news-record.com

NEWS

Beef prices likely to rise over the next 2 years

Thursday, February 9, 2012
(Updated 1:23 pm)

LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) — The smallest cattle herd since the 1950s likely will mean higher beef prices at the supermarket for the next two years.

Experts said beef prices could climb as much as 10 percent a year in 2012 and 2013, and the increase could be even greater if demand from other countries increases.

Those higher prices would follow steady increases that have seen the average retail cost of a pound of hamburger rise 23 percent, from $2.38 in December 2010 to $2.92 last December, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Last month the USDA reported the U.S. herd had declined to 90.8 million cattle, 2 percent less than the previous year and the lowest inventory since 1952, when there were 88.1 million.

"We're producing less beef so prices are going to go up," Texas AgriLife Extension Service livestock economist David Anderson said.

Ranchers have sold more of their cattle in recent years to meet increased costs for feed, fuel and other expenses. The soaring feed costs come amid heightened demand for corn to produce ethanol and to meet a growing export market.

The situation has been worst in Texas, the nation's leading cattle producer, and other parts of the southern plains and southwest, where a record drought caused pastures to wither, leaving ranchers with few options but to sell their cattle or pay top-dollar for feed.

There are 1.4 million fewer cattle — a record 660,000 of those cows — in Texas this year compared with the previous year, accounting for about 74 percent of the drop in numbers nationally. The animals were either moved to another state or were slaughtered.

Texas still leads the nation with 11.9 million head of cattle and calves, an 11 percent drop from last January. Cattle numbers plunged 12 percent in Oklahoma, to 4.5 million head, and in New Mexico by 10 percent, to 1.39 million head.

While cattle numbers dropped in those states, they have climbed elsewhere, especially in the Northern Plains where more rain led to plentiful pastureland.

Even in the southwest, there has been some good news, as the USDA reports that producers held onto more heifers, or young cows, than some expected. The January report showed a 1 percent increase over last year's number of heifers retained.

That could put the industry in position to grow the herd more quickly

Until the cattle supply increases, consumers will see higher prices, said Lane Broadbent, a livestock analyst with KIS Futures in Oklahoma City.

Broadbent said worldwide demand for U.S. beef also could increase in the next couple of years, causing prices to stay steady or rise even if the herd size grows as expected.

"An era of cheap meat might not happen for another two to three years," Broadbent said. "It's basically supply and demand, and this USDA report showed that our supplies are going to increase."

USDA livestock analyst Shayle Shagam said producers who see good prices at auction might still sell off their heifers. Ranchers must weigh whether they'll come out ahead by selling those heifers in coming months or hang onto them and sell the calves from the animals.

"There's potential for increased retention," Shagam said. "How that evolves during the year will depend on these producer decisions."

The cattle industry has for decades gone through cycles of expansion and contraction. The U.S. herd typically grows for about 10 years before supplies increase to a point where cattle and beef prices begin to drop. That's when ranchers begin to sell off their animals and the contraction begins.

"This is free enterprise," Texas AgriLife Extension Service economist Stephen Amosson said. "Everything goes to the bottom line. If they'd be making a bunch of money they would have been expanding before this."

Starting in the 1980s and through the 1990s the cycles were influenced by a shift in demand, which brought about big declines in cattle numbers. During that time people began to eat more chicken when the meat started showing up as nuggets, wings and in forms other than whole chickens, Anderson, the economist, said.

The USDA projects per capita beef consumption will drop to 55.7 pounds in 2013 before climbing to 58.9 pounds in 2020. Meanwhile per capita consumption of chicken was forecast to increase throughout the decade, with 2020 showing 91.5 pounds.

Richard Thorpe, a rancher in Winters, about 200 miles southwest of Fort Worth, culled more than 75 percent of his 1,000-head herd because of drought. He plans to slowly rebuild with the animals he kept, and is optimistic now that the long drought is finally over.

"We've kept the youngest, best and most fertile," said Winters. "We have a lot of hope we are through with this horrible drought. What makes it scary to us is we have to have spring grass."

 

Accompanying Photos

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

d_random

February 9, 2012 - 10:59 am EST

Beef is subsidized by 70% by the government (the tax payer). So prices on beef are actually very high in reality.

The Farm Bill provides billions of dollars in subsidies to livestock agribusiness, meanwhile fruit and vegetable farmers receive less than 1 percent of government subsidies.

More info here: http://www.pcrm.org/good-medicine/2007/autumn/health-vs-pork-congress-de...

The_Doctor

February 9, 2012 - 1:00 pm EST

I wish I got a subsidy. Even a small one would be nice. Obama is bribing every possible constituency group he can, but as usual, I'm one of the only people left out. I despise Mr. Obama about equally as much as I despised Bush, but even I would possibly vote for him if he'd just send a little bit of that "Obama Money" my way.

r u serious

February 9, 2012 - 12:06 pm EST

This isn't new. Beef prices have been going up the past 2 years.

The_Doctor

February 9, 2012 - 12:57 pm EST

Don't worry about anything. The Wizard of Ozbama routinely tells us that our perception of inflation is just plain wrong. There is NO inflation problem, and they have the statistics to prove it....as long as you factor out the spiraling prices of major things like food, clothing, and energy costs.

The unemployment rate is falling as well. Just don't look behind the curtain, otherwise you'll notice that the statistical drop is mostly from people abandoning the workforce altogether (because they are no longer considered "unemployed" under the U3 formula).

And as a side note to the Obama's Koolaid drinkers: despite your propensity to see all criticism as some kind of Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, my criticism is not tantamount to an endorsement of any Republican candidate. For the record, I'm a Democrat, and we still live in a constitutional republic (at least for the time being), and I'll criticize your Idol as much as I please.

I voted for that mountebank Obama in 2008, but only as a lesser of two evils. This year, I intend to vote for Richard Nixon. At least he's dead and can't tell any more lies or do any more harm. All the living candidates are unacceptable. All of them, including your Obama.

proc219

February 9, 2012 - 1:28 pm EST

why must everything in the world be blamed on obama everyone knows this world was screwed up long before obama got into office. I guess if it snowed in july that would be his fault too.

The_Doctor

February 9, 2012 - 5:55 pm EST

I did not claim that it was "Obama's fault" that we have an inflation problem. Re-read my post. Nowhere did I lay it on Obama's doorstep. I pointed out that he and his administration are spinning the inflation issue to the point where I believe he is disingenuous and deceptive. His monetary policies haven't helped, but he is far from the only cause of inflation and rising consumer prices. I also maintain that he/they are falsely claiming a significant improvement in the unemployment situation when that is far from the whole truth.

I recall plenty of people who blamed Bush for everything when it was his administration telling us that all was well, and a lot of people still do. Perhaps you are one of them, but I hope you also got exasperated when folks blamed Bush for everything under the sun. Otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

As for me, I criticize them all. Democrat, Republican, it makes no difference to me. All you hardcore partisans are blind in one eye, depending on your "side." Conservative/Republican partisans tend to be blind in the Right eye, while liberal/Democrat partisans tend to be blind in the Left eye.

It's an election year and Obama's already laying it on thick these days, and I'm not buying it.

The_Doctor

February 9, 2012 - 5:56 pm EST

This article was

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search