who cares if the jpn.markets open?

[Econ101]

Econ can you tell us why the US processors wanted them pre BSE? The US processors demand for our cattle didn't just come about since BSE killed the OTM cattle prices. Buying OTM cattle from Canada was their way of keeping their plant working at or near capacity. Since the border closed those plants have lost money and laid off workers because they don't have enough cattle in the US to keep them busy and can't access Canadian cattle to fill in the shortages. So is it because they are cheap or is it so they can get their employees back to work and their plants running at close to capacity and stop the flood of red ink in their books.

More supply helps decrease the packer's costs, that is true. The cattleman's real bargaining power (economic term) in the deal is their ability to do exactly what you say in this post. Canadian cattle used to fill "shortages" for U.S. plant capacity makes its use as captive supply all the more important in driving down the market with market power. This is all the more reason that the U.S. - Canada should have a international version of the Packers and Stockyards Act with competitent enforcement not influenced by politics.

By the way Tam, there are no "shortages"; just markets reacting to price to find their equilibrium supply and demand point.

Thanks for your post, Tam.

More supply helps decrease the packer's costs, that is true.

Now, can you tell us what happen to the slaughter plants that didn't have the extra supply of Canadian cattle to help decrease costs? Isn't is true that those plants lose money to the point of laying off employees and closing doors? What do you think the closures of these plants did to the US producers that once shipped their cattle to that same plant? Would it not cost them more in trucking cost to get their cattle to the next open slaughter plant? You seem to be hell bent on considering the Canadian cattle a captive supply to drive down US prices. I see the supply of Canadian cattle the saving grace to the profits and viability of these plants so they could stay open to service the US producers, with out having to raise the price of their product to the point of where you couldn't afford to eat it.

Econ you say there is no shortage. can you tell us why the US cattle prices are so high? (hint short supplies and high demand) Can you tell us what the price of beef would be if the US wasn't importing tons of beef to cover the shortage you say doesn't exsist? If the equilibrium is reached without imports do you think you or any other middle and low income families will be able to afford beef in the US? As I have said before the US is importing 1,197,992.0 MT at a price tag of $3,633,646,000. And they are force to do this so you and many other families just like you can afford to eat beef. Or would you rather beef be known as the dinner for the very rich in the US.

In part because the supply decreased due to the manipulation of beef prices and the corresponding "walk" down the supply curve. Add to this the decrease in supply of the Canadian market and some other things. Add to that the increases in price in the substitute for meats under the direction of the packers who did the price discrimination and subsequent market manipulation the Pickett case described.

Tam, everything in free markets is about supply and demand. Lower prices end up getting lower supplies. Higher prices end up getting higher supplies. The time delay of reaction to supply due to the biological constraints of production has to be considered when looking at the beef supply and demand price signals as does foreign supply. It is the market place at work.

 

[Tam]

Higher prices end up getting higher supplies.

Can you tell us what other issues have far more effect on supply than market manipulation by the packers. hint drought and urban growth. Can land that has suffered years of drought substain larger numbers of cattle just because the prices are a bit higher? For every acre that is taken out of Ag production for urban growth, there will be less Ag products produced. Now that the prices are high in the US can the producers increase their herds if they still are effected by drought or can't acquire enough land to increase they present herd size because some city needs another golf course. We would all like to believe Econ that only the price of our cattle effects our herd size but that is just not the truth in this issue. Many other things besides biological constraints of production dictate whether or not we can increase herd size and how fast it can be done.

 

[Econ101]

Higher prices end up getting higher supplies.

Can you tell us what other issues have far more effect on supply than market manipulation by the packers. hint drought and urban growth. Can land that has suffered years of drought substain larger numbers of cattle just because the prices are a bit higher? For every acre that is taken out of Ag production for urban growth, there will be less Ag products produced. Now that the prices are high in the US can the producers increase their herds if they still are effected by drought or can't acquire enough land to increase they present herd size because some city needs another golf course. We would all like to believe Econ that only the price of our cattle effects our herd size but that is just not the truth in this issue. Many other things besides biological constraints of production dictate whether or not we can increase herd size and how fast it can be done.

