More Beef Exported than Used in Australia - McDonalds

FAST food giant, McDonald’s, now exports more Australian beef than it uses in its 930 local restaurants.  quite amazing if you think about it

Andrew Gregory, chief executive officer of McDonald's Australia, said the company now exported 41 million kilograms of Australian beef a year, mainly for company use in the United States, South Korea and Japan.

On Tuesday McDonald’s released its new Rump Steak Range which uses rump strips in its ranges of wraps and salads.  Mr Gregory said high-quality, locally-sourced produce was one of the key ingredients in the company’s Australian success story.

He told the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) Congress in Canberra that the company had listened to its customers who wanted more transparency about what was in McDonald’s food and where and how it was produced - and they were interested in animal welfare and sustainability. Mr Gregory said the company wanted to buy its beef from sustainable production systems but was committed to working with producers to accurately define what “sustainable” meant.

McDonald’s had now set out to dispel some of the myths about its foods, including fears its milk shakes contained pig fat and the apple filling in its pies contained chokos.  McDonald’s had opened new online and digital communication channels including the mobile app, Track My Macca’s, and the online tool, Our Food, Your Questions, so customers could ask tough questions about the food they were eating and get information about where it was grown.

Mr Gregory said the company was continuing to innovate, including a new concept in the Sydney suburb of Castle Hill where customers could custom make their own hamburgers using 19 ingredients.

McDonald’s employs 100,000 people across Australia, many of them young workers, as well as many in the mature age group. 

[ adapted from an article in Qld Countrylife on line] 

Updates for Pasturefed Cattle Assurance Scheme

Changes have been made to the Pasturefed Cattle Assurance System standards and rules, making it easier for beef producers to participate in the certification program.

Since its launch in April of 2013 more than 200 certified producers have become pasture-fed certified and many more are undertaking on-farm audits to prove claims their beef is pasture or grass raised and also to meet optional additional modules of antibiotic-free and GMO-free.

Teys Australia [ in SE Queensland], which had been the first processor to commit to the program, is now offering a 70 cents a kilogram premium for eligible cattle above the Meat Standards Australia grid price for August delivery - and has just extended its premium to 10c/kg for non-MSA grade cattle.

PCAS coordinator Lisa Cotter said it had been a great first year. Producers who had been early adopters were reaping the benefits of sometimes more than $200 a steer above MSA prices.

The Cattle Council of Australia - which had developed the program - had recently reviewed the standards and rules in line with United States Department of Agriculture updates with which the certification scheme was closely aligned, with experience from the first 12 months of the program.  Given the surge in Australian beef exports to the US this is a great plus, allowing marketing entry to claiming grass fed stature – quite a marketing plus - in the US retail market.

There were three objectives going forward in the program.

1 .   Standards need to evolve over time while still ensuring they still meet the market requirements

2       They need to be practical at the producer level and after the first year, some changes could be made to better meet this need  whilst maintaining the integrity of the program  

3        They must continue to reflect the international standards.

Standards and rules now clearly stated that the use of anthelmintics such as Ivermectin for the control of internal parasites was permissible [that is a big plus and definitely acceptable].  All topical treatments such as pinkeye ointments and back-liners were permissible to also meet the antibiotic-free module.

One of the major changes was in how life time traceability of cattle was achieved and defined.

The NLIS database was no longer the sole method to demonstrate lifetime traceability, taking into account many properties running sophisticated on-farm databases eg Practical Systems Stockbook software.

Producers must continue to show they are meeting their legal requirements of moving cattle on-and-off the NLIS database, but for example if a breeder who never trades cattle but had a ghost mob where a few animals had not been transferred, or where there were a couple of animals had tags fallen out, there can be problems.

Animals which lost their NLIS button could now still be classified as PCAS eligible if producers could prove it complied, through other management systems.

PCAS had no restrictions on producers yard-weaning their calves, with the guidelines only stipulating that animals must not be confined for more than 20 days each year.

Cereal grain at weaning is not permitted and has been an issue for some beef producers, but a lot of producers have been able to supplement by feeding hay, silage and cotton seed or canola meal, or a supplement mineral mix, depending on what is the most applicable for their business, to overcome weaning stress while maintaining certification.

A few producers have committed to the program in the NT, but with the live export market so buoyant, numbers moving to abattoirs have been low.  The program offers some real potential for the NT and indeed the whole northern cattle industry, by capitalising on the consumer demand for grass fed beef, especially if a premium price can be realised for the effort..

