Explosive Cattle Board! . . . .

Beef Production

Tools

Explosive Cattle Board! . . . .

May 5, 2017 | 14:29 31
Quote Originally Posted by blackjack View Post
well somebody didn't like where the board was at. Does anybody else think our livestock insurance is a joke.
The prices you can lock in aren't bad this week but the cost is prohibitive. Over $8/cwt premium adds up quick on yearlings. Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017 | 20:04 32 woodland I was looking more at the calf insurance for dec.I feel the late summer grass yearlings will stay fairly strong. Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017 | 21:15 33 It is a bit odd to see such a discount for December calf prices relative to October, I agree. Not really sure why the January feeder futures are such a discount. It is the feeder futures that drives calf coverage.

Overall the coverage is at pretty attractive levels overall. In addition to the cattle markets, a stronger dollar could take a bite of calf prices this fall

When I look at calf insurance premiums, I also ask myself, if I was the one selling the insurance, how much would I want to sell those options for, to guarantee the fall market will be above $2.30?

Cost is quite a bit, but the net coverage is well above what I thought I would be able to buy this year. Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017 | 21:32 34
Quote Originally Posted by Cattleman View Post
The market is the market, it just seems, if the market goes screaming up, all is well, but if they crash they are rigged against producers. Yes, we can't always explain the market, and some fluctuations are suspect, but they tend to average out. Maybe producers didn't get full price for their calves last fall, but the calves they sold for over $3/lb, was probably too high, as feedlots lost hundreds of dollars on them. Take the average price of calves over the last 2 years, and feedlot profit and losses over the last 2 years it has averaged out pretty good. Prices are still very strong in my books. I rather focus on my business understanding the market environment I operate in, rather than point fingers at everyone else when things don't go my way.
A lot of confused thinking in there - typical "industry" talk - calves were probably too high, caused the feedlots to lose money etc etc. - prices are great we just have to keep our noses to the grindstone and turning out the calves and don't think about the overall picture.

This is the same BS Charlie Gracey is pushing - trying to get the cow/calf guy and the feedlot operator to share the money more equally while ignoring the fact that we are talking about fighting over the table scraps while those beyond the farmgate reap the real rewards.
The $3 calves were very sustainable as were the high fat prices attained at the same time - both ranchers and feedlots were making good money then so it is wrong to suggest that ranchers only made $3 because the feedlots were losing. We could be enjoying these higher prices all the time if packers/retailers were prepared to give back less than half the increase in spread they captured between 1995 and 2016 as illustrated by this graphic.

Name:  chart.jpg
Views: 778
Size:  51.5 KB

Do you not think we deserve a better reward Cattleman? I know one thing for sure the packers, retailers, paper traders and market analysts never have their income halved while they play games around our business and product. I just get tired of the status quo where the expectation is that the ranchers wife and in many cases the rancher himself have to work off farm as there are too many parasites feeding of the carcase of the beef business.

Blackjack the problem I see with price insurance is that it puts a ceiling on cattle prices. Everyone buying cattle now is using these tools - banks won't lend to them if they don't yet the formula for the price insurance is derived from futures. If you are able to "fix" the futures prices you are controlling the whole cattle pricing structure. Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017 | 23:09 35 Yes, I am pretty darn happy with what I am getting. As I said, it is more than I planned for, and I have made very good profits with both the cows and cattle feeding over the last while. I don't expect cattle prices to continue to climb or stay record high, when hog prices are cut in half (although you will blame the packers and retailers for their woes as well). It slows down beef movement considerably when beef is extremely costly compared to other meats. So to say we could easily keep moving beef when it is way higher than the competition and offers poor margins relative to other meats it is not true. The supply chain is slow to react and it was these price relationships that was a big part of what culminated last fall.