Tam, you have many valid points. The supply/demand equilibrium is about the allocation of limited resources. Whatever the other factors of production are and whatever impact they have on supply and demand are factored into the equilibrium point. The one factor that distorts this normal process for gain at the expense of the market is the exercise of market power. The market power moves always create inefficiencies in the economy as it distorts the normal supply and demand equilibrium point for the benefit of the ones exercising market power.

As far as your points on supply, you are not the only geographical location. Having a cattle population coming from a place as big as the U.S. and Canada allows there to be diversity when it comes to the factors of weather. If cattle prices are high enough, they will vie for the resources of land that you talked about with your golf course example. When other things like population spreading out and using resources that cattle use, the price of cattle should actually go up and a new equilibrium found. That is how the market works.

If cattle prices are high enough, they will create a profit incentive and more resources will be allocated for beef production. How do you think Japan has beef production?

 

[Mike]

Higher prices end up getting higher supplies.

Can you tell us what other issues have far more effect on supply than market manipulation by the packers. hint drought and urban growth. Can land that has suffered years of drought substain larger numbers of cattle just because the prices are a bit higher? For every acre that is taken out of Ag production for urban growth, there will be less Ag products produced. Now that the prices are high in the US can the producers increase their herds if they still are effected by drought or can't acquire enough land to increase they present herd size because some city needs another golf course. We would all like to believe Econ that only the price of our cattle effects our herd size but that is just not the truth in this issue. Many other things besides biological constraints of production dictate whether or not we can increase herd size and how fast it can be done.

Tam, This certainly no scientific response to your questions but down here there is lots of room for more cattle, especially since the puplwood industry has gone to pot, but it would be expensive. Clearing, fencing, etc.
Cattle numbers in the south are half what they used to be 30 years ago and some is attributed to "urban sprawl" but most because of CRP, puplwood programs and such.

There is lots of room for more cattle. Problem is the willingness of young people to do so and cost effectiveness. Plus the fact that more money can be made with a hunting operation than running cows has gotten dirt prices way too high.

 

[Jason]

Tam, This certainly no scientific response to your questions but down here there is lots of room for more cattle, especially since the puplwood industry has gone to pot, but it would be expensive. Clearing, fencing, etc.
Cattle numbers in the south are half what they used to be 30 years ago and some is attributed to "urban sprawl" but most because of CRP, puplwood programs and such.

There is lots of room for more cattle. Problem is the willingness of young people to do so and cost effectiveness. Plus the fact that more money can be made with a hunting operation than running cows has gotten dirt prices way too high.

Mike does so called "market power" cause any of what you have correctly stated?

Does Tyson dictate the cost of clearing land, or the price of land?

Kinda shoot conman's market power claims down.

 

[Econ101]

Tam, This certainly no scientific response to your questions but down here there is lots of room for more cattle, especially since the puplwood industry has gone to pot, but it would be expensive. Clearing, fencing, etc.
Cattle numbers in the south are half what they used to be 30 years ago and some is attributed to "urban sprawl" but most because of CRP, puplwood programs and such.

There is lots of room for more cattle. Problem is the willingness of young people to do so and cost effectiveness. Plus the fact that more money can be made with a hunting operation than running cows has gotten dirt prices way too high.

Mike does so called "market power" cause any of what you have correctly stated?

Does Tyson dictate the cost of clearing land, or the price of land?

Kinda shoot conman's market power claims down.

\

Jason, their depressing of the cattle markets certainly did make what Mike described less profitable. That does account for the reduction in supplies. It totally supports what I have said and if you knew ANYTHING about economics you would know that to be the case.

 

[Mike]

Tam, This certainly no scientific response to your questions but down here there is lots of room for more cattle, especially since the puplwood industry has gone to pot, but it would be expensive. Clearing, fencing, etc.
Cattle numbers in the south are half what they used to be 30 years ago and some is attributed to "urban sprawl" but most because of CRP, puplwood programs and such.

There is lots of room for more cattle. Problem is the willingness of young people to do so and cost effectiveness. Plus the fact that more money can be made with a hunting operation than running cows has gotten dirt prices way too high.

Mike does so called "market power" cause any of what you have correctly stated?