Every dollar helps producer viability and this option can add some dollars at sale time for stock going to an abattoir.

As consultants to industry we can assist with producers achieving these Pasturefed Cattle Assurance quality standards.

Australia's Northern Beef Industry - Maybe Unsustainable??

A recent analysis seems to be proposing that the northern Australian beef industry is unsustainable financially.

What it does not seem to say though, is that the analysis was focussed on the almost worst period in many years for the region - somewhat akin to the shock of the US stopping the purchase of northern beef in the mid 1970s, when a lot of properties went to the wall.  This period is the same as the dramatic drop in live cattle exports to Asia, especially Indonesia, a trade dramatically stopped by the government of Australia on animal cruelty grounds [arguable, at best].

NT brahman cattle for export

Since the conclusion of the report, prices and volumes have increased rapidly and are now at around A$2.30 per kg live and numbers are on track for maybe 800 000 head this year to Indonesia alone, and with new markets opening in Vietnam and China, although prices may be a bit lower.

It is all doom and gloom........BUT - a few critical points emerge from the study, one being that a herd size of 3000 head is seen as the minimum.

Read the summary below, and available on the MLA web site, as is the full report.

The Northern beef report - 2013 Northern beef situation analysis

Project code: 

B.COM.0348

Date commenced: 

June 26, 2013

End date: 

April 11, 2014

Project status: 

Completed

Description/Abstract:

The 2013 Northern Beef Report comprehensively details the performance of the northern beef industry, by region, market and herd size over the 12 years since the start of the century. On average, the profits achieved over that time frame have been low, but not trending down. However the profitability of the top performers across the industry has been trending down over the period analysed. Profit after interest is decreasing, and is mostly negative, as a result of increasing debt with no increase in profits. The majority of Northern Beef producers are not economically sustainable as they are not able to fund present and future liabilities. There is wide variation in performance across the industry; this report clearly identifies what separates the top performers and what factors determine the profitability of a beef business. This report provides analysis of a wide range of measures, providing the means for individual producers to understand their herd and business performance and to improve by setting realistic targets.

Final report summary:

• This report analyses in detail the performance of the northern beef industry for the 12 years from 2001 to 2012. Incorporating quality private and public data, this report provides a comprehensive picture of the performance of the northern beef industry by region, herd size and market.
• This report incorporates the concept of economic sustainability; clear definitions are provided and used to assess industry performance.
• On the basis of these definitions, the data indicates that the majority of northern beef businesses are not economically sustainable at present. This is not a recent phenomenon, with recent average business performance, before financing, similar to longer term averages.
• Economic sustainability takes a longer term view; in the short term many beef businesses are struggling to survive with cash deficits accumulating.
• Whilst profits before financing are largely unchanged (on average over the 12 year period analysed), after financing, performance is deteriorating due to increased debt with no increase in profit.
• Income has decreased over the period analysed, mostly a function of declining beef prices rather than a decline in productivity (kg beef/AE). Costs have reduced as income has reduced, through belt tightening, and improved labour efficiency, resulting in little change in profits.
• Profitability of the top performers has declined over the longer term, suggesting that industry profitability is decreasing.
• Excluding land value changes, return on assets has averaged less than 1% across the industry over the last 3 and 12 years.
• Comparison of profitability is made between businesses that supply different markets, namely live export, slaughter and store. When the effect of scale is excluded, producers primarily supplying the slaughter market recorded the highest profit per adult equivalent, due primarily to better productivity.
• Both total numbers of cattle in the north and stocking rates have risen, what these stocking rates are relative to carrying capacity is unknown. The extent to which environmental capital is substituting for financial capital is also unknown.
• There is considerable variation in performance between beef businesses within the industry. The Top 25% performers (across all regions, herd sizes and markets) consistently outperform the average and have businesses more likely to be economically sustainable over the long term. This indicates that there are successful business models for producing beef in northern Australia.
• The superior performance of Top 25% producers can be attributed to:
o Higher income through better herd productivity.
o Lower operating expenses, largely through better labour efficiency.
• There is no evidence that superior long term performance can be attributed to a higher average beef price received, more rainfall or better quality land.
• Operating scale (number of adult equivalents under management) has a significant influence on business performance. Operating scale, along with labour efficiency, can explain most of the differences in overhead expenses per AE between businesses.
• Lack of operating scale is a major impediment for smaller beef businesses (less than 3,000 adult equivalents), but the benefits of additional scale for larger businesses are limited with herd profits decreasing as herd sizes become very large. There appears to be an optimal operating scale range, either side of which different factors can erode performance.
• It is paramount that smaller producers understand the implications of operating scale on their viability and how best to address to it. There is mounting financial pressure for smaller producers to make structural changes to their business.
• Efficient use of labour is a key finding amongst producers in the Top 25%. Labour costs and achieving a highly efficient use of on-farm labour is a challenge that the industry must understand and work towards.
• There is no evidence of expense increases over the period analysed, this is not to say that some input costs have not increased in real terms, but any increases have been absorbed and the overall cost structure of businesses has not increased.
• Differences in income explain more of the differences in profit between average and Top 25% performers than expenses. Nearly all differences in income per AE between herds are attributable to productivity differences.
• Nearly all productivity differences between herds can be attributed to the better performers achieving:
o Higher reproductive rates
o Lower mortality rates
o Heavier sale weights
• The findings of this report now make it possible to construct a very clear roadmap for economic sustainability for a northern beef business, embracing both location and target market. This roadmap provides clear guidelines on factors critical to income (productivity) and expenses (scale & labour efficiency).
• This analysis is consistent with other recent and more targeted studies of herd productivity (reproduction and mortality). This analysis also finds wide variation between businesses in these measures of herd productivity and report that improvements in herd productivity have a big influence on overall business performance.
• There is wide variation across the industry in what it costs to produce a kilogram of beef (cost of production) and this analysis shows that there is significant scope for improvement for a lot of producers. There is far less variation in beef price received and much less scope for individual producers to improve beef price received. Therefore it could be said that it is the high cost of production that is the main cause of low profits for the majority of northern beef producers.

