You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ethanol and Internal Combustion Engines
- Thread starter Rat407
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
not all producers of animals support the use you are detailing.
I was going to write a decent rant on corn and beef pricing, but then decided I'd be wasting my time.
The reality is that corn pricing is an important factor in beef markets, whether some will admit it here or not. Yes, corn and beef are two different commodities sold on their own markets that the producer has little control over. But when one commodity is the basic ingredient of the feed that is the biggest expense for a basic feedlot cow, arguing that that two have no relationship to each other doesn't hold a lot of water. True, the two move separately, but often the driver of the beef pricing is the price of the feed. Ignoring that is foolhardy...
The reality is that corn pricing is an important factor in beef markets, whether some will admit it here or not. Yes, corn and beef are two different commodities sold on their own markets that the producer has little control over. But when one commodity is the basic ingredient of the feed that is the biggest expense for a basic feedlot cow, arguing that that two have no relationship to each other doesn't hold a lot of water. True, the two move separately, but often the driver of the beef pricing is the price of the feed. Ignoring that is foolhardy...
gopher
of course the price of inputs affects the price of beef and other meats, but there are many other variables that help determine the pricing and some in a greater proportion.. supply and demand being the greatest to affect that. other variables growth of the world population, product innovations, legislation-both of product and labor, input cost(already mentioned), weather patterns, and import-export abilities. all intricately related and associated
of course the price of inputs affects the price of beef and other meats, but there are many other variables that help determine the pricing and some in a greater proportion.. supply and demand being the greatest to affect that. other variables growth of the world population, product innovations, legislation-both of product and labor, input cost(already mentioned), weather patterns, and import-export abilities. all intricately related and associated
Last edited:
hatt
i would say to the best of my knowledge that the majority of the large producers do not support what you are talking about, because the public will not purchase their product. are there some producers out there that still use those methods? of course, but they are fast becoming or should be becoming a minority.
i would say to the best of my knowledge that the majority of the large producers do not support what you are talking about, because the public will not purchase their product. are there some producers out there that still use those methods? of course, but they are fast becoming or should be becoming a minority.
Last edited:
Do you have any evidence to support you claims? I haven't seen a reduction in the practice. A lot of places are "talking" about doing something but I haven't seen any results. Latest numbers seem to indicate the antibiotic marketplace is expanding.
Quote:
A recent study by the Food and Drug Administration has renewed the controversy over antibiotic use in food producing animals. According to the FDA report released in April, sales of antibiotics used in beef, pork and poultry increased 20% between 2009 and 2013.
http://fortune.com/2015/06/03/antibiotics-in-meat-a-public-health-controversy-that-isnt-going-away/
Quote:
A recent study by the Food and Drug Administration has renewed the controversy over antibiotic use in food producing animals. According to the FDA report released in April, sales of antibiotics used in beef, pork and poultry increased 20% between 2009 and 2013.
http://fortune.com/2015/06/03/antibiotics-in-meat-a-public-health-controversy-that-isnt-going-away/
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Then you don't support feedlots. Because feedlots support mass administering of antibiotics.
I feel certain the overwhelming majority of beef producers use drugs, including antibiotics, during cattle feedlot operations. With sales up, where else is it going?
No labeling is the key. Since the FDA is run by ex Big Food executives there is no protection for the consumer. But the world is changing and companies are finding that folks will pay extra for better quality unadulterated products...
Then you don't support feedlots. Because feedlots support mass administering of antibiotics.
I feel certain the overwhelming majority of beef producers use drugs, including antibiotics, during cattle feedlot operations. With sales up, where else is it going?
No labeling is the key. Since the FDA is run by ex Big Food executives there is no protection for the consumer. But the world is changing and companies are finding that folks will pay extra for better quality unadulterated products...
hatt, steve,
the data from the article is from 2012-2013, we are at the end of 2015 almost here.
as the article you linked states the producers are being asked by their clients to reduce and or eliminate it's use.
quote from your article linked
"So why have sales of antibiotics in meat climbed? “A lot of these announcements came in either late 2013 or in 2014, so we don’t really expect to see that reflected in the data we’re looking at right now,” Gail Hansen, a senior officer for Pew Charitable Trusts’ antibiotic resistance project, told Reuters. “At some point, though, we should be seeing a decrease.” Meat industry analysts –including the North American Meat Industry– say they weren’t sure why sales climbed in the FDA’s data. It could be because food producing animal herds are growing in numbers or due to actual diseases. (The FDA report didn’t speculate on the reasons, and a spokesperson said it would not comment beyond the report.) However, experts point out there’s a difference between sales and actual usage of the antibiotics—though that may be splitting hairs and some media reports didn’t quite see the distinction."
once again i state and uphold that large producers especially those that have many large customers in the public eye and scrutinty as mentioned in the article, perdue, macdonalds, panera and others are reducing the practice.
the article links data from fda regarding TOTAL antibiotics, but it does not differentiate whether the antibiotics are used to humanely treat an animals individual illness and neither does it track the producers program to monitor and assure that said animal does not enter the food chain until it has been withdrawn.
please re read and understand the article,as there are many producers turning the practice of non therapeutic treatment around and in order to do so this requires an ever increasing presence of veterinary care to properly assess animal care.