Does Tyson dictate the cost of clearing land, or the price of land?

Kinda shoot conman's market power claims down.

Market power caused every bit of it. Example:

In the 60's a bunch of pulpwood mills started to build here in Alabama. Different areas and completely different mill owners. The price of pulpwood was good.

Now International Paper owns them all and the prices have gone to nothing. They own almost enough land now to furnish pulp for all their mills and buy very little outside wood.

About the time the mill construction boom started, the guvment started a CRP "set aside" program to pay the landowner to remove the land from ag production and plant pine trees. They paid for the planting and $10-$40 a year per acre. Now the people who own this land have no choice but to take International's prices for pulp because they are the only buyer.

Market power with guvment intermingling at it's finest! :wink:

 

[mrj]

Higher prices end up getting higher supplies.

Can you tell us what other issues have far more effect on supply than market manipulation by the packers. hint drought and urban growth. Can land that has suffered years of drought substain larger numbers of cattle just because the prices are a bit higher? For every acre that is taken out of Ag production for urban growth, there will be less Ag products produced. Now that the prices are high in the US can the producers increase their herds if they still are effected by drought or can't acquire enough land to increase they present herd size because some city needs another golf course. We would all like to believe Econ that only the price of our cattle effects our herd size but that is just not the truth in this issue. Many other things besides biological constraints of production dictate whether or not we can increase herd size and how fast it can be done.

Tam, This certainly no scientific response to your questions but down here there is lots of room for more cattle, especially since the puplwood industry has gone to pot, but it would be expensive. Clearing, fencing, etc.
Cattle numbers in the south are half what they used to be 30 years ago and some is attributed to "urban sprawl" but most because of CRP, puplwood programs and such.

There is lots of room for more cattle. Problem is the willingness of young people to do so and cost effectiveness. Plus the fact that more money can be made with a hunting operation than running cows has gotten dirt prices way too high.

Mike, I know that quality, and probably size/weight of "south eastern" calves has improved considerably in very recent years. Given that fact, how much do you think average weaning weights of those calves has increased over those 30 years? Could it be possible you actually are producing more total pounds now than back when there were more cows in your area? That would be an interesting item to check, IMO.

Sounds like the problems with "dirt" prices are similar in many areas. Here it is investor money and sportsman money bidding up land prices. It isn't necessarily to build hunting preserves or businesses, but for recreation for individual or small groups of businessmen not connected with agriculture. They may or may not lease out the farm ground or grazing land because they have the dollars to make that income unnecessary. They easily out bid those dependent upon agriculture to make a living. Makes it nearly impossible for families needing to expand land base to bring younger members into the family farm or ranch without some creative financing or entrepreneurship in adding cash producing enterprises.

MRJ

 

[Mike]

Mike, I know that quality, and probably size/weight of "south eastern" calves has improved considerably in very recent years. Given that fact, how much do you think average weaning weights of those calves has increased over those 30 years? Could it be possible you actually are producing more total pounds now than back when there were more cows in your area? That would be an interesting item to check, IMO.

Sounds like the problems with "dirt" prices are similar in many areas. Here it is investor money and sportsman money bidding up land prices. It isn't necessarily to build hunting preserves or businesses, but for recreation for individual or small groups of businessmen not connected with agriculture. They may or may not lease out the farm ground or grazing land because they have the dollars to make that income unnecessary. They easily out bid those dependent upon agriculture to make a living. Makes it nearly impossible for families needing to expand land base to bring younger members into the family farm or ranch without some creative financing or entrepreneurship in adding cash producing enterprises.

MRJ

I do know the weaning weights have increased but how much is a good question.

You certainly got a good take on the "Dirt" situation! Doctors, Lawyers, etc. gobbling it up before anyone even knows it's for sale.

Real estate sales/predators don't even advertise rural land anymore..........to much money in town!

 

[Tam]

Higher prices end up getting higher supplies.

