Anything From NCBA on This?

[Econ101]

MRJ, how do you know all conventional practices are safe? Remember it was this same body of scientist that proclaimed feeding bovine MBM to bovines was a safe practice...how'd that work out?????????????? Oh, but it was efficient for the industry and would return more money to the producers...instead, it created the biggest headache the industry has had to face. Producers should be damn mad and questioning everything the input segment of agri-business is selling us...uh, y'all!!! :wink:

"Is more efficient, saves money, and that savings is passed on to the producer in the form of higher prices" is the biggest and most effective propaganda lie the packers have come up with.

Too bad there are a lot of people who fall for it.

 

[mrj]

Can either of you tell us for how long the practice of feeding some form of bone meal or other animal bi-products (with varying level of processing from none to current heat processing) has been in effect? And how long has it been BELIEVED that it MAY transfer BSE from one animal to another?

RobertMac, I did not say that ALL conventional practices are safe. Obviously, there are SOME producers who do not follow the rules. Practices change with time, and research.

CURRENT conventional practices, for the most part, have a considerable body of research behind them.

Research such as studying animal behaviors as well as physical needs have determined many practices used by the largest feedlots.

Feedlot owners and managers do have intelligence enough to understand that they are not going to make a profit from animals not well cared for in substandard conditions.

My observation is, much of the 'dissent and discontent' with 'modern animal farming' is touchy-feely emotion heavy, fact challenged stuff pushed at gullible people by those who are working tirelessly on many fronts to end all uses of animals by and for people.

Econ, I never said people do not have a right to do whatever they choose regarding foof selection. Nor did I say that everyone must follow suit! You simply cannot resist making claims that are not true, it seems.

I'm simply saying it is not right to claim that 'other' beef is less beneficial than is the organic beef, WITHOUT PROOF, as a pitch to sell higher priced 'organic' beef

Selecting meat grown and handled by unusual methods is fine as a personal choice, but there is no demonstrated health benefit, contrary to the propaganda often used in the 'organic' sales pitch.

And, obviously, any increase in beef DEMAND makes me happy!

Just don't forget that increases in beef CONSUMPTION is not the same as an increase in beef DEMAND!

MRJ

 

[RobertMac]

Can either of you tell us for how long the practice of feeding some form of bone meal or other animal bi-products (with varying level of processing from none to current heat processing) has been in effect? And how long has it been BELIEVED that it MAY transfer BSE from one animal to another?

Are you implying that the feed ban is not an effective firewall? If BSE isn't spread through MBM consumption, how is it transferred?

RobertMac, I did not say that ALL conventional practices are safe. Obviously, there are SOME producers who do not follow the rules. Practices change with time, and research.

What conventional practices aren't safe? What should be done to producers that break 'the rules'? Does Nature change or does the way researchers view Nature change?

CURRENT conventional practices, for the most part, have a considerable body of research behind them.

Is this considerable body of research compiled by the companies promoting a 'conventional practice' and is it declared safe by the same scientist that received the grant money from the companies to compile this considerable body of research?

My observation is, much of the 'dissent and discontent' with 'modern animal farming' is touchy-feely emotion heavy, fact challenged stuff pushed at gullible people by those who are working tirelessly on many fronts to end all uses of animals by and for people.

Am I working tirelessly to end all uses of animals by and for people, or am I offering consumers with 'dissent and discontent' with 'modern animal farming' a product they feel comfortable buying?

 

[Econ101]

MRJ wrote:

Econ, I never said people do not have a right to do whatever they choose regarding foof selection. Nor did I say that everyone must follow suit! You simply cannot resist making claims that are not true, it seems.

You seem to be saying that they can not claim that their methods of production are superior to yours because they haven't proven yours is not totally "safe". I say they have a right to make the claims of what their methods are and claim that other methods that have not been adequately or independently studied and proven to be safe (the USDA is not independent) are not proven. I think the term "proven" is to be determined by the consumer, not the government and not the industry selling these items. The Japanese have reserved the right to do this and so have the Koreans. If you don't want that market segment of consumers, keep your production methods the same. If you want part of that action, change your methods. You have no right to make up consumer's minds for them in their determination of the words "proven" and the burden of proof is on those who are selling the items, not those who are providing an alternative.

