the tissue.

You mean you don't know why auction barns either do 24 hr stands or 4% shrink? I get it. You're the one who doesn't."

I absolutely can't believe this. Do you not understand the difference between live animal shrink and additional shrink from a hanging carcass?

I'm talking about the hanging carcass shrinking AFTER IT'S HUNG and I'm talking about packaged beef shrinking due to moisture loss from the meat not from the 4% piss and sh*t shrink of a live fat animal.

How many more times should I explain it?

Rod: "Now you're saying if they end up 30 lbs less saleable product, which would show up in gross receipts, that they are allowed to deduct that 30 lbs AGAIN in the form of lost value?"

They're not deducting that 30 pounds again. Where did you get that from? Another spin job! The dollar amount that is lost to SRM removal is the combination of the cost of removing SRMs and the lost value from not selling SRMs.


~SH~

 

[agman]

With all of this said, Agman and SH, why does/did Rod get less for his cows than U.S. producers and if he did get less, and the prices out the packer door was the same, where did the money go?

Another meaningless question from Econ. For starters, he in in Canada and not the U.S. and there is no reason he should get the same price, adjusted for currency valuations, as a U.S. producer unless all factors influencing supply and demand are identical which they are not.

The previous statement renders your remaining question as mute or totally irrelevant.

Are you talking the packer selling side of beef or the buying side of cattle, there, Agman?

Both are relevant and will differ as supply and demand are not identical in each country.

 

[Econ101]

SH: "How many more times should I explain it? "



Please stop. You don't need to explain it anymore.

If anyone doubts how how the grand canyon of reality was worn away, they need only read some of your posts.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman, your opinion is irrelevant because you are chronic liar. An absolutely pathetic example of humanity.

Rod: "According to SH, 80/20 ground beef is selling at $2.20."

Rod that 85/15 $2.20 price was from one local locker plant. That was not Walmart, Safeway, Albertsons, Krogers, U-krops, etc.

To suggest that 85/15 is selling at $2.20 is to imply that this is the price everywhere.


~SH~

 

[agman]

Lucky and Roper,

I wish I had more hope for what you are going through. We are going to continue to see wage suppression as long as we have free trade agreements that do not address these issues. Our average salaries will continue to be drug down to the lowest common denominator on the globe.

I noticed in the Wall Street Journal today that the Chinese partner of GM will soon be building vehicles that will compete with GM. As you might know, China requires that foreign companies have Chinese partners. It seems GM's Chinese partner has already learned how to build the vehicles. China can build the autos cheaper and out compete GM on labor. We have a trade deficit with China and there have been some rumblings of charges brought to the WTO about China not allowing U.S. to sell auto parts without tariffs.

The real deal with China is that we will allow them to use our technology and their cheap labor so that they can then sell to us cheaper products. Instead of sharing large amounts of that wealth with their populace, keep it in the hands of the few, with govt. controls of course, and then buy our debt so it will not seem like the U.S. overspending is affecting the U.S. economy or interest rates. The Republicans and China both make out. One gets to spend all they want to "buy" elections and the other gets to buy tax liabilities of our children. Meanwhile, the social structure of our economy gets taken down to the global lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately, we are not at the bottom yet. China has a whole lot more cheap labor out there and they can be just as productive with the combination of technology and labor as we are. Heck, our corporations taught them how to do it!

By the way, the richest 1% of Americans own 33.4% of the nation's net worth in 2004. The next 9% held 36.1% of the net worth in the nation making the top 10% owning 69.5% of the net worth in the U.S.

The other 30.5% was held by the bottom 90% of the population.

Maybe the answer isn't in making beef cheaper, maybe it is in making your income greater. I think our politicians have given up on that idea and a lot of people have followed them.

I would not have as much of a problem with trade with China or anyone else if the wealth wasn't being concentrated in the hands of the few. If the Chinese could actually keep more of their money, they could spend it on more of our products. That is how free trade is supposed to work. As it is now, my children and grandchildren will be paying taxes to some rich Chinese families.

Sometimes we have to ask ourselves if our trade negotiators know what the heck they are doing. I think the politicians have it figured out.

Surprise.....Facts versus perception....China is now the third largest importer in the world behind the U.S. and Germany although they are only the fifth largest economy in the world having recently surpassed France. They in-fact are beginning to suffer from labor shortages and upward pressure is building on wage rates.

 

[Econ101]

Lucky and Roper,

I wish I had more hope for what you are going through. We are going to continue to see wage suppression as long as we have free trade agreements that do not address these issues. Our average salaries will continue to be drug down to the lowest common denominator on the globe.