Can you tell us what other issues have far more effect on supply than market manipulation by the packers. hint drought and urban growth. Can land that has suffered years of drought substain larger numbers of cattle just because the prices are a bit higher? For every acre that is taken out of Ag production for urban growth, there will be less Ag products produced. Now that the prices are high in the US can the producers increase their herds if they still are effected by drought or can't acquire enough land to increase they present herd size because some city needs another golf course. We would all like to believe Econ that only the price of our cattle effects our herd size but that is just not the truth in this issue. Many other things besides biological constraints of production dictate whether or not we can increase herd size and how fast it can be done.

Tam, This certainly no scientific response to your questions but down here there is lots of room for more cattle, especially since the puplwood industry has gone to pot, but it would be expensive. Clearing, fencing, etc.
Cattle numbers in the south are half what they used to be 30 years ago and some is attributed to "urban sprawl" but most because of CRP, puplwood programs and such.
There is lots of room for more cattle. Problem is the willingness of young people to do so and cost effectiveness. Plus the fact that more money can be made with a hunting operation than running cows has gotten dirt prices way too high.[/quote]


Mike you say it would be expensive. just what kind of cattle prices would we have to see in the US to make it cost effective for a young person that has been working for say $25 per hour, to quit his job and buy and reclaim that land for cattle production plus stock it with those expensive cattle? If you got that price for your cattle would the average consumer still be buying beef at a price he could afford? We all have to remember here that we are not the only protein source on the market. As our prices go up, the demand for beef drops. Chicken and Pork are our real competition for the consumer dollar and keeping our cost in line with two industries that need a small amount of a dwindling land base compared to the large amount the cattle industry needs is a balancing act we all must play if we don't want to force ourselves out of the business. The act of rebuilding takes time and at some point it is probably more COST EFFECTIVE to import some of your needs and use your resources for other products that can be traded for the ones you don't have a land base to supply yourself with. I'm not say the US doesn't now have the land base but Ag land is dwindling and that is a factor in the ability of rebuilding the industry back to a point of supplying domestic needs.

 

[Econ101]

Can you tell us what other issues have far more effect on supply than market manipulation by the packers. hint drought and urban growth. Can land that has suffered years of drought substain larger numbers of cattle just because the prices are a bit higher? For every acre that is taken out of Ag production for urban growth, there will be less Ag products produced. Now that the prices are high in the US can the producers increase their herds if they still are effected by drought or can't acquire enough land to increase they present herd size because some city needs another golf course. We would all like to believe Econ that only the price of our cattle effects our herd size but that is just not the truth in this issue. Many other things besides biological constraints of production dictate whether or not we can increase herd size and how fast it can be done.

Tam, This certainly no scientific response to your questions but down here there is lots of room for more cattle, especially since the puplwood industry has gone to pot, but it would be expensive. Clearing, fencing, etc.
Cattle numbers in the south are half what they used to be 30 years ago and some is attributed to "urban sprawl" but most because of CRP, puplwood programs and such.
There is lots of room for more cattle. Problem is the willingness of young people to do so and cost effectiveness. Plus the fact that more money can be made with a hunting operation than running cows has gotten dirt prices way too high.[/quote]


Mike you say it would be expensive. just what kind of cattle prices would we have to see in the US to make it cost effective for a young person that has been working for say $25 per hour, to quit his job and buy and reclaim that land for cattle production plus stock it with those expensive cattle? If you got that price for your cattle would the average consumer still be buying beef at a price he could afford? We all have to remember here that we are not the only protein source on the market. As our prices go up, the demand for beef drops. Chicken and Pork are our real competition for the consumer dollar and keeping our cost in line with two industries that need a small amount of a dwindling land base compared to the large amount the cattle industry needs is a balancing act we all must play if we don't want to force ourselves out of the business. The act of rebuilding takes time and at some point it is probably more COST EFFECTIVE to import some of your needs and use your resources for other products that can be traded for the ones you don't have a land base to supply yourself with. I'm not say the US doesn't now have the land base but Ag land is dwindling and that is a factor in the ability of rebuilding the industry back to a point of supplying domestic needs.

Tam, another way for you to look at this problem and fix it is for you to make the price of your competition go up.

 

[Mike]

Mike you say it would be expensive. just what kind of cattle prices would we have to see in the US to make it cost effective for a young person that has been working for say $25 per hour, to quit his job and buy and reclaim that land for cattle production plus stock it with those expensive cattle?

