Harlan Hughes

[cowman]

In the last edition of the "Cattlemen" Harlan Hughes had an article "Earned net income equals profit". The article dealt with the American cattleman and the average earned net income was $190 US per cow.
He pegged the average cost per cow at $447 US which would work out to $558.75 Canadian. He calculated the price at $113.41 US/ $1.42 Canadian and the weight per calf at 588 lb. or $835 Canadian per calf.
Now consider our numbers? If we assume we have similar costs, the fact is we probably aren't making that $237 ($190 X 1.25) profit?
If we were realizing $237 profit per cow we would be fairly happy? Some of Harlans figures are a little bit suspect, in my opinion, but the basic message of the article is you can tweak a lot of things to make a profit? However no matter how efficient or cost conscious one might be it is difficult to generate any profit when calves are selling at a price that barely covers costs!
I do agree with Hughes contention that the only way profits can be generated is through a high percentage calf crop and high pounds weaned/female exposed? However he fails to mention much about price recieved versus actual costs and he also fails to mention that US protectionist policy has virtually assured Canadian producers can not generate a profit...no matter how efficient they are!
Maybe it is time the Cattlemen magazine gave up on Harlan and started getting articles written by Canadians that make sense in our "reality", instead of how things are in Montana?

[farmers_son]

Harlen’s message is designed for the American producer. Harlen Hughes has a knack of presenting numbers to grass roots producers in a way they accept. I believe Harlen takes quite a bit of poetic licence with the numbers in order to achieve that end. He is not giving a lesson in economics as much as trying to get a basic message across to U.S. producers who more often than not are not very sophisticated and could be described as not the sharpest tool in the shed. Harlen’s numbers are very suspect in my opinion too but I believe he takes the view that some of these U.S. producers would not accept the right numbers so rather than have producers ignore his important bottom line message he tells the story in a manner those guys south of the line can understand.

Trying to present facts and figures, reason and logic to a North Dakota or Montana beef producer could only be described as an exercise in futility.

[smcgrath76]

Appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think several of us canucks should feel left out on not looking at/understanding the numbers.
Basic message I agree is pretty close to the truth. It is perhaps a little bit overstated in terms of dumping everything in the good years and buying back in the poor years (Revenue Canada buggers up that plan and so do many lenders).