Once again an article showing total antibiotic sales to the agricultural industry is not fact that those antibiotics are entering the food chain, there are many producers working hard to reduce that by various methods and monitoring of care for the animals. take for instance the dairy industry which tests all milk for antibiotics on the farm and at the processing plant. Any milk that tests positive [for antibiotics] cannot be sold to the public” ensuring both meat and milk are rigorously monitored for the presence of antibiotics.
the data from the article is from 2012-2013, we are at the end of 2015 almost here.
as the article you linked states the producers are being asked by their clients to reduce and or eliminate it's use.
quote from your article linked
"So why have sales of antibiotics in meat climbed? “A lot of these announcements came in either late 2013 or in 2014, so we don’t really expect to see that reflected in the data we’re looking at right now,” Gail Hansen, a senior officer for Pew Charitable Trusts’ antibiotic resistance project, told Reuters. “At some point, though, we should be seeing a decrease.” Meat industry analysts –including the North American Meat Industry– say they weren’t sure why sales climbed in the FDA’s data. It could be because food producing animal herds are growing in numbers or due to actual diseases. (The FDA report didn’t speculate on the reasons, and a spokesperson said it would not comment beyond the report.) However, experts point out there’s a difference between sales and actual usage of the antibiotics—though that may be splitting hairs and some media reports didn’t quite see the distinction."
once again i state and uphold that large producers especially those that have many large customers in the public eye and scrutinty as mentioned in the article, perdue, macdonalds, panera and others are reducing the practice.
the article links data from fda regarding TOTAL antibiotics, but it does not differentiate whether the antibiotics are used to humanely treat an animals individual illness and neither does it track the producers program to monitor and assure that said animal does not enter the food chain until it has been withdrawn.
please re read and understand the article,as there are many producers turning the practice of non therapeutic treatment around and in order to do so this requires an ever increasing presence of veterinary care to properly assess animal care.
Once again an article showing total antibiotic sales to the agricultural industry is not fact that those antibiotics are entering the food chain, there are many producers working hard to reduce that by various methods and monitoring of care for the animals. take for instance the dairy industry which tests all milk for antibiotics on the farm and at the processing plant. Any milk that tests positive [for antibiotics] cannot be sold to the public” ensuring both meat and milk are rigorously monitored for the presence of antibiotics.
Post the numbers showing a decrease in use. I read AND understood the article. A lot of doublespeak and "promises" to change. Little more than a TV commercial. Planning on reducing isn't reducing. Requiring a veterinarian to sign off on antibiotics isn't any better than paying a homeless person do it. BigMeat, Inc will tell you which vets you should use.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
I was going to write a decent rant on corn and beef pricing, but then decided I'd be wasting my time.
The reality is that corn pricing is an important factor in beef markets, whether some will admit it here or not. Yes, corn and beef are two different commodities sold on their own markets that the producer has little control over. But when one commodity is the basic ingredient of the feed that is the biggest expense for a basic feedlot cow, arguing that that two have no relationship to each other doesn't hold a lot of water. True, the two move separately, but often the driver of the beef pricing is the price of the feed. Ignoring that is foolhardy...
Beef prices are a commodity driven market. Corn could be $3.71 as it is now, or $100. The price the beef producer gets on the hoof is what the market will pay. Now the producer may either make a profit or loose his shirt. And you just can't hold back selling stock until the price gets to where you want it. The beef market pricing is based on different grades of cattle, and the price is not nearly as good for older stock than prime feeder stock, and those are generally sold at around 15 months of age. Almost all livestock.... beef, pork, poultry... are contract raised and sold. It is not up to the actual producer. Contract livestock are moved to market at the contract specified time. Whatever the market will pay for them, that is what it is. It has nothing to do with what it cost to feed them till then.
Now true, corn price has a long term effect, in that if the beef producer is losing his assets raising them, he will cut back on beef that he is raising, as will others. As the numbers of cattle are reduced, the market prices will go up. It would take 2 years to get to a good price point. Now the beef price is profitable. So now, more producers breed more stock. So in the mean time, the price is high, they make a profit, your burger at McDonald's goes up. And as beef producers then pump up the number of head they are raising to take advantage of the high price, the consumer is backing off of beef purchases, and now we have the cycle returning to a low beef price again. Trying to find and equilibrium is tough, even for experienced economists.