One way to do this would be to somehow reclaim a higher percentage of the retail price as it was just a few years ago. How? I do not know.

The act of rebuilding takes time and at some point it is probably more COST EFFECTIVE to import some of your needs and use your resources for other products that can be traded for the ones you don't have a land base to supply yourself with.

We are and have imported a large portion of the supply. But at some point if imports become quite a bit cheaper than a domestically produced product, it all flies back in our face and lowers home supplied prices.
Cost effective for whom? There is a balancing act that has to done by someone, I prefer that not be left to big corporations with but one goal in mind. Money

 

[Jason]

Mike you say it would be expensive. just what kind of cattle prices would we have to see in the US to make it cost effective for a young person that has been working for say $25 per hour, to quit his job and buy and reclaim that land for cattle production plus stock it with those expensive cattle?

One way to do this would be to somehow reclaim a higher percentage of the retail price as it was just a few years ago. How? I do not know.

The act of rebuilding takes time and at some point it is probably more COST EFFECTIVE to import some of your needs and use your resources for other products that can be traded for the ones you don't have a land base to supply yourself with.

We are and have imported a large portion of the supply. But at some point if imports become quite a bit cheaper than a domestically produced product, it all flies back in our face and lowers home supplied prices.
Cost effective for whom? There is a balancing act that has to done by someone, I prefer that not be left to big corporations with but one goal in mind. Money

Mike I know you are smarter than some off the positions you support.

Pulp isn't the only outlet for pine trees.

How many grain fed high quality cattle does the US import?

Where are the increased costs of wages and fuel etc supposed to come from if producers are to get the same % of the retail dollar?

Isn't it better to add value and capture more of the profit that is there than wish we could do things like they were done 20 years ago?

As for Conman saying we should try to raise the price of our competition, that would take some kind of magic market power. :roll:

 

[Mike]

Mike you say it would be expensive. just what kind of cattle prices would we have to see in the US to make it cost effective for a young person that has been working for say $25 per hour, to quit his job and buy and reclaim that land for cattle production plus stock it with those expensive cattle?

One way to do this would be to somehow reclaim a higher percentage of the retail price as it was just a few years ago. How? I do not know.

The act of rebuilding takes time and at some point it is probably more COST EFFECTIVE to import some of your needs and use your resources for other products that can be traded for the ones you don't have a land base to supply yourself with.

We are and have imported a large portion of the supply. But at some point if imports become quite a bit cheaper than a domestically produced product, it all flies back in our face and lowers home supplied prices.
Cost effective for whom? There is a balancing act that has to done by someone, I prefer that not be left to big corporations with but one goal in mind. Money

Mike I know you are smarter than some off the positions you support.

Pulp isn't the only outlet for pine trees.

How many grain fed high quality cattle does the US import?

Where are the increased costs of wages and fuel etc supposed to come from if producers are to get the same % of the retail dollar?

Isn't it better to add value and capture more of the profit that is there than wish we could do things like they were done 20 years ago?

As for Conman saying we should try to raise the price of our competition, that would take some kind of magic market power. :roll:

Loblolloy pines do not make good lumber. They were developed to grow fast for pulp.

Do you deny that the producer percentage of retail dollar has declined dramatically?

See for yourself: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/livestock/pdf/b2-60.pdf

According to these stats if we add value we will only get a portion of the value we add.

 

[mwj]

Tam, This certainly no scientific response to your questions but down here there is lots of room for more cattle, especially since the puplwood industry has gone to pot, but it would be expensive. Clearing, fencing, etc.
Cattle numbers in the south are half what they used to be 30 years ago and some is attributed to "urban sprawl" but most because of CRP, puplwood programs and such.
There is lots of room for more cattle. Problem is the willingness of young people to do so and cost effectiveness. Plus the fact that more money can be made with a hunting operation than running cows has gotten dirt prices way too high.[/quote]


