Worthless Trim?

[PORKER]

As of NOW ,I would NOT trust TRIM from anywhere. Could be full of old BSE German cow beef that was supposed to have been taken to the dump.They are just passing it around the world like the Brokers did MBM which caused BSE here and everywhere else.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Imports take the place of domestic supply. Importers win. Sometimes consumers win (if imports are being mixed with old 50/50 trim, may be they are just being rookered), and domestic producers lose in the deal. The complimentary value of imports with 50/50 trim do not overcome the substitute costs to the domestic producers. If the packers are so wanting to use 50/50 trim and they don't want to use trim, let them make dogfood out of it. I know my dog would probably like that solution."

When packers add value to a virtually worthless product such as 50/50 trim by blending "CHEAP" foreign lean trimmings with it while U.S. producers add value to their chucks and rounds, this raises the value of the carcass and packers pay producers accordingly.

I am sorry you do not understand that concept. It is a really basic economic concept. May be that is why you have such a hard time with the Pickett case and want to call it a conspiracy of Judge Strom and the 11th circuit.

How anyone could be so economically misled as to believe that U.S. producers are better off making dogfood out of their 50/50 trim than blending cheap foreign trimmings with it is beyond logical comprehension.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

You never have explained how the packers decide how much of their profits to tithe to producers yet. Exactly what is the % of their profits that they have allocated back to producers? What is the formula? Do they keep it secret? I can't seem to recall the market report mentioning anything about any "carcass value bonus" raising fats prices.

Here's a concept you don't understand, SH, you don't make any money off something that you don't sell. US producers don't sell foreign lean. Put the two together.

Now some facts for you - that trim is not "worthless" as you keep trying to snow us on. Read my opener on this thread and tell me where I'm wrong. Another fact, that trim and any value associated does not belong to producers - it belongs to the packers. Every producer I know could sell me a cow right now, how much of your trim can you sell me, SH?

 

[Anonymous]

You never have explained how the packers decide how much of their profits to tithe to producers yet. Exactly what is the % of their profits that they have allocated back to producers? What is the formula? Do they keep it secret? I can't seem to recall the market report mentioning anything about any "carcass value bonus" raising fats prices.

What packers pay producers is determined by the profit margins they and their competition is willing to work under. How stupid to suggest that there is some formula to determine that.

I have explained many times how this works. Each packer needs cattle to keep their plants flowing creating competition for fat cattle. Their profit margins are determined by this competition. Any value that is added to the carcass is added to the price of the cattle while the margins remain fairly consistant as reported by GIPSA.

Are you suggesting that the value of the carcass does not determine what packers are willing to pay for cattle? If not, what does?

Perhaps you might want to clue virtually every livestock market analyst in the United States of this earth shattering discovery because they are still operating in the factual based world where the value of the carcass determines what packers are willing to pay.

Sandbag: "Here's a concept you don't understand, SH, you don't make any money off something that you don't sell."

50/50 trim is a byproduct of the cattle producers are selling and it's value determines the price paid for those cattle. A simple concept that you fail to understand.

Sandbag: "Now some facts for you - that trim is not "worthless" as you keep trying to snow us on."

50/50 trim that is not blended with lean trimmings to lean it down is virtually worthless. You don't know enough about this industry to understand that.

Sandbag: "Another fact, that trim and any value associated does not belong to producers - it belongs to the packers. Every producer I know could sell me a cow right now, how much of your trim can you sell me, SH?"

What a completely stupid statement. If the value of your cattle is not determined by the value of the beef and beef by products from those cattle, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT "M"COOL?????

How much "U.S. BEEF" are you selling? Same stupid logic!

Damn hypocrite!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

Are you suggesting that the value of the carcass does not determine what packers are willing to pay for cattle? If not, what does?

Supply and demand. You get factors of demand mixed up with the
the equilibrium of market forces, SH. This is a very elementary mistake. If your assertions were correct, the packer margin would always be the same. It is not.

 

[Econ101]

Econ101- "You bring a good point. If you do have to bring in $1.99 shoulder roast then there would be less shoulder roast to sell. If you have less shoulder roast, it costs more for the shoulder roast you do have. Then you get more money for it. That brings the producer more money. If packers bring in imported lean trim then you pay the Aussies or someone else for that lean trim and you don't make a dime on it. The packer does. "

Are you saying, that if the packers can sell a shoulder roast for more than $1.99, that some of that extra value would be passed on to the producer???