But given that corn prices are lower, on an inflation adjusted basis, than they were in the mid 1990's, the whole feed argument costing producers is pretty moot. Corn prices now have virtually no relevance to livestock cost to produce in relation to the pricing currently around $130 a hundred weight on the hoof. At this time in 1995, the live cattle market was around $66 a hundred weight. So while the live cattle price has doubled, the corn price has remained flat. So the contention that corn prices have a great effect on livestock pricing is moot.
I was going to write a decent rant on corn and beef pricing, but then decided I'd be wasting my time.
The reality is that corn pricing is an important factor in beef markets, whether some will admit it here or not. Yes, corn and beef are two different commodities sold on their own markets that the producer has little control over. But when one commodity is the basic ingredient of the feed that is the biggest expense for a basic feedlot cow, arguing that that two have no relationship to each other doesn't hold a lot of water. True, the two move separately, but often the driver of the beef pricing is the price of the feed. Ignoring that is foolhardy...
Beef prices are a commodity driven market. Corn could be $3.71 as it is now, or $100. The price the beef producer gets on the hoof is what the market will pay. Now the producer may either make a profit or loose his shirt. And you just can't hold back selling stock until the price gets to where you want it. The beef market pricing is based on different grades of cattle, and the price is not nearly as good for older stock than prime feeder stock, and those are generally sold at around 15 months of age. Almost all livestock.... beef, pork, poultry... are contract raised and sold. It is not up to the actual producer. Contract livestock are moved to market at the contract specified time. Whatever the market will pay for them, that is what it is. It has nothing to do with what it cost to feed them till then.
Now true, corn price has a long term effect, in that if the beef producer is losing his assets raising them, he will cut back on beef that he is raising, as will others. As the numbers of cattle are reduced, the market prices will go up. It would take 2 years to get to a good price point. Now the beef price is profitable. So now, more producers breed more stock. So in the mean time, the price is high, they make a profit, your burger at McDonald's goes up. And as beef producers then pump up the number of head they are raising to take advantage of the high price, the consumer is backing off of beef purchases, and now we have the cycle returning to a low beef price again. Trying to find and equilibrium is tough, even for experienced economists.
But given that corn prices are lower, on an inflation adjusted basis, than they were in the mid 1990's, the whole feed argument costing producers is pretty moot. Corn prices now have virtually no relevance to livestock cost to produce in relation to the pricing currently around $130 a hundred weight on the hoof. At this time in 1995, the live cattle market was around $66 a hundred weight. So while the live cattle price has doubled, the corn price has remained flat. So the contention that corn prices have a great effect on livestock pricing is moot.
Agreed. People do not realize that the beef market (or pork market, or whatever) doesn't give two hoots about the price of corn, or any other type of feed. A farmer cannot just decide to tack on an extra few hundred dollars a steer because his feed costs went up.
A number of years ago, we had pork prices plummet coincidentally with the price of feed going up. No one offered the farmers extra dollars to cover feed. Farmers quit raising hogs and going broke was the end result.
A number of years ago, we had pork prices plummet coincidentally with the price of feed going up. No one offered the farmers extra dollars to cover feed. Farmers quit raising hogs and going broke was the end result.
These things are commodities. The prices can be artificially inflated or depressed by the trading market. People with a lot of money can attempt to corner the market.
That may be, but the point I was getting at was that in individual farmer, or even farmers within a region, can do nothing about the price they get for their beef, pork, or wheat. If their input costs rise, they cannot choose to pass it on. They either continue with that product, or they don't. When wheat prices went down the toilet in the 1980s, farmers simply diversified up here, because they had few other alternatives. When pork prices went down, a pile of factory farms went under, since when you're physically set up only to raise a bajillion piglets per year, and the price drops, you cannot diversify. Cattle don't do well in pig pens and there isn't enough space for crops.
Quote:
When pork prices went down, a pile of factory farms went under, since when you're physically set up only to raise a bajillion piglets per year, and the price drops, you cannot diversify. Cattle don't do well in pig pens and there isn't enough space for crops.
The good ol industrial food system. Farmers are in a fix. They spent a fortune to be able to only produce one thing with super tight margins. They need to diversify like they use to be. We'd have to get the government out of farming first however.
When pork prices went down, a pile of factory farms went under, since when you're physically set up only to raise a bajillion piglets per year, and the price drops, you cannot diversify. Cattle don't do well in pig pens and there isn't enough space for crops.