I noticed in the Wall Street Journal today that the Chinese partner of GM will soon be building vehicles that will compete with GM. As you might know, China requires that foreign companies have Chinese partners. It seems GM's Chinese partner has already learned how to build the vehicles. China can build the autos cheaper and out compete GM on labor. We have a trade deficit with China and there have been some rumblings of charges brought to the WTO about China not allowing U.S. to sell auto parts without tariffs.

The real deal with China is that we will allow them to use our technology and their cheap labor so that they can then sell to us cheaper products. Instead of sharing large amounts of that wealth with their populace, keep it in the hands of the few, with govt. controls of course, and then buy our debt so it will not seem like the U.S. overspending is affecting the U.S. economy or interest rates. The Republicans and China both make out. One gets to spend all they want to "buy" elections and the other gets to buy tax liabilities of our children. Meanwhile, the social structure of our economy gets taken down to the global lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately, we are not at the bottom yet. China has a whole lot more cheap labor out there and they can be just as productive with the combination of technology and labor as we are. Heck, our corporations taught them how to do it!

By the way, the richest 1% of Americans own 33.4% of the nation's net worth in 2004. The next 9% held 36.1% of the net worth in the nation making the top 10% owning 69.5% of the net worth in the U.S.

The other 30.5% was held by the bottom 90% of the population.

Maybe the answer isn't in making beef cheaper, maybe it is in making your income greater. I think our politicians have given up on that idea and a lot of people have followed them.

I would not have as much of a problem with trade with China or anyone else if the wealth wasn't being concentrated in the hands of the few. If the Chinese could actually keep more of their money, they could spend it on more of our products. That is how free trade is supposed to work. As it is now, my children and grandchildren will be paying taxes to some rich Chinese families.

Sometimes we have to ask ourselves if our trade negotiators know what the heck they are doing. I think the politicians have it figured out.

Surprise.....Facts versus perception....China is now the third largest importer in the world behind the U.S. and Germany although they are only the fifth largest economy in the world having recently surpassed France. They in-fact are beginning to suffer from labor shortages and upward pressure is building on wage rates.

And it seems we have sold free china (tiawan):

Monday :: Mar 14, 2005
Holding A Large Amount Of US Debt, Chinese Poke A Finger In Bush's Eye

by Steve Soto

I hope Condi will earn her shoes with this one. After appeals from the White House to show restraint, the largely ceremonial National People's Congress in China passed a law authorizing military force to retake Taiwan if necessary. Although the People's Congress is ceremonial, it is under the control of the national party. So this vote was undertaken with the blessing of the Chinese leadership, and was in reality nothing more than the Chinese showing that they can do whatever they want with regards to Taiwan with this administration in power. That's the benefit from holding so much American debt in your possession and with several American battle groups and 145,000 troops tied down in Iraq.

No one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should overlook the fact that this vote was authorized after we asked for restraint. This is nothing more than the Chinese wanting to show that the Bush Administration, despite all its bluster, is impotent outside of Iraq. It sends the desired message to all countries in Asia and throughout the world that the Chinese don't think much anymore of Bush or his administration, and I'm sure the Chinese leadership is eagerly awaiting the first visit of Condi Twin Mirrors to schmooze them.

 

[agman]

"I haven't bought anything other than 80% ground in awhile, I can not afford to spend 5.00/7.50 per lb on steak to feed a family of 5, when I can get chicken on sale for .99 a lb or buy pork loins at sams club for 1.88 a lb."

Right there it is in black and white from a consumer's perspective.

$.99 per pound chicken. My wife says the same thing you just said Happy. That is what the cattle/beef industry is facing.

In order for beef to compete with chicken on a pure price basis, producers will have to produce and sell live cattle at a lose...THAT IS WHAT YOU ADVOCATE!!!!!!!!! No wonder you are not in the cow/calf business!

When feeders back up cattle in the feedlot and add tonnage, the prices go down.

Do you think packers cutting back on kill numbers had anything to do with cattle backing up in the feedlots?????

Why do you have a problem with my post to Fedup2?

By the way, the reason people don't like you is because your post are

immature and classless...has nothing to do with your positions, just in the way you present them.

Do you think slow beef sales because of competitive meat supplies and high energy prices had anything to do with the backlog of cattle. Have you also considered a poor fat/feeder swap and cheap feed. No, those things don't count they are just imaginary! Reality does not fit those who believe in market manipulation and/or conspiracies.

Are you not the one who believes we can produce all our own lean product and be competitive doing so?