I guarentee you one thing, Tim: If there are no imports, you will get more money than if there were imports. This even includes the trim argument. Packers would have to pay you more money for your cattle to satisfy the market for beef. I think the packers are as opportunist businessmen and if they did not have to pass on a dollar to the packer they wouldn't. They would just as soon keep it themselves. Do you know any different?

Do you make more money when there are fewer cattle to satisfy consumption or more? Agman's quick quote on that is that for every 1% increase in supply, the price goes down 1.5%. The reverse is true without market manipulation.

The actual relationship is 1.0 to 1:68. A 1.0% change in supply will change prices inversely by 1.68%, all other factors being equal. Ironically, Econ101, that basic relationship is valid today just as it was prior to marketing agreements. That shoots one more big hole through your endless stream of unsupported price manipulation theories.

Sorry, Agman, I must have missed this post. Thank you for the actual numbers of your calculations. I will take your word for it that this is roughly the average (1.68) in the normal trading range.

This does not shoot any holes in my argument on the price manipulation of the Pickett case. Marketing agreements are not the problem. They are one of the tools of market manipulation but only that. You continually want to make that link but it is not my argument, it is yours. I really wish you would differentiate on this board when you are arguing with yourself and when you are trying to knock one of my points. It seems you can only win arguments when they are with yourself.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Supply and demand. You get factors of demand mixed up with the the equilibrium of market forces, SH."

Hahaha!

Ah....ok? LOL!

If the value of the carcass does not contribute to demand, WHAT DOES?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Supply and demand. You get factors of demand mixed up with the the equilibrium of market forces, SH."

Hahaha!

Ah....ok? LOL!

If the value of the carcass does not contribute to demand, WHAT DOES?



~SH~

SH, a lesson in economics would obviously be wasted on you. Go back and read my post. You will find the answer there if you have the intellectual capacity to grasp the answer you seek.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, a lesson in economics would obviously be wasted on you. Go back and read my post. You will find the answer there if you have the intellectual capacity to grasp the answer you seek."

DISCREDIT AND DIVERT, IMAGINE THAT?

NEXT!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "SH, a lesson in economics would obviously be wasted on you. Go back and read my post. You will find the answer there if you have the intellectual capacity to grasp the answer you seek."

DISCREDIT AND DIVERT, IMAGINE THAT?

NEXT!



~SH~

Would you like me to recomend a book for you?

 

[Sandhusker]

Conman: "SH, a lesson in economics would obviously be wasted on you. Go back and read my post. You will find the answer there if you have the intellectual capacity to grasp the answer you seek."

DISCREDIT AND DIVERT, IMAGINE THAT?

NEXT!



~SH~

Would you like me to recomend a book for you?

Did Dr. Seuss write anything that SH could grasp? :lol: You need to start at the proper level.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Would you like me to recomend a book for you?"

No! I can only imagine the type of conspiracy driven books you would recommend.

Sandbag go play on the railroad tracks.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Conman: "Would you like me to recomend a book for you?"

No! I can only imagine the type of conspiracy driven books you would recommend.

Sandbag go play on the railroad tracks.


~SH~

Sandbag, Sandflea, Sandblamer, Sandparasite..... :roll: pick a name and stay with it - you're giving me an identy crisis. :wink:

 

[agman]

You never have explained how the packers decide how much of their profits to tithe to producers yet. Exactly what is the % of their profits that they have allocated back to producers? What is the formula? Do they keep it secret? I can't seem to recall the market report mentioning anything about any "carcass value bonus" raising fats prices.

Here's a concept you don't understand, SH, you don't make any money off something that you don't sell. US producers don't sell foreign lean. Put the two together.

Now some facts for you - that trim is not "worthless" as you keep trying to snow us on. Read my opener on this thread and tell me where I'm wrong. Another fact, that trim and any value associated does not belong to producers - it belongs to the packers. Every producer I know could sell me a cow right now, how much of your trim can you sell me, SH?

Is that the best you can do Sandhusker? The cow that you sell; what determines the value?

 

[Sandhusker]

Could you possibly ask a more general question, Agman? :lol: The value of that animal is what I can sell it for if I have to sell it.