Econ101 said:Importing beef from other countries that could be produced in the United States is a benefit to processers and consumers but is a detriment to producers. Increased value from trim does not outwiegh the negative impact of imports on domestic producers.
N Ellis said:Econ101 said:Importing beef from other countries that could be produced in the United States is a benefit to processers and consumers but is a detriment to producers. Increased value from trim does not outwiegh the negative impact of imports on domestic producers.
Surely, we were pretty much all aware that was your opinion.
Where are the facts or statistics to back it up?
MRJ
N Ellis said:Shouldn't the person making the accusations present some basis in fact for their claims? At the least, state that is simply an opinion, rather than making it appear as a statement of fact?
MRJ
N Ellis said:BTW, I'm posting from a borrowed computer, hence the "N Ellis" alias.
MRJ
Econ101 said:N Ellis said:Econ101 said:Importing beef from other countries that could be produced in the United States is a benefit to processers and consumers but is a detriment to producers. Increased value from trim does not outwiegh the negative impact of imports on domestic producers.
Surely, we were pretty much all aware that was your opinion.
Where are the facts or statistics to back it up?
MRJ
MRJ, some people will never believe "facts or statistics". You might do well to do some of that reading I suggested for Jason in economics. You don't have to believe anything if you don't want to.
PPRM said:Who wants to raise the beef that you need to add trim to??????????? What is Tyson paying on the grid for steers that grade standard?????
My point is our resources in the US tend to lend themselves to raising cattle with the trim on them. If you don't put the pounds on, you are short changing yourself,
I guess that was my opinion, lol,
PPRM
agman said:Econ101 said:N Ellis said:Surely, we were pretty much all aware that was your opinion.
Where are the facts or statistics to back it up?
MRJ
MRJ, some people will never believe "facts or statistics". You might do well to do some of that reading I suggested for Jason in economics. You don't have to believe anything if you don't want to.
Most people will believe facts and statistics. It is opinions from you that are not to be believed as they are a product of your lack of knowledge of the beef industry and business in general. BTW, trim imports do not harm producrs as you suggest. Your conspiratorial mind cannot grasp such a real world concept so I won't bother to explain.
Rather than citing books for others to read you need to learn something about the beef industry and the economic common sense and reality of "comparative advantage". I beleive that concept was set forth in 1817 in "The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation" by David Ricardo.
Jason said:Sandhusker did you even read what you wrote?
The packers should pay less for all cattle that contribute to the 50/50 trim.
Talk about wanting the packers to drive producers out of business. By your logic all animals that grade choice with a yield grade of 3 or more should be discounted. Yet a YG 3 with high choice marbling is a premium animal under the current grades.
You just proposed a slash in price for nearly 50% of ther entire slaughter, with no way to generate more income.
Feed the trim to the dogs, lose the feeder $50 or more per carcass, lose all the burger joints as customers because they can buy chicken cheaper than beef. Sheesh good answer. :roll:
Jason said:Sandhusker did you even read what you wrote?
The packers should pay less for all cattle that contribute to the 50/50 trim.
Talk about wanting the packers to drive producers out of business. By your logic all animals that grade choice with a yield grade of 3 or more should be discounted. Yet a YG 3 with high choice marbling is a premium animal under the current grades.
You just proposed a slash in price for nearly 50% of ther entire slaughter, with no way to generate more income.
Feed the trim to the dogs, lose the feeder $50 or more per carcass, lose all the burger joints as customers because they can buy chicken cheaper than beef. Sheesh good answer. :roll:
Sandhusker said:Jason said:Sandhusker did you even read what you wrote?
The packers should pay less for all cattle that contribute to the 50/50 trim.
Talk about wanting the packers to drive producers out of business. By your logic all animals that grade choice with a yield grade of 3 or more should be discounted. Yet a YG 3 with high choice marbling is a premium animal under the current grades.
You just proposed a slash in price for nearly 50% of ther entire slaughter, with no way to generate more income.
Feed the trim to the dogs, lose the feeder $50 or more per carcass, lose all the burger joints as customers because they can buy chicken cheaper than beef. Sheesh good answer. :roll:
I kinda made you think, didn't I. Look at the system we have. Even though we're finding marbling does not provide the benefits we once thought it did, the packers want high marbled beef and the fat that comes with it. Then, they claim the need imports to mix with that fat in a salvage operation and try to tell us we're profiting from the value? Our system is antiquated and our knowledge begs an overhauling. Yet, those in position to modernize don't do it. Don't you wonder why?