News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 Cattle 
 Don't blame levies for beef economics, says MLA 

Don't blame levies for beef economics, says MLA

05 Feb, 2010 10:06 AM
THE beef industry trends that Bindaree Beef and its supporters say are evidence that the levy system has failed can be seen in most commodities across most developed countries, MLA economist Peter Weeks says.

An economic constant is that as productivity climbs, the cost of goods tends to fall. That trend is at work in most agricultural commodities, including beef, albeit with complicating factors.

For instance, flat real returns to beef producers across the past two decades are in contrast to significant climbs in returns to lamb and mutton producers.

The confounding factor here, Mr Weeks said, is that sheepmeat production has traditionally been a by-product of wool production, which has been in decline, leading to a fall in sheep flock numbers in key sheepmeat-eating regions including Europe and North America.

Falling flock numbers have contributed to restricted meat supply and a lift in prices.

An exception is China, which consumes all its own sheepmeat output.

Some grains have also recently been bucking the trend, but largely because of the distorting effect of grain ethanol, Mr Weeks said.

The charge that levy money has done nothing to stop falling consumption of beef also misses the big picture, in his view.

Consumption fell in the 1990s, when red meat’s health and nutritional benefits were under a cloud, but in the last decade there has been a 30 per cent increase in real terms in Australian consumer expenditure on beef. “We were able to claw back some of the expenditure we lost over the previous decade.”

By comparison, Mr Weeks said, the US beef demand index fell 18 per cent over the past 20 years, with a recovery of about five per cent in the past decade.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Mr weeks, Australia has 5 major customers for beef: Japan, US, Korea, Woolworths and Coles. They consume about 60% of the annaul output - none of them use MSW. For producers selling into these markets MLA is totally irrelevant. Your levy is not contributing to productivity and is an unwanted expense.
Posted by john from tamworth, 5/02/2010 10:59:54 AM
Well Mr Weeks if the extra $1.50 has achieved nothing it should be removed. We hear about the democracy of the MLA system. Unfortunately the producers supplying the levy for your beef gravy train have NO say in MLA expenditure, because it is Commonwealth consolidated revenue, paid to inefficient Commonwealth employees. The Commonwealth employees on the MLA beef gravy train need to step outside the comfort zone and start achieving what the levy was supposed to achieve, additional prices for animals on the hoof. Producers have had enough of your excuses and selective statistics
Posted by Archibald, 5/02/2010 3:51:49 PM
Typical economic guru gibberish. We pay a raft of levies, taxes, fees etc to various parasites who have legislated themselves into our budgets. We get little or nothing in return except more restrictions, more permits, and more garbage in the mailbox. The MLA has failed in doing anything other than sustaining yet another batch of office-based experts, which we need like a dose of BSE.
Posted by bill, 6/02/2010 8:35:37 AM
Mr Weeks, draw a line across Australia from Central Queensland to Carnarvon in WA; the vast majority of cattle above that line go to live export, they still pay the levee which primarily is spent enforcing regulation to satisfy the meat processors who control MLA to the detriment of the ordinary producer; the Southeast Asian countries taking the exported cattle don’t use MSA, LPA, NLIS or any of your programs tailor-made for the processors; the live export sector are in essence subsidising the processors operations. MLA must be dismantled. It’s a bureaucratic, undemocratic organisation that belongs in the 1930s. It’s no different to the old Meat Board; it must go.
Posted by The Serf, 6/02/2010 8:37:16 AM
What you are saying Mr Weeks is you can't do anything about it. We already know that, and are sick of paying for nothing. Would you go to a supermarket and buy a meat tray with no meat on it?
Posted by John Niven, 7/02/2010 6:31:13 AM
A 30% increase in expenditure of which the farmer got nothing and yet he pays the marketing levies to get a better return! As Mr Palmer MLA said "…the real price of cattle had not altered much since 1950. There was a gyration in the '70s and '80s, but these prices in real terms have narrowly traded in a fifty cent band since 1950.” (David Palmer 21st January 2010 Farmonline)
Posted by John Michelmore, 7/02/2010 8:29:36 AM
I understand that there has been no increase in consumption of beef for the period Mr.Weeks is quoting. The increase in spending by consumers may be real, but that money is simply going to the supermarkets! John Niven is spot on with his comment.
Posted by 'Rob Roy', 8/02/2010 7:58:21 AM
The problem with levies is that the whole methodology of applying the levy (any levy) is fundamentally flawed. They are not related to any criteria of performance and therefore they provide no incentive to think beyond the square. The money just rolls on in, no matter what they do, how they perform, or what they stuff up. The other problem is the MLA is a government structured organisation and accountable only to the government, not the people who are providing the money. It therefore does not question any federal or state government laws or policies that may impact directly, or indirectly on relevant livestock and farming issues, such as production costs, tax imposts, promotion, exports and profitability. Levy funded, government managed organisations are immune from accountability, have a history of mediocrity and failure and are totally beyond and aloof to the complaints of those they are supposed to serve. The frustration of continually complaining is akin to the futility of complaining to your mother in law about your wife! Peter Saunders Cassilis
Posted by Peter, 8/02/2010 8:34:28 AM
So the economist has said the way to increase prices is to reduce productivity, am I right? That means that the only people to benefit from productivity gains are the advisers. The solution is clear.
Posted by denis, 8/02/2010 10:09:13 AM
If the chicken industry had your marketing levy you (above commentators) would sell far less red meat and you might start to appreciate what you've got instead of concentrating on whinging!
Posted by Tim, 8/02/2010 10:29:45 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
MLA economist Peter Weeks.
MLA economist Peter Weeks.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
04 February, 2010
POLL
Q: What level of trust do you have in the claims made by environmental campaigners?

Total
(5%)

High
(12.7%)

Moderate
(6.2%)

Low
(21.3%)

None
(54.8%)

Total Votes: 1310
Poll Date: 31 January, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...