Researcher name:

Bush AgriBusiness Pty Ltd, Holmes & Co.   

Brazil - Compatriot of North Australia?

A recent article on the ABC web site about Brazil opens up some ideas about synergies between northern Australia and Brazil.


products of Brazil

The article is here - http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4768336.html .

Climatically, much of Northern Australia and Brazil are similar, especially the northern parts of Brazil, and the more southern area are maybe more similar to SE Queensland, as broad generalisations. 

Brazil agriculture

It is not without some strong parallels, that the Embraer aircraft of Brazil are well represented in commercial RPT fleets across north Australia, with Air North a significant operator of the aircraft - they are operationally designed to better suit tropical operational areas, and operate in remote and less technologically able areas; they are good aircraft.

The Brazilian mining giants including Vale are rapidly digging iron ore holes in Brazil, along with some in Australia, and looking at other mineral operations as well.  They are major competitors to Australian companies such as BHP Billiton and Rio, as well as Xstrata [ now Glencore] in international markets as well as emerging mining countries, eg Africa.

Both Australia and Brazil, are sized similarly, with large parts of the areas in the tropics.  Brazil is certainly a major cattle producer, even if less proportionally is exported than Australia, and disease issues also restrict options for export.  It would be a worry for Australian beef exports, boxed or live, if Brazil [as well as Argentina] ever got their act together and that region emerged as a serious, long term competitor.  They might in relation to China, still.

Australia's abattoirs have significant involvement by JBS, the Brazilian company that is probably the wold's biggest meat processing business.

There is a huge agribusiness system operating in Brazil, and Nufarm [ Australia's home grown agrochemical and seed company] is operating widely in Brazil.  It is likely that the r and D coming from Brazil in relation to variety development [ peanut,soybean, corn, sorghum etc],  seed technology may be applicable in Australia, or at least adaptable, and home grown technology including precision agriculture and controlled traffic systems are certainly of widening interest in Brazil and Argentina.

Socially the Brazilian economy is less endowed with support systems such as operate in Australia - with our social support, welfare and medical [ Medicare system] good examples where the Australian people are much better supported.

Should Australia, and north Australia especially, be seeking to improve and develop major interaction with Brazil?  Surely knowing much more about a competitor is useful.  It is true some activity is occurring, but increasing the tempo of those interactions might be considered a very smart option.

Indonesia To Allow More Boxed Beef and Live Cattle

Well, yes, they have made the announcement, with some restrictions.

Boxed beef must be flown in to Jakarta, Bali or Medan - not shipped, but it appears that there will be no restrictions on the amounts of higher quality beef cuts that can be brought in this way.  No mention of other beef cuts though.  And the third quarter live cattle numbers have been brought forward to the month of June. 