Do you understand the fixed costs of the retailers and food service industry? Food service is having a hard time competing with the retail sector, because of their higher fixed and operating costs. Wholesale beef prices have dropped, from the highs, but still remain relatively high and retail prices have dropped some. They have passed on some of the lower costs to consumers, (and now beef is moving better and is why the industry is getting current) but of course their share of the beef dollar (as your chart shows) increases as the cost of beef has decreased relative to all of their other costs. Operating costs, with labour, and just keeping the lights on continue to increase faster than cattle prices. If you think the cattle industry can change the trend on these other costs, please let them know how. The reality is, that in your data, beef is a commodity, and whether it is beef, wheat, oil, lumber, real commodity prices are not keeping up. We would all like to say retailers could raise the price they pay for the raw commodity, but that is not how the markets work. Everyone squeezes costs. Walmart does it to all suppliers, not just beef. I know when I buy cattle, and look at the feeding margins, then I look at the commissions I pay, the trucking into and out of the feedlot, plus yardage the custom feedlot charges, these service costs are almost always way more than my profit margin, (at least when I initially buy the cattle). I hunt around, and try to squeeze costs, but they need to make money, or they won't be there the next time. Again, I can also choose not too buy the cattle.

I know you can have more complaints and say that cow-calf producers have to pay for all the leaches, and don't have control but if I really thought it was that unfair I would get rid of the cows. I choose to have cows. Unless you can change this theory of margin squeeze, then these are our reality. Yes, lots of guys have got rid of the cows, but that said North America beef production has not dropped much, and will grow for a couple more years yet.

To me the way around, the margin squeeze it through the niche markets and attribute marketing. But in my mind that is short term, as someone will be right there to compete with you, or you get into these crazy marketing campaigns that we are seeing today. Or as you have talked about, you can always do all the work yourself and do direct marketing. Always interesting to hear others long term solutions. Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 06:36 36 We need more diversity in capacity: wishing Harmony Beef in Alberta all the success in the world. Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 07:12 37
Quote Originally Posted by Cattleman View Post
It slows down beef movement considerably when beef is extremely costly compared to other meats. So to say we could easily keep moving beef when it is way higher than the competition and offers poor margins relative to other meats it is not true. The supply chain is slow to react and it was these price relationships that was a big part of what culminated last fall.
An interesting and correct analysis that rather proves my point. No mention of consumer backlash against higher prices because there really was none - the packer/retailer sector are not interested in selling beef if their margins are squeezed a little compared to what they can make in selling other meats. It wasn't so much the supply chain being slow to react (there you go blaming the cattle producer again) as it was market fixing shenanigans that brought about the catastrophic price collapse last fall that went against market fundamentals. Consumer demand remained strong, cattle supply remained short but the packers/retailers decided to collapse the price of live cattle because they can. That's the price we pay for having processing/retailing sectors with no worthwhile competition allowed by successive Governments.

That needs to change if we are to have anything other than a decaying and dwindling cattle herd and cattle sector going forward. It is simply unsustainable to have cattle producers get ever less of the retail dollar for decades on end, to have no new entrants able to afford land and cattle on the basis of market returns. I get tired of apologists for "the industry" I have a burning desire to see cattle producers get a fairer deal. Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 07:51 38
Quote Originally Posted by grassfarmer View Post
An interesting and correct analysis that rather proves my point. No mention of consumer backlash against higher prices because there really was none - the packer/retailer sector are not interested in selling beef if their margins are squeezed a little compared to what they can make in selling other meats. It wasn't so much the supply chain being slow to react (there you go blaming the cattle producer again) as it was market fixing shenanigans that brought about the catastrophic price collapse last fall that went against market fundamentals. Consumer demand remained strong, cattle supply remained short but the packers/retailers decided to collapse the price of live cattle because they can. That's the price we pay for having processing/retailing sectors with no worthwhile competition allowed by successive Governments.

That needs to change if we are to have anything other than a decaying and dwindling cattle herd and cattle sector going forward. It is simply unsustainable to have cattle producers get ever less of the retail dollar for decades on end, to have no new entrants able to afford land and cattle on the basis of market returns. I get tired of apologists for "the industry" I have a burning desire to see cattle producers get a fairer deal.
I agree , middle taking way to much , just like grain for very little risk or work . seems like it would be easier on the cattle side to do something about it like a coop packer . or something like that ? Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 07:57 39 So many cow-calf guys exited the industry during the mad cow years and those that survived worked extremely hard to survive, as far as I'm concerned the ones still in it deserve these high prices and more. To me cow calf operations are the last major strong hold of the family farm. Grain farmland is being bought up by investors, where as hogs has become vertically integrated with very few family farm operators.

When we had a cow calf operation it was nothing but hard work to earn that dollar, glad we got out just before mad cow, more luck than brains.