 

[agman]

What has happened? Try worrying about what's GOING to happen. If live prices stay above the '70s this summer you guys are going to be lucky. Feeder contracts are now below a buck for the first time in FOREVER. Looks like we're finally getting back to sensible markets, no thanks to R-CALF and the Protectionists. All we had to do was try to keep markets sane but nooooo... the feeders wanted the world. We killed off demand and are now looking at a big 'ol glut in supply. Here's a hint, the exports aren't the main problem.

You better watch the substitutes (Tyson's chicken).

Swing the markets and then blame it all on the feeders.

Now I have heard it all.

It is getting time to compete in the chicken industry and have a little more concentration over there. Packer politics is paying off.

Yes sir Econ, another conspiracy is born in your infant mind.

 

[Econ101]

What has happened? Try worrying about what's GOING to happen. If live prices stay above the '70s this summer you guys are going to be lucky. Feeder contracts are now below a buck for the first time in FOREVER. Looks like we're finally getting back to sensible markets, no thanks to R-CALF and the Protectionists. All we had to do was try to keep markets sane but nooooo... the feeders wanted the world. We killed off demand and are now looking at a big 'ol glut in supply. Here's a hint, the exports aren't the main problem.

You better watch the substitutes (Tyson's chicken).

Swing the markets and then blame it all on the feeders.

Now I have heard it all.

It is getting time to compete in the chicken industry and have a little more concentration over there. Packer politics is paying off.

Yes sir Econ, another conspiracy is born in your infant mind.

I think you and SH are the ones calling everything a conspiracy theory. I am just calling what I see. If you want to keep calling it a conspiracy, maybe you could interest the feds in a little RICO action.

 

[RobertMac]

Do you think slow beef sales because of competitive meat supplies and high energy prices had anything to do with the backlog of cattle. Have you also considered a poor fat/feeder swap and cheap feed. No, those things don't count they are just imaginary! Reality does not fit those who believe in market manipulation and/or conspiracies.

Are you not the one who believes we can produce all our own lean product and be competitive doing so?

Agman, are you telling me that feeders still haven't learned that holding cattle back and feeding them to heavier weights( even on cheap feed) won't eventually bite them in the butt through increased supply? And how do beef sales slow? Could it be from higher boxed beef prices that push wholesale/retail prices higher which causes consumers to stop buying beef in favor of lower cost sources of protein? The reduced consumer buying shrinks the amount of beef needed to "fill the pipe line" which reduces the number of fats the packers need to buy from feeders which starts backing up cattle in the feedlot. Of course packer margins are going to be squeezed during this process, but, as you point out, retail prices are slow to change which allows time to make up lost margins by filling the pipe line with cheaper fats because of increased supply from the longer fed animals because the fat market didn't stay current. I think feeders are smart enough to know that a 'current' market is their most profitable market. Other than the consumer, who has the most control over these factors?

All the money that flows to an industry and to producers is a derivative of consumer spending. The sooner producers learn that basic fact the sooner they will get involved to better this industry and sustain it for future generations. An industry or company that is not growing demand is an industry headed for extinction-ask GM. The market knows no names nor does it know size. The future of this great industry is dependent upon growing demand, not lawsuits.

Totally agree with you, but...under the present industry structure, which protein segments are "growing demand"????? Pork and Poultry???? We are losing market share in one of our largest markets, the fast food "burger" industry...and where is that market share going and with whose help????? Looks like the beef industry should be headed in a different direction to separate itself from the other two protein sources if we expect to 'grow demand'...no?????

Are you not the one who believes we can produce all our own lean product and be competitive doing so?

Yes we can, but we have to change our system(at least part of it) to match or exceed the system used by our competitors that are supplying that market. You know, as well as I do, that not all cattle can be fed to "high quality"...that's where the excess fat in the 50/50 is produced. Even with lower standards, aren't the numbers of prime and high choice carcasses stagnant or lower? Feeding cattle that have no chance of grading out is one of the causes of higher overall retail beef prices. This changes when grading information flows from the packer back to the producer...only time will tell who takes advantage of this information. One thing is for sure, it won't be the producer in the present form of the industry.(But some producers are getting a head start with information flow in some bottom up branded programs.)

To answer a question you asked...the only animals I feed out are the ones I sell as grassfed beef.

 

[RobertMac]

SH, aren't you the one that always tells us that consumers buy based on price(WalMart?)...and we have to compete for the consumer's dollars on a price basis...and the only way to do that is through the large efficient packers?

I assumed by your statements that you only feed out cattle...if I was wrong I apologize.

I could care less what anyone on the forum thinks of me.

That's obvious...keep up the good work! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: