Must read material

[ALLFARMER]

Gary Jarvis tells it like it is in his market report!

http://www.triplejlivestock.com/site/index.asp?id=57

[grassfarmer]

Lots of truths in there for sure. It's another scheme to throw money at the problem in the way of short term cashflow for the eligible producers while totally failing to address the real causes of our problems. Not much we can do but milk the system and wait for things to improve. As the guy says yet another chance gone, to have built the plants we are still only talking about.
If only the politicians had the spine to stand up to the corporations. Compared to the what? $300 or $400 they have stolen on every animal slaughtered in the last year $200 on 40% isn't going to replace much lost income.

[pandiana]

As usual, more questions than answers. Once again there appears to be a real problem with administering the calf set-aside program.

Just one example, a rather poor doing April or May born heifer calf that weighed 400 or 500 lbs in October will be 16 or 17 months old by October 2005. Even if gain was controlled at 2 - 2.5 lbs a day, this heifer calf would weigh 1130 to 1400 lbs by October 2005. Would they be appropriately finished at this rate of gain for traditional feedlots to be competitive? This would heavily favor grass fed late born calves as pointed out in the first thread.

As the $200 dollars (less cost of tag) was not intended to cover extra feed for one year, what is it intended to do? Would we make up the additional feed costs in a buyers market October 2005?

Will feedlots who buy these tagged calves have to feed them separately to control gain in order to finish by the target date?

Will feedlots pay $200 less for tagged calves because of the restrictions?

What will happen October 2005 when 40% of set-aside herd comes to market at the more or less the same time? I assume that the 40% number was a reflection of what the kill capacity was supposed to increase by tham time but what if...?

[grassfarmer]

Pandiana, I think that you are overstating the gains people are achieving on their calves. Everyone quotes what the good calves do and assume the national herd achieves that. If you have a "poor calf" born May 1st weighing 500lbs on October 1st it's not a poor calf in my mind as it has grown at 2.8lbs a day after deducting an 80lb birthweight. I think there are many cowherds where the calf growth will not hit 2lb a day as they run out of grass around midsummer. Where did all the 5 weight calves I saw being sold in Innisfail in February come from? they weren't summer calves either as many had frozen ears.
I don't think the program is meant to feed the calf for a year - more bribe the owner to take a chance he wouldn't take otherwise by retaining ownership beyond this fall to prevent a total collapse. Yes I think the feedlots will try and discount tagged calves - especially bigger tagged calves. They don't really need to penalise smaller ones but they will try and grab some of this money too. Whether feedlots will succeed in discounting big tagged calves by more than $200 is a concern. Up to that point you are still ahead by participating in the scheme.
My biggest fear is that next October the packers with expanded kill capacity, a closed US border and none (or only a few) of the proposed new plants up and running will drop the fat price - they only need to drop it 6c/lb accross the entire kill to pocket the entire calf set aside funding.

[pandiana]

Actually grassfarmer, I should have said an April calf weigh 500 lbs or May calf weighing 400 lbs or their abouts.