Mike you say it would be expensive. just what kind of cattle prices would we have to see in the US to make it cost effective for a young person that has been working for say $25 per hour, to quit his job and buy and reclaim that land for cattle production plus stock it with those expensive cattle? If you got that price for your cattle would the average consumer still be buying beef at a price he could afford? We all have to remember here that we are not the only protein source on the market. As our prices go up, the demand for beef drops. Chicken and Pork are our real competition for the consumer dollar and keeping our cost in line with two industries that need a small amount of a dwindling land base compared to the large amount the cattle industry needs is a balancing act we all must play if we don't want to force ourselves out of the business. The act of rebuilding takes time and at some point it is probably more COST EFFECTIVE to import some of your needs and use your resources for other products that can be traded for the ones you don't have a land base to supply yourself with. I'm not say the US doesn't now have the land base but Ag land is dwindling and that is a factor in the ability of rebuilding the industry back to a point of supplying domestic needs.

Tam, another way for you to look at this problem and fix it is for you to make the price of your competition go up.

Econ it looks to me that if you drive up the price of all animal protien you would see the market for vegtable protien go up!!!!!!!! Look at the protien sources in Asia and you find animal protien is a treet not a staple :shock: Sometimes the customer has a nasty way of showing us that we are not the only game in town.

 

[Jason]

Mike, have costs of processing gone up or down during the same time frame?

Of course the producers share of the retail would drop if expenses to get it from here to there rose. That isn't at issue. What is at issue is that a fair comparison?

Are wages the same as they were 20 years ago? Are farm incomes the same as 20 Years ago? No on both counts. They have both gone up. Maybe farm income hasn't gone up as much, but who garantees ag workers the same standard of living? Utopia is what Karl Marx called equal pay for all.

The question becomes, if a country is a free market economy, how can artificial levels of income support be enacted that won't distort the free market? How can efficiencies be encouraged if base prices are mandated?

Governments cannot legislate honesty, work ethic, or any other intangible human quality. Without those things no form of business will survive without a drive to prosper (greed if you will).

I know folks in Mississippi and they plant pine trees because it is easy. No one puts a gun to their head. It is greed, something for almost nothing, pine trees don't take much work.

 

[Mike]

The question becomes, if a country is a free market economy, how can artificial levels of income support be enacted that won't distort the free market? How can efficiencies be encouraged if base prices are mandated?

I have NEVER advocated base prices or artificial levels. Even when we were in the dairy for years and years it didn't work.

I would say the producer costs have gone up in line with everything else. So why does the retailer and the processor get to claim more and more of the retail dollar? I thought the packers were more efficient?

Sure processing costs have gone up. But I remember the days of $20 Ammonium Nitrate too. Land has gone from $50 an acre to $2000.

I see your operation didn't work. Too bad. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Tam- Apparently Farm Bureau doesn't agree with you- they think we will have a surplus - of everything...Sure don't need imports if we have more meat to deal with than we have had in years :roll: !!

Today 1/9/2006 3:04:00 PM


Farm Bureau: Lower Income Projected For Crops And Livestock



NASHVILLE, Tenn., January 9, 2006 – Agricultural economists at the American Farm Bureau Federation annual meeting projected that farmers and ranchers will see less income from major crops and livestock during 2006.



Revenue is projected to be lower for corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton, according to Jim Sullivan, Ph.D., vice president of Informa Economics. He noted higher fertilizer and energy costs will negatively impact farmer income.



"Projections are for lower yields and lower acres of corn in 2006," Sullivan said. Corn prices should average at the "loan level" for 2006, he said.



Sullivan said he is relatively confident that "the record soybean yields in 2005 will not be duplicated in 2006…. We're looking for production to be down, but acres up and ending U.S. stocks to be higher." Because of these stocks, Sullivan predicts soybean prices dipping below the $5 loan rate by November.



"The biggest change in wheat will be a 1-million-acre increase in soft winter wheat planting," Sullivan projected. "Larger acreage and larger yields will build U.S. wheat stocks."



There likely will be a continuing decline in U.S. wheat exports, which has been a trend during the last few years because of increasing worldwide wheat production.



"It will be a changing year for cotton in the U.S.," said Carl Anderson, Ph.D., professor and extension specialist emeritus, Texas A&M University. "We are not on a level playing field worldwide."