This might seem a good start, but industry players are being very cautious.

Some say the issues with boxed beef involve organisation and access to the volumes needed [which I mentioned yesterday], and right now, a lack of clarity about the operation of the process.  This latter issue may well improve over the next few weeks.

The live cattle trade will be harder to organise and supply, as mobilising the required vessels and cattle will be much more difficult.  It also seems to ignore the fact that once shipped and after arrival in Indonesia, the animals will need to grow to a reasonable size before slaughter. Peak demand period is for post Ramadan Idul Fitri holidays, with day 1 on 8 August, and the Public Holiday on Friday the 9th.  National Day is 17 August.  It will be difficult to get animals shipped and grown before then. 

In reality, 30 -45 days growth in feedlots in Indonesia is a realistic consideration.  Some will remain longer, obviously, but the beef gap is now, and will be ongoing until numbers build up again, if that is possible.  Will they remove the current live weight maximum of 350kg or even increase it a little?

Nothing has been indicated by Indonesian authorities so far about ongoing live cattle exports in the latter part of the year.

Yes, there is some cautious optimism, but this is but a very small step forward.

More information is expected over the next few days and weeks.

Some news articles are around as well - see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-28/indonesia-to-increase-live-cattle-imports/4716384 and here

http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/livestock/cattle-beef/indonesia-increases-australian-beef-imports/2659173.aspx?storypage=0 

Both articles are very short of any detail.
 

More Live Cattle or More Boxed Beef for Indonesia - Confusion??

The more things change, the more they remain the same in the ongoing beef availability saga in Indonesia.

While some speak about a 35% gap between supply and demand [ as reported in the Jakarta Post over the weekend] many official positions are saying is is much less, maybe 10%.

However you adjust the data to suit the needs of various players, the nitty gtitty is that beef prices are up a massive 50- 60% over the past year, pretty well since live cattle imports from Australia were heavily restricted by Indonesian authorities from 2012.

There have been media leaks that there will be an increase in live cattle imports, but the reality is that this cannot allow adequate time for the animals to grow to a respectable market size and weight in the period up to Idul Fitri the post Ramadan holiday period - even if they were shipped now.  Shipping will not happen that quickly, even thouh adequate supply is believed to be available.  It takes time to organise the logistics of the exercise.

cattle loading on the wharf

More likely is that extra boxed beef import licences will be issued.  Maybe with live cattle to come as well.  But the boxed beef will allow quick supply if available from either Australia, or elsewhere.

Indonesians buyers might find this a bit tough as well, given the major increases seen in boxed beef supply to China over the past 5 months from Australia. 

Indonesia - do not expect cheap beef as an easy way out of the suppy and cost dilema that is emerging rapidly in the country.

As far as is known, there are no decisions YET.  There is in-fighting between Trade and Agriculture ministeries in Indonesia over the issue, and hopefully a face saving solution will appear soon.

As a suggestion - check out the Jakarta Post online, in English.  It is possible the news may be there first! - www.thejakartapost.com is the web site.

A decsion has to happen soon or there might be a lot more rabble rousing in Jakarta, especially, over beef prices.  It has happened already in 2012 and 2013.

Indonesia to Revise Beef Imports Up - Rumours or Fact?

It has been around the media for a day or so now but the concept as discussed in the media does have some advocates and could be a way forward politically for Indonesia and allow some "face keeping".

That last point is an important issue in Indonesia.

Politically the issue of beef prices is a thorny one, as they have risen considerably, some say astronomically, with major impact on less well off Indonesians, especially those around Jakarta.

The scenario seems to run along lines that the Agriculture minister will be sacked as part of a ministerial reshuffle, with his demise associated with some shady deals concerning possible bribery over beef import quotas.  As part of this adjustment, new import quotas for the second half of 2013 will be developed and would likely be larger to meet surging demand for beef and hopefully reduce local prices.  This might have a flow on to Presidential politics in indonesia, with an election due in 2014. [SBY cannot run though].

The NT could quickly move to supply appropriate animals, as it is believed around 600,000 animals are available locally that are suitable for live export.  However, Australian players in the industry are being extremely coy over the entire issue - and justifiably so.

The new slaughter arrangements are mostly in place, so humane slaughter is possible, meeting most of the issues raised about the initial dramas over live export of cattle to Indonesia.