Many great posts to read on this thread!! Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 08:03 40 I agree , they deserve whatever they can get , however I love beef but I won't pay $10 /lb for it . I love it , but I don't need it . to bad the packers have wrecked this industry same as grain co's doing to the family farm Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 08:57 41 Or like my city cousins that complain about beef being to high yet will spend 200 bucks to go watch the flames. Hey guys food is cheap if you make it yourself compared if one pays for a service .As far I can remember that's always been the case. Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 09:38 42
Quote Originally Posted by blackjack View Post
Or like my city cousins that complain about beef being to high yet will spend 200 bucks to go watch the flames. Hey guys food is cheap if you make it yourself compared if one pays for a service .As far I can remember that's always been the case.
^^^ This.

Bought breakfast in town this morning for the first time in a while. 2 eggs, 2 slices thin soggy toast, 3 potato patties, 3 skinny sausages, coffee w/refill.

2 eggs, 40 cents. 2 slices toast, 25 cents. 3 patties, 45 cents. 3 sausages, $1.00. Coffee - 25 cents. Total food cost - $2.35.

Price of breakfast $8.65. plus tax. 1/4 for food, the rest for service/prep/tax. About typical for the story of food production.

Ten dollar bill for breakfast would leave a pretty small tip...and the diner isn't likely getting rich either. Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 13:51 43
Quote Originally Posted by westernvicki View Post
We need more diversity in capacity: wishing Harmony Beef in Alberta all the success in the world.
I wish them luck too but the outcome of these plants haven't been great. We were involved in the cooperative plant that got built but never opened near Edmonton. Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 15:01 44 I agree the cattle industry faces challenges. We are not growing. But the ongoing complaining and ignoring market factors won't do anything to help. The industry is way too fast to get our backs up vs trying to find solutions. If consumers rather pay several hundred dollars on a new phone or the latest gadget, and don't want to spend $15 dollars on a steak, that's what we face. That is reality. Can we change it? Maybe... but i am not sure how.

Grassfarmer, the supply chain backed up. Why were carcass weights so massive? Producers were feeding cattle bigger and making more money...worked for a while and then it worked against them. Blame packers and retailers, but if they were making way more money selling pork, and the wholesale price of beef was at record levels relative to pork, we aren't going to be moving more beef at high prices! There was a problem moving beef at those price levels in that market. Exports dried up as well, and imports came flooding in. If you want to blame them for manipulation, that is up to you. At that point, in my mind, it was a market driven response. Market overshot the low, but it overshot the high. It has been doing that for centuries. Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 21:04 45 On and on the excuses go - consumers won't buy our beef, producers making them too heavy, pork too cheap, exports drying up, imports flooding in all ignore the fact that there is plenty of money in the chain given where retail beef prices are - the problem is simple - the cattle producer is not getting an equitable fair share of the retail dollar. while those beyond the farm gate continue to take more and more of the pie.

From Rick Wright writing in the Manitoba Beef Producers magazine "....Those who follow the markets closely noted that the cash market has been constantly running dollars and dollars ahead of the futures. Even with the upward positive movement on the finished and feeder cattle futures prices, the futures were still running behind cash settlements. This just reinforces the fact that the futures have become disconnected from the real market and are no longer a reliable risk management tool"

How do you explain that one away Cattleman? Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 22:34 46 Maybe that shows that the market is in Backwardation, and that their is strong demand right now. I'm no expert in the futures market but isn't this a good thing. Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017 | 22:52 47 I presume you are fairly familiar with taking a live animal, and converting to how many pounds actually hit the store shelf, and what the actual product weight is? You know everyone's costs exactly to determine, that there is major abuse of primary beef producers? I explained fixed costs above. You choose to ignore it all.

Can't always explain the futures, as I said earlier. Remember 2011 to 2013 when futures were premium to cash? What was your complaints during those years? They saw lower supplies and were anticipating them. Futures now anticipating growing supplies of Red Meat. They may have a more negative scenario priced in, have to see how demand holds up at these prices. Exports are slow to respond to market prices, saw it in 2014, and late last year too. Futures may be understating that potential still.
The beauty of the futures market, is they have been a huge factor in the feedlot sector getting very current, and are reducing beef supplies. It has been a big signal to sell ahead. Yes it has been positive through this run. Hedgers have loved this futures structure through this last run, as they have made big bucks off the strong basis....But that probably shouldn't be Grassfarmer, as the hedgers are producers.... I must have something wrong that producers are actually benefiting from these manipulated markets.... Not sure what you really want me to explain, and not really sure it matters, as you have already made your mind made up no matter what I say, because you know for a fact everyone's ROI in the supply chain and the farmer is getting screwed. Reply With Quote
May 7, 2017 | 07:05 48 Cattleman or I should say Canadian Cattlemen's Association, if you look back in the thread you are the one claiming to know the costs of everyone in the chain not me.

I'll leave you with the report from Bluegrass Stockyards in Kentucky that I posted in my opening reply of this thread as it articulates the problems and highlights the concerns of the dysfunctional futures market. It might not interest the pimps for the processing and retailing sector but it will interest cattle producers as it is our future at stake.


"Today’s Cattle Market

A group of 40 concerned and heavily impacted cattle producers representing small cow/calf to large backgrounders met on October 11, 2016 at the farm of John Sparks to discuss the current situation with the cattle markets. Having seen prices for cattle decline from 40-60% in the last 14 months has created concern since the fundamentals of the marketplace would not indicate a drop of this magnitude is warranted. During this same period of time the retail value of the beef product has not fallen proportionally with the devaluation of live cattle. The consumer continues to pay an astronomical premium for the product while the farmer producing the product is operating below breakeven and has done so for two production seasons. The Packing and retail sectors are operating with historic profit margins that are well documented. Compounding this problem of too much control in the hands of a small sector of the industry is the fact that volatility in the futures market has created an environment that has crippled the cash marketplace.

Lenders require most if not all cattle customers to “hedge” their cattle purchases against the futures market. The extreme volatility in that market and the fact that it seems to move without any drive from fundamental market factors has taken all of the “risk takers” out of both the cash and futures market. We have seen several instances where the market has crashed, at the end of the week, when it is widely known that the packers need to go to the cash market to buy fed cattle to fill the next week’s harvest to supplement the 80% of the fed cattle supply that they already control. At other moments in the market there have been dramatic, often limit, moves that seem to be totally disconnected from the fundamentals at work in the cash marketplace and in the absence of any significant “news” in the industry that would justify those moves. In retrospect we now realize that the period in 2014-15 when the cash market ran up so dramatically was a predictor of what was coming, the market simply is not a vibrant and healthy fundamental marketplace in which legitimate business can be conducted.

This group is not proposing legislative solutions to these problems but rather asking that our elected officials initiate a round of questions to those responsible for operating and overseeing these markets. It seems that everyone, at all levels, acknowledges that we are at a pivotal time in the cattle industry and if the situation doesn’t change quickly we are at risk of allowing a forced integration of the cattle industry, similar to what transpired in the swine and poultry sectors. Cattlemen are fiercely independent and wish to remain that way. For three decades we have been told that the cattle industry cannot be integrated because the packer can’t afford to own the grass and cows. We now understand that they don’t have to own the resource base, they need only control the financing of cattle moving into feedyards and they accomplish the same level of control with much lower risk and cost.

The following is a list of agencies and entities and the appropriate questions that we feel necessary.

USDA – Justice Department – Federal Trade Commission
- In this environment of historic profit margins and an ample supply of cattle and excess processing capacity, why don’t the packers expand harvest as they would historically do?
- With the 4 major packers having achieved control of 80% of the fed cattle supply, either through direct ownership or contract production, is it time to revisit the rules under which the industry operates and limit the time that a packer can own/control that supply?
- Why won’t the packing industry consistently participate in the cash fed cattle market? The industry has tacitly granted them a monopoly, is it not their responsibility to honor that by maintaining a vibrant cash marketplace?
- There is virtually no price discovery in the fed cattle market. With only 20% of the supply traded in some form of open market or negotiated trade there is no way of knowing what the product is truly worth. How can we incentivize a higher percentage of the cattle to be traded in open markets?
- How can these agencies justify standing idle while packers make historic profits at the cost of family farms? Much of the equity that has been built over the last decade in the independent cattle industry has been eroded in the last year. Soon the farmer and farmer feeder will be forced to go to the packing industry for financing which is the same as integrated or contract production.
- The role of USDA is to insure open and competitive markets for farm commodities, what are they doing or planning to do in this situation?
- With a farm bill approaching, is it time to be proposing changes in the regulatory structure and rules that govern the packing and feeding industries?
Commodity Futures Trading Commission – Chicago Mercantile Exchange
- What is the origin of the volatility in the cattle futures contracts?
- Has the market been overtaken by electronic, high frequency traders or is it being manipulated by entities within our own industry?
- What has changed in the dynamics of this market since pit trading stopped and contract limits were expanded?
- Why can’t the traditional “long” trader participate in the current environment? They were the “risk taker” that kept the market vibrant for decades.
- What forces are at work that cause the markets to move independently of and often inversely to “fundamental news” in the industry?
- What drives the market to move sharply lower leading into times when packers need to buy fed cattle in the cash market?
- CME has openly stated that a vibrant cash market is required for a healthy futures market. How can the cattle futures continue to be relevant if the cash market is dysfunctional?
- What is the role of CME and CFTC in incentivizing participation in the cash fed cattle market?
- What steps are being taken to correct the dysfunctionality of the cattle futures trade?" Reply With Quote
May 7, 2017 | 08:49 49 The June live cattle contract typically runs at a $7/cwt discount to the actual cash this time of year. The summer beef market doldrums (post BBQ buying) is now combined to realization of a much bigger red meat supply ahead. USDA feedlot placement data has has been bigger-than-expected and somewhat bearish.

Cattle traders know the market is in a temporary cash market squeeze. Cash cattle trading at $145 to $147/cwt this past week is extrodinary, while offering fantastic profit margins for the unhedged feeder. PNW packers are now sourcing cattle in western Canada. But our cattle are quite green. Alberta live cash equivalent may be above $1.90/lb.

The June contract was discounted $15/cwt plus because of this unusual market situation.in my view, this was more a cash market squeeze than a futures market squeeze. But the June rally did trigger significant margins calls for hedgers as well. Many cattle hedgers moved out of short futures into put options to reduce risk. This strategy maintained their price protection.

Monday morning, the CME has hiked margin requirements. This might force more liquidation for both the longs and shorts in the market. Extreme futures market volatility may last for a few more days . . . . . Reply With Quote
May 7, 2017 | 11:05 50 Grassfarmer I don't have the data. I am not the one making definitive statements as if I did... From what I read, there is so many parts in a market that is crazy to think people have enough info to point fingers. When I started buying calves and having them custom fed, it changed my perspective quite a lot, in terms of how the industry and markets work. Can't even imagine what the packers and retail sectors really go through. But we all know they are bad, right? I was talking to a couple neighbours last year and when I said the feedlots were losing a pile of money last year, they just laughter and said good for them. Quite a screwed up perspective in my mind, to not want the next guy in the supply chain to make any money.

My only point was that complaining about things with out even considering the market factors going on, is not going to be helpful. Again markets go both ways. Producers are mad retail prices aren't coming down with beef.. Well they never went up nearly as much either, but that doesn't get mentioned.

The small traditional family farm has had it tough no doubt. I am one of them though. I have posted before how we don't have the fancy equipment, and our cows are scavengers for our forage enterprise. Started placing cattle partly for taxes, but have really enjoyed working those numbers, and that part of business. I am doing as well as I ever done with out a change in land base. Wish people would talk about solutions or things they control, much more productive. Instead of pointing fingers without even looking at the entire picture. There are some things that should have oversight, but do you think if they work on the list of things you outlined, it will save the family farm? Reply With Quote
May 7, 2017 | 11:19 51 I agree Errol, but not sure you want me agreeing with you! haha

As one producer posted on twitter, these basis levels have been a hedgers dream. That said now the pain of margin calls has been tough. I did take a small short position on some August fats just last week. Great profits in the cattle...now getting ready to buckle down for a wild ride! Reply With Quote
May 7, 2017 | 13:08 52
Quote Originally Posted by Cattleman View Post
Grassfarmer I don't have the data. I am not the one making definitive statements as if I did...
Well you sure framed it like you knew asking if I understood the fixed costs of the retailers and food service industry before going on to outline how their operating costs, labor and keeping the lights on were increasing quicker than their cattle buying price.

What I have never claimed to know is the split up of the profit margins beyond the farm gate through the commodity system ie the packer versus the retailer. That is an awfully well guarded secret that I would like to get to the bottom of.

I do know the spread between live cattle price on farm and retail as I've been doing that. That spread leaves a huge level of profitability even with my amateur efforts at retailing and paying through the nose for processing. When I say paying through the nose, I'm not getting at these small custom plant owners as they have an incredibly tough row to hoe, but paying through the nose relative to the deal the large packers get. First they get paid to move here (in the case of Cargill in AB) then getting ongoing subsidies to modernize their processing facility, taxpayer funds to "increase their efficiency" plus this sector gets a hand in designing the provincial regulations dealing with small and custom plants so they in effect also get to handicap their competitors. A long, long way from the "free enterprise" that western cattlemen generally believe in yet they largely allow it to go on without question.

It's a disgrace that successive Governments in this country have failed at the barest minimum to enforce the Competition laws at their disposal and in the process picked the winners and losers. Unfortunately the winners they picked are JBS and Cargill a Brazilian and US owned transnational corporations and the losers are all Canadian cattle producers. Reply With Quote
May 7, 2017 | 15:32 53 In terms of my question regarding knowing the cost, it was simply that we don't have the data, so how can we make any specific conclusions? In some things I had read about in the food service sector, there were other challenges in terms of overall costs, and it went way beyond the price of beef. Therefore, we are quick to judge or draw conclusions without really knowing the whole story. Everyone just jumps to blaming.

The big problem with the supply chain that I see is that it is all segregated and everyone is only concerned about their margins. They get their competitive advantage by doing things cheaper than the next guy and delivering beef, pork poultry, or whatever as cheap as they can, and this does not bode well for the primary producer. There are more of these other niche or attribute marketing chains, but after guys invest a pile of time into these supply chains, at the end of the day, it doesn't sound like their margins are all that lucrative anyway?

You have a bunch of other cans of worms there and I don't disagree with some of those. I was very surprised to hear last year when the Cargill Guelph plant got government funding for an expansion (i think it was for rendering or something??) yet Ontario prices were severely depressed and that plant was probably making very good margins. Reply With Quote
May 17, 2017 | 06:51 54 Did we just witness the highs of the North American cattle market for 2017?

Cattle board has been in a steady selloff of-late . . . . Reply With Quote
May 17, 2017 | 14:52 55 My guess the highs are in. But I might be a bit biased because I am short! Futures already have plenty of downside priced in. If August futures do get back to the 110 area, I will be buying back my positions.

Making margin calls would be a good scenario too though. Reply With Quote
May 30, 2017 | 09:58 56 From an explosive fat cattle market to 'how low can it go?' over the course of one (1) month.

Alberta fat bids appear in process of tumbling 25 to 30 cents/lb from early May.

Hogs prices and pork are the beneficiary as consumers now buck at the beef counter. Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2017 | 12:15 57 Has been pretty resilient. Lots of spunk today. I thought over 140 fats was certainly bonus territory, and not too far from that today! Summer market still to come, but heading into it in pretty good shape I think. Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2017 | 11:44 58 Volatility is the name-of-the-game. Texas and Kansas cash cattle bids rose $3 to $4/cwt this week, now heard around $136/cwt. Packers again near-term shortbought. Shortcovering also contributing to sharp weekly gains to the cattle board.

Alberta fats appeared heading below $1.70/lb early week, but that may have changed . . . . Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2017 | 16:04 59 Does anyone understand the indian ban on cattle for slaughter am I right in suggesting 15 to 20% of the worlds exportable cattle will be removed from the market?

It was to appease the hindu section of indian parliament and there are actually bans in many states in india already?

Shouldn't prices head further north? The void has to be filled or supplies will be short. Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2017 | 23:17 60
Quote Originally Posted by malleefarmer View Post
Does anyone understand the indian ban on cattle for slaughter am I right in suggesting 15 to 20% of the worlds exportable cattle will be removed from the market?

It was to appease the hindu section of indian parliament and there are actually bans in many states in india already?

Shouldn't prices head further north? The void has to be filled or supplies will be short.
Interesting. Heard they were a big exporter but banning it is quite something. Reply With Quote