The good ol industrial food system. Farmers are in a fix. They spent a fortune to be able to only produce one thing with super tight margins. They need to diversify like they use to be. We'd have to get the government out of farming first however.
Well, that problem was mostly with corporations deciding to become "farmers" by raising hogs and doing nothing else. They didn't own enough land to grow crops and, instead, set up the entire operation for pork. So, there's no chance at all to react to the market other than to produce more or fewer hogs.
Yeah, it really isn't some small family farm type of thing any more. And one can only diversify so much as a crop farmer. Soils, average rainfall, growing seasons, markets, and equipment come into play. One doesn't just drop a quarter mil on a new combine and then the next year decide to diversify into something else that requires different equipment. Even the average farm tractor is set up for what is being raised for crops. narrow or wide stance, types of tires, power requirements and auxiliary implement attachment setups. This isn't like your family garden where you can decide to have zucchini one year in a corner of it and then cucumbers, squash, or watermelon the next year. Or you are sick and tired of all the green beans you canned up from the last year that now you will raise peas, carrots, radishes, etc.
And you have to plan crops out almost a full year in advance. Seed is usually contracted in the fall, with delivery in the spring. You get the seed in, and just after you put it in the ground, the market bottom falls out. Now you are stuck with a few hundred acres of corn that might just barely make a profit in the fall, if it doesn't get taken out by a thunderstorm, flash flood, drought, etc.
it is the ultimate in legalized gambling. The stakes are pretty high.
And few livestock operations are a total package. One operator will concentrate on hog breeding and farrowing operation, and then the pigs are weaned and shipped to a commercial feed operation, from there to the packing plant. Cattle pretty much the same scenario and even poultry operations are usually not egg to finish in total, though the percentage of complete operations is larger than with swine and beef.
And you have to plan crops out almost a full year in advance. Seed is usually contracted in the fall, with delivery in the spring. You get the seed in, and just after you put it in the ground, the market bottom falls out. Now you are stuck with a few hundred acres of corn that might just barely make a profit in the fall, if it doesn't get taken out by a thunderstorm, flash flood, drought, etc.
it is the ultimate in legalized gambling. The stakes are pretty high.
And few livestock operations are a total package. One operator will concentrate on hog breeding and farrowing operation, and then the pigs are weaned and shipped to a commercial feed operation, from there to the packing plant. Cattle pretty much the same scenario and even poultry operations are usually not egg to finish in total, though the percentage of complete operations is larger than with swine and beef.
Here, we still do get a fair number of combined crop and cattle farmers. Combined pork/crop is rarer, and poultry/crop rarer still. At least up here, for most crops that one will grow, the "generic" combine, tractor, and so forth will do the job. We certainly don't do a lot of corn up here, much less other types of vegetables in this province.
So, some diversification is possible, but for people trying to do pork or poultry, look out.
So, some diversification is possible, but for people trying to do pork or poultry, look out.
And farmers generally rotate crops on farm ground year over year, so there is "diversification" that already goes on. If they have corn on it this year, most will have that part of their farm in soybeans the next year. Or they may put in oats as a starter crop for Alfalfa. Run that for a couple of years and then go back to corn. Alfalfa has a very deep root system that is great for the soil, and it puts a lot of nitrogen back into the soil. Yeah, a combine does the same task for corn, soybeans, and oats. I think some think that typical farm ground can diversify to potatoes, sugar beets, or a host of other different crops. Those all are going to require investment into different equipment. Oats really doesn't have a strong market price, and about the only way it is chosen by a farmer is as a starter crop for Alfalfa or Clover hay ground. That leaves just corn and soybeans for the serious cash crops. And considering those are the two most in demand crops, worldwide, it makes sense to grow a lot of them.
True, there are some retard farmers that will do corn, corn, corn year after year on a piece of farmland, but they are the exception rather than the norm. And truth be told, most times you would ever see that is on ground that is cash rented from a land owner. The guy renting it and farming on it does not have as great of a motivation to do things properly than the farmer who actually owns the ground. Kind of the same mindset of folks on how they treat a car that they rent compared to one they own.
True, there are some retard farmers that will do corn, corn, corn year after year on a piece of farmland, but they are the exception rather than the norm. And truth be told, most times you would ever see that is on ground that is cash rented from a land owner. The guy renting it and farming on it does not have as great of a motivation to do things properly than the farmer who actually owns the ground. Kind of the same mindset of folks on how they treat a car that they rent compared to one they own.
Yep, of course, up here, grain is king, although there has been a bit of experimentation with other things, and canola and lentils and peas are certainly mainstream nowadays.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 47
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 2K