There is more on the topic here: http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/cattle/beef/indo-may-lift-cattle-quotas/2654453.aspx?storypage=0

and here:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/04/16/suswono-may-be-fired.html

but I expect this story will develop over the next few days or weeks.

No one locally is yet cracking a beer or three.........but the deal has all the hallmarks of a workable scenario for various reasons, not least of which is the ability for Indonesia to save face over the deal.

Indonesian Live Cattle trade - A Bubbling Cauldron

 

A few weeks back the article below appeared in the paper edition of the English language newspaper in Jakarta, The Jakarta Post.  Today it was part of the Queensland Country Life electronic newsletter

Comment has been significant, to both.

It is seen by many sectors as a reasonable comment on the situation.  Almost irrepairable damage has been done to the Australian live export trade, as well as significant damage to the lot feed operations which have been so sucessful around west Java, using often waste or residual horticultural materials.

The damage to the cattle trade is having major ramifications for property prices and financial difficulties including bank foreclosures on cattle stations in the north of Australia.  Awful outcomes.  And yet there seems to be blissful disregard in Australian government areas, pandering as they were to the radical fringes of the animal activists in Australia.  Bad practices there may have been, but is it us as holier than thou outsiders that have a right to dictate another countries slaughter practices using a blunt instrument, rather than more considered methods that did seem to be achieving change?.

Read the original article, now a few weeks old.
---------------------

Indonesian people victims of war on Australia’s live-cattle export trade

Ross Taylor, Perth, Western Australia | Opinion | Thu, February 28 2013, 11:35 AM

Paper Edition | Page: 6

One of Australia’s most respected and insightful Buddhist leaders, Abbot Ajhan Brahm, once said that the problem with seeking revenge is that you become a “victim of your own war”, in that you can often suffer as much “damage” as the person to whom you are directing your revenge.

It was good advice and something we all, at sometime, have been guilty of intentionally forgetting.

It is also advice that is ironic given that Ajhan Brahm is highly admired and respected in Indonesia, where he holds many seminars and retreats, at a time when Indonesia’s agricultural officials are seeking and carrying-out revenge on Australia’s cattle industry for our appalling handling of the live-cattle export crisis in 2011.

As the Indonesian government recently announced further reductions in the quota for live-cattle from Australia, the cattle industry in Australia continues to slip further into despair with numerous stations now up for sale.

David Farley, managing director of Australian Agricultural Company (AAC) said recently that the reduction in quotas by Indonesia would result in even greater bankruptcies and job losses for an industry already in serious trouble following our government’s impulsive decision to ban the export of live cattle to Indonesia.

The impact of these latest cuts will be dramatic. Prior to the cattle ban being imposed last year, Australia exported in excess of 520,000 head-of-cattle to Indonesia annually. This year the revised annual quota will be reduced to just 230,000.

Notwithstanding the appalling treatment of these animals, Indonesia had every right to feel aggrieved over the handling of this issue. Beef makes up a very important part of the Indonesian diet, and to have the Australian agriculture minister announce a total ban on the export of live-cattle to Indonesia without any consultation with our near neighbor sent shock waves through the entire supply chain and left Indonesian officials and ministers embarrassed and seething.

It also played into the hands of “special interest groups” within Indonesia who have, for many years, looked for a valid reason to kick Australian suppliers out of the lucrative Indonesian meat market.
As a result, Indonesia announced that it intended to become “self sufficient” in live-cattle that can be used for slaughter. This maybe a noble objective but it is also not achievable, and nor is it sensible.

Indonesia has some of the finest horticulture land in the world; rich soils with plenty of rainfall along with warm and humid conditions that allows its people to grow a huge variety of crops and effectively become Asia’s food bowl.

It does not make any sense to turn over pristine food growing land for the purpose of breeding cattle. Those in the cattle industry have known for years that, as the outgoing Western Australia trade director, Martin Newbery said last month, “Australians are the best cattle breeders and Indonesians, the best cattle feeders.” He is right.

For this reason, to have cattle bred in Australia, where we have the land, infrastructure and expertise, then export them to Indonesia where they are placed in feedlots and “bulked-up” not only makes sense, it is almost the prefect supply chain structure whereby all parties win.

The Australian live-cattle trade should be booming on the back of Indonesia’s strong economy and population growth, with the industry being used as a model for the development of other major agricultural partnerships between Australia and Indonesia.