As we see harvested cotton acres go up worldwide, even as prices go down, then the assumption has to be that governments are subsidizing their producers, he said.



"The only reason that you will get a higher price for cotton is if we have a short crop in 2006," Anderson continued.



"Everyone in the cotton industry has to do a better job managing price risk," he said. Anderson suggested that growers look at forward pricing and options strategies.



Scott Brown, Ph.D., University of Missouri, provided the outlook for beef, pork and chicken production and pricing during 2006.



Brown noted that the current cattle industry expansion is reflected in declining prices. There will be a 2 million head expansion in beef during 2006. Beef demand for 2006 should be at 2005 levels or slightly lower, Brown said.



As for pork, Brown said herd numbers have remained relatively stable, but "we've seen a lot of productivity increases in these sow herds" in recent years. "Even though some countries might have been substituting pork for beef, we should continue to see good export demand for pork in 2006." He expects a slide in domestic U.S. pork demand will be reflected in weaker pork prices.



Chicken demand and production have been on stable growth trends, with only a couple of hiccups during the last few years. Brown projects broiler prices to be slightly lower than 2005.



"In general, we'll have more supplies of meat to deal with in the U.S. during 2006 than in recent years," Brown said.

 

[Econ101]

Mike, have costs of processing gone up or down during the same time frame?

Of course the producers share of the retail would drop if expenses to get it from here to there rose. That isn't at issue. What is at issue is that a fair comparison?

Are wages the same as they were 20 years ago? Are farm incomes the same as 20 Years ago? No on both counts. They have both gone up. Maybe farm income hasn't gone up as much, but who garantees ag workers the same standard of living? Utopia is what Karl Marx called equal pay for all.

The question becomes, if a country is a free market economy, how can artificial levels of income support be enacted that won't distort the free market? How can efficiencies be encouraged if base prices are mandated?

Governments cannot legislate honesty, work ethic, or any other intangible human quality. Without those things no form of business will survive without a drive to prosper (greed if you will).

I know folks in Mississippi and they plant pine trees because it is easy. No one puts a gun to their head. It is greed, something for almost nothing, pine trees don't take much work.

Can you stop the socialist and communist mantra, Jason. It is only coming from you, no one else. You may be able to scare some people with it ---until they realize how much of a socialist you have been.

The fact is that the average farmer has been beat out in the policies coming from our governments while the corporations have capitalized on them. When the corporations control the regulatory agencies like the Packers and Stockyards Administration through appointed incompetence or out right corruption as in the case Agman's friend JoAnn Waterfield and Gary McBride, the farmers and ranchers are shafted. That thought may be a little too complex for you to understand, so here is a quote from Benito Mussolini:

"Corporatism should be more accurately defined as fascism, as it is the merging of corporate and state power."

Every post you make you seem to be supporting this position through your scare tactics of communism and/or socialism or outright support of corporate power moves.

It is about time the "free" market is unchained of the binds of corporatism and market power.

I am sorry you can not see that.

 

[Tam]

"In general, we'll have more supplies of meat to deal with in the U.S. during 2006 than in recent years," Brown said.

Can you explain why then in the past five years the US has steadily increased imports in the three major meats?

Chicken: 2000 saw imports of $50,901.000 up to $134,850,000 in 2004
Pork: 2000 saw imports of $1,016,997,000 up to $1,393,991,000 in 2004 Beef: 2000 saw imports of $2,400,929,000 up to $3,633,646,000 in 2004
And please remember that exports of beef from the US dropped from $3,030,608,000 to a low of $505,913,000. from 2003 to 2004, but the imports still increased from $2,623,565,000 in 2003 to $3,633,646,000 in 2004. What is the US doing with all the extra supply Oldtimer. Is the USDA buying it up for school lunch programs. I have heard that is what they do. I have heard of some pork that stayed in storage for over three years before it is passed out to the schools to be cooked up. Didn't they also just hand out a bunch of dry milk that they had in storage? if the USDA buys up a product and puts it in storage to get it off the market as to keep the prices high during times of high supply is that not a way of manipulating the price? Can we take it that the future protein needs of the US school children are being taken care of as we speak. :wink: