Border Economics

Oldtimer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
3,922
City & State/Province
Northeast Montana
Tuesday, January 18, 2005

USDA’s mad cow circus: Act II

By Alan Guebert


After spending the last four years marrying the U.S. cattle market to Canada’s cattle market--the new family’s name is "the integrated North American beef market"--the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture is now saddled with its handiwork.

Canada’s mad cows are America’s problem.

Indeed, in an effort to solve the $4 billion mad cow disaster Up There we’re ready to reopen our markets Down Here to Canadian cattle and beef exports.

But Canada isn’t making it easy. Mad cows--another on Jan. 11--keep popping up Up There faster than government officials Down Here can explain ‘em. Yet like any good, integrated North American brother, we keep trying.

We’re trying with economics: bringing their cattle and beef here will save our carnivores money. USDA’s analysis of the proposed import rule, as noted last week, shows "consumer gains" of 6- to 26-cents per person.

But even that ridiculously paltry benefit is just a guess. There’s no promise that the estimated $2.91 billion less U.S. cattlemen will receive after the border is reopened can or will be passed on to consumers.

A safe bet is that it won’t. After all, U.S. meatpackers are not in the habit of passing windfalls to American meat buyers. And, notes USDA’s economic analysis of the proposed rule, packers will receive windfall profits when the cattle begin moving.

According to USDA, Canadian packers will stop killing slaughter cattle--most will walk across the newly opened bordered--and start killing the nation’s backlog of older cows for two reasons.

First, imports of bone-in, Canadian beef from animals older than 30 months of age will be permitted under the new rule. Since Aug. 2003, only boneless beef from animals under 30 months of age has been allowed.

Second, this seemingly minor rule change means major money for packers because--again, according to USDA’s own analysis--packers can buy cows Up There for $17 per hundredweight (cwt.) and sell the cow beef Down Here for $123 per cwt. That’s real money anywhere.

But Down Here is where it’s headed because U.S. cow slaughter is running 15 percent below year ago levels. That number will grow in 2005 and 2006 as U.S. ranchers retain cows and save heifers to rebuild herds.

In short, we’re short--and getting shorter--of hamburger and Canada has it.

Well, Canada’s packers have it.

The packers Up There are the same as the packers Down Here. According to numbers recently compiled by Canada’s National Farmers Union, Cargill and Tyson collectively kill 60.7 percent of all Canadian beef cattle. Similarly, those two, with Swift and National Beef, kill nearly 84 percent of all U.S. cattle.

That domination of the "integrated" slaughter cattle market also means the Big Boys can’t lose on the cheaper Canadian feeder and fat cattle walking to the U.S. If they can’t get ‘em to fatten in their feedlots, sooner or later they’ll get ‘em to kill in their slaughter plants. Heads they win; tails they win.

Which brings up one of the more curious aspects of the proposed rule. USDA’s import rule mandates Canadian cattle be branded and segregated upon arrival, then kept segregated all the way through the slaughter plant.

USDA estimates its cost of administrating this identity program at $10 per head, or less than one cent per pound--far less than its 2003 estimate that undermined the 2002 Farm Bill’s mandatory country of origin labeling law.

But this segregation, essentially a country of origin labeling program for Canadian cattle in the US, ends at the slaughtering plant’s back door. The meat will not be sold with a Canadian label despite the clear ability to do so.

This back door COOL will assure Japan that no Canadian beef brought into the U.S. will find its way into our export channels even as we twist both of Japan's arms into buying our--not Canada's--beef.

That means what’s good for the Japanese market, certified and labeled American beef, isn’t good for American consumers.

Alas the woes inherent in the global marketplace and the "integrated North American beef market."
 
Oldtimer would you care to wager a cold one on which country exports to the Asian mkt. first. Japan has more bse than Canada and they still eat there own beef. Japan wants testing, tracibility and age-source verification. Guess which country is draging there feet. If the money is in the cull cows they better get to buying, Feb. is here next week and they need to start lining them up. If the border opens in March I would think the cow mkt. would go up for replacements since the cow herd is drasticly reduced.
your friend
Mike
 
oldtimer

We’re trying with economics: bringing their cattle and beef here will save our carnivores money. USDA’s analysis of the proposed import rule, as noted last week, shows "consumer gains" of 6- to 26-cents per person.

But even that ridiculously paltry benefit is just a guess. There’s no promise that the estimated $2.91 billion less U.S. cattlemen will receive after the border is reopened can or will be passed on to consumers.

A safe bet is that it won’t. After all, U.S. meatpackers are not in the habit of passing windfalls to American meat buyers. And, notes USDA’s economic analysis of the proposed rule, packers will receive windfall profits when the cattle begin moving.



-packers can buy cows Up There for $17 per hundredweight (cwt.) and sell the cow beef Down Here for $123 per cwt. That’s real money anywhere.

But Down Here is where it’s headed because U.S. cow slaughter is running 15 percent below year ago levels. That number will grow in 2005 and 2006 as U.S. ranchers retain cows and save heifers to rebuild herds.




So you would rather keep the retail price of beef so high that the economics favour people buying other meats than beef.







In short, we’re short--and getting shorter--of hamburger and Canada has it.

Well, Canada’s packers have it.

Ot thats just terrible you kept the border closed and all them cows are going to bite your r-calf a$$. Too bad you dragged your fello U.S cattleman down with you



According to USDA, Canadian packers will stop killing slaughter cattle--most will walk across the newly opened bordered--and start killing the nation’s backlog of older cows

who sayes all them cows beef is going to the U.S

good luck Ot
 
Closed border hurts U.S.: study
this document web posted: Wednesday, January 5, 2005 20050106p57

By Barbara Duckworth
Calgary bureau

BSE has cost the United States 5,000 jobs, three packing plants and about $1.9 billion US in lost beef sales.

An unpublished study from Kansas State University found that the impact was more regional in scope, depending on whether plants were dependent on Canadian live trade.

Overall, Canadian cattle represented only three percent of the U.S. total slaughter.

"The Canadian cattle represent significant amounts of cattle in certain states and certain packing plants, but for the entire U.S. supply it is a very small percentage," said Kansas State agricultural economist Ted Schroeder, who led the study.

The study covered the period between May 20, 2003 and the present. All live trade with Canada was halted on that date after the federal government announced that BSE had been discovered in an Alberta cow.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association was among a group of organizations supporting the study, which confirmed what many already suspected.

Many U.S. plants that relied on Canadian cattle and normally operate 80 hours per week have had to reduce work to 20 hours per week, said CCA executive vice-president Dennis Laycraft.

With a surplus of cattle in Canada and a shortage in the U.S., Laycraft said the consequences could have broad implications.

"The longer this border remains closed, plants will open here and some will close there," he said. "What we are seeing is independents went out of business. It is taking competition out of the U.S. business."

According to Canfax, exports of all classes including steers, heifers, cows and bulls for 2001 were slightly more than one million head, consisting of nearly 710,000 young animals and slightly more than 311,000 mature cattle.

In 2002, more than one million left Canada but drought forced more mature cattle into the market, resulting in 430,000 cows and bulls and 595,000 young animals being shipped to specific states for slaughter.

The study found Canada supplied Utah with 30 percent of its total slaughter supply. Nineteen percent of Washington's total slaughter came from Canada.

In 2002, Minnesota, Michigan and New Jersey each used more than 10 percent Canadian cattle. They were mostly dairy cattle from Eastern Canada.

Washington, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Utah each imported 100,000 head for slaughter in 2002.

The study found that Canadian cattle represented more than $950 million in total sales value of beef and byproducts.

"That essentially is no longer here," Schroeder said. "You start talking about $100 million of sales value that used to be in a state, you really start to talk about a substantial reduction in employment and other sources of related activities related to the processing industry."

Washington, Utah and Nebraska probably lost $200 million each in meat and byproduct sales in the last 18 months.

Finding replacement slaughter cattle has not worked well. Buyers sought cattle further afield but transportation barriers and costs are restrictive.

"Those three states would have to go to areas where there are more cattle in the southwest and compete against other bidders in areas where the processors were already short of cattle," Schroeder said.

There was also a shortage of feeder calves. More Mexican feeders arrived but provided only about half of what was needed.

"Even though we tried to offset some of this closure by increasing our imports of feeder cattle from Mexico, that still didn't replace the feeder calves," he said.

Consequently, plants are operating well below capacity and three have closed. Some communities depend on these plants and job losses have affected local incomes and related industries.

Schroeder believes the U.S. is going to lose processing capacity because packers can't run costly plants below capacity.

"The U.S. will lose in a very painful transition, some of these processors in some of these areas where there isn't a lot of processing capacity available."

That could happen in Washington, Minnesota or Utah.

As well, American companies could suffer if Canadians build more of their own plants.

"If these Canadian investments continue, we are going to realize we have excess slaughter capacity in North America," he said.

He wondered about the outcome of this overinvestment.

"It might in the short run be a good thing for producers as guys are competing vigorously for cattle, but as soon as they start going under, that won't be a good situation at all," he said.

"It could be devastating to local communities again that have invested in those facilities."

He said Canada may become efficient enough to accept U.S. cattle for slaughter. Canada's identification program and other food safety regulations give it strategic advantages over the U.S., he added


Especially like this last part Ot ...On U.S cattle coming north
 
mwj":1uffo00v said:
Oldtimer would you care to wager a cold one on which country exports to the Asian mkt. first. Japan has more bse than Canada and they still eat there own beef. Japan wants testing, tracibility and age-source verification. Guess which country is draging there feet. If the money is in the cull cows they better get to buying, Feb. is here next week and they need to start lining them up. If the border opens in March I would think the cow mkt. would go up for replacements since the cow herd is drasticly reduced.
your friend
Mike

Mike I will take that wager-- Japanese markets will not take Canadian cattle unless they are tested-- the multinational packers that got USDA to stop Creekstone from testing are the same ones in Canada which have gotten the CFIA to not allow Canadian beef tested....Even if we take more Candian beef on March 7, the Japanese have already required we prove we are not sending them Canadian beef----So guess who will be eating it? US consumers who have no way of identifying if its Canadian..

How do you figure the cow prices will go up? If more slaughter beef is imported and we have no exports for increased demand-- the price will have to drop-- This in turn will make it much more economical to keep replacement heifers rather than sell them like has been happening with the high prices of the last 2 years....Breeding stock prices will drop if it becomes cheaper to keep heifers -- and with meat from old cows and bulls being imported without increased demand cull prices will drop-----
If the border opens I think it will be the end of $60 cows and $80 bulls for some time to come.........
 
I think it will be the end of $60 cows and $80 bulls for some time to come.........[/quote]


that some time your talking about probably should be will never happen again, unless inflation causes everything to rise.

not siding on either side of the "border," but i had an aunt and uncle get laid off from that packing plant in Iowa that was closed. my aunt now works for Tyson at one of their plants in Illinois, I think, and my uncle works for some company out of Nebraska now.

Do I think the border should open soon? No
But i personally think we are kind of being awful critical or maybe not, like I said I dont know which way to go,but
for the US and BSE, it is not a matter of if, it is when.
people fed the same stuff Canada did and with people still feeding chicken sh*t to cattle, who knows how many will pop up in the US
I hope to God it will not happen, but it will.

God bless everyone

for I hope that as soon as I get through with college I will be able to raise my own cattle on my own property.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Oldtimer
I was talking about the cow price going up in Canada,because they will retain more cows and more will sell as replacements. I think they still have the leg up on asia. We are dragging our feet on almost every issue.The consumer in japan will not buy the us theory of my way or leave it. They (the japanese consumer) want there beef tested just like it is done in japan or they will not buy. The consumer has total control. We learned that with implanted beef in Europe. I would gladly buy you a cld one no matter how this turns out 8)
your friend
Mike
 

Latest posts

Back
Top