Instead, we now have a relationship that is untrustworthy and fractured, where Indonesia seeks to “payback” Australia for what it did to a trusted friend, whilst simultaneously harming its own supply network and inflicting shortages and increased prices on its own community.

The price of beef at the “wet markets” within Indonesia has effectively doubled since the quota reductions in Australian beef as Indonesia struggles to meet demand from its internal supplies and the black market is booming.

So why does Indonesia now want to reduce the quota of Australian cattle even further?

The answer is complicated but includes Indonesia’s desire to be self-sufficient in beef supply and thus ensure Australia can never again hold Indonesia to ransom by cutting-off a major food supply source without warning.

But there are other more darker reasons behind Indonesia’s actions, including self-interest groups seeking to make enormous profits from such a ban, the rise of nationalism and a distrust in some quarters of Australia’s agenda in developing the much lauded Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) that will provide both countries opportunities to develop far greater business and trade opportunities.

What is even more disturbing however, is that Australia’s agriculture minister, Joe Ludwig, seems helpless in addressing this progression into mutual economic self-harm at a time when Indonesia-Australia government relations are said to be at an all time high.

Here in Indonesia, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) is nearing the end of his term. This is unfortunate timing for both countries as SBY has a deep and warm respect for Australia, but internally, many Indonesians view SBY as a president who has already “run his race” and perhaps what we are now seeing is a small taste of things to come as Indonesia heads towards electing a new president in 2014.

There exists significant opportunities for our two countries to work together to build extensive and mutually beneficial partnerships as we move into “The Asian Century”.

The live-cattle export industry should have been an example of how we can develop these partnerships, yet sadly this industry has become an example of what can go terribly wrong when international diplomacy is conducted “on the run” by a minister who had little understanding of Indonesia or the extent of the long term opportunities that would be lost as a consequence his impulsive decisions.

Meanwhile, Indonesia continues to remind Australia about what it did and to seek revenge for the shabby treatment from its neighbor; even if this means higher prices and shortages for its own people.

This is one trade outcome where everyone loses. [ my italics and bold]

The writer is chairman of the Western Australia-based Indonesia Institute (Inc) and a former national vice president of the Australia-Indonesia Business Council.

Increases in Aussie Beef to China

While the export of live cattle to indonesia and even elsewhere is slowing [ and it is the wet season too], there are some very significant increases occurring in sales of Australian beef to China.

Probably more importantly, it is in less expensive cuts, and not necessarily in the highest priced cuts eg scotch fillet or rump steak which often dominate boxed beef often sold to Asian markets.

It augurs well for potential sales from new abbattoirs in north Australia, especially the one near Darwin, which will hope to process some animals that may have gone to Indonesia.

China is showing an appetite for Australian beef that is rivaling its desire for our mineral resources.
A surge in exports to the Asian giant in the first two months of 2013 on the back of spectacular growth last year is causing Meat and Livestock Australia to step up promotion of our red meat products, mainly through the food service and restaurant trade,  and beyond Beijing and Shanghai to other lesser know cities here in Australia such as Tianjin, Hangzou and Shenzen.  MLA marketing manager Micheael Edmonds said China's beef buying patterns were beginning to show real promise for Australian exporters, who are still struggling to lift volumes in the sluggish Japanese and Korean markets.   "There's been a lot of talk about the opportunities in Asia but now we're really starting to see significant growth and some runs being put on the board," Mr Edmonds said.  "We saw it over 2011 and 2012 where China was without a doubt the shining light in the Asian region. "And there are opportunities at both ends of the market for both grass-fed and grain-fed product, with manufacturing beef and shin-shank filling the bulk commodity cuts and significant movements of brisket, once traditionally bound for Japan, now heading to China where they are fetching better prices."
Data released by MLA last Friday shows China flexing its buying muscle in February, with beef exports estimated to go close to exceeding the 10,000 tonne shipped weight mark by the end of this past week.

The MLA forecast for 2013 was 35,000 tonnes, but this could easily be exceeded based on current sales.   MLA chief economist Tim McRae said the growth was even more extraordinary given that prior to last year, which saw 32,900 tonnes exported, the largest calendar year total to China was only 7200 tonnes.

AAco had been making noises about a surge in sales to China, prior to the finalisation of the plans for the local processing facilities, and they may well be correct.

BUT....... could we also see the fickle nature of big sales to China, similar to mineral sales.  Or will they produce enough red meat, both beef and lamb, from land purchased in Australia by sovereign companies, bypassing any Australian profit, in a type of vertical integration system??