I'm simply saying it is not right to claim that 'other' beef is less beneficial than is the organic beef, WITHOUT PROOF, as a pitch to sell higher priced 'organic' beef

The burden of proof is on those who are selling the item, not on those who are competing against it. If I make a claim that my food is the "safest in the world" it doesn't mean I have to prove that all others are unsafe. If I make the claim that my product is the "best product available made out of the best ingredients" I don't have to prove that everyone else has inferior products. If I make the claim that "I am growing organic food and that it is the best most nutritious food out there", I don't have to prove other foods are not.

Selecting meat grown and handled by unusual methods is fine as a personal choice, but there is no demonstrated health benefit, contrary to the propaganda often used in the 'organic' sales pitch.

Are you talking about current methods of factory farming and corporate agriculture here? These "unusual methods" have just a recent history in the scope of time. Feeding cows to cows is another recent and "unusual method" of production. Feeding nontheraputic drugs to feedlot animals is another recent and "unusual method" of production. So is administering artificial hormones in the form of a pellet in the ear. So is feeding chicken sh-- to cattle.

And, obviously, any increase in beef DEMAND makes me happy!

Just don't forget that increases in beef CONSUMPTION is not the same as an increase in beef DEMAND!

MRJ, I need no lecturing of the definition of economic terms by you. Taking agman's definition of price times quantity, which is the normal economic definition under normal circumstances, the demand of beef goes up under these processes because the "organic", "natural", "hormone free", and "antibiotic free" labels all have a premium in price, thus the price times the quantity increases beef demand (shift in demand curve). As a matter of fact, it is well known that the demand curve for these items is higher using p x q for the definition than the demand curve for commodity beef in the U.S.

MRJ

 

[mrj]

So.............you boys are saying that anyone can say anything they choose, and malign any other producers beef production methods in order to fool the consumer, and so long as the consumer isn't wise enough to know the difference it is all OK with you?

You say corporations upon whom we depend to process most meats in the USA, as well as the government agencies responsible for inspections and assuring a safe food supply are corrupt, kept in place by corrupt politicians.

Apparently, the phrase "let the buyer beware" should be the largest print on the label of anything some of you sell!

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

So.............you boys are saying that anyone can say anything they choose, and malign any other producers beef production methods in order to fool the consumer, and so long as the consumer isn't wise enough to know the difference it is all OK with you?

You say corporations upon whom we depend to process most meats in the USA, as well as the government agencies responsible for inspections and assuring a safe food supply are corrupt, kept in place by corrupt politicians.

Apparently, the phrase "let the buyer beware" should be the largest print on the label of anything some of you sell!

MRJ

First of all, MRJ, I am not one of your "boys". The term has a negative connotation in the south when used this way by you.

No, I am saying that organic, hormone free, or others do not have to prove that other products are inferior to production systems that don't use these methods of production just because you think they should.

Others can claim that these costlier systems are more beneficial (as Martha Stewart and a lot of chefs, enviros, health food stores, and others claim). Organic and hormone producers can claim that their methods are superior and don't have to PROVE that non organic or hormone free is inferior. They just have to point out the differences in production and be accurate about the differences in production methods, then they can claim those methods are superior. It is up to the consumer to decide whether they are or not. You can claim that they are not, but you can not stop the organics from saying their methods are not better.

Just because MRJ thinks it should be that way doesn't mean that it has to.

....and no, there doesn't need to be another disclaimer as you suggest.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So.............you boys are saying that anyone can say anything they choose, and malign any other producers beef production methods in order to fool the consumer, and so long as the consumer isn't wise enough to know the difference it is all OK with you?

You say corporations upon whom we depend to process most meats in the USA, as well as the government agencies responsible for inspections and assuring a safe food supply are corrupt, kept in place by corrupt politicians.

Apparently, the phrase "let the buyer beware" should be the largest print on the label of anything some of you sell!

MRJ

First of all, MRJ, I am not one of your "boys". The term has a negative connotation in the south when used this way by you.

No, I am saying that organic, hormone free, or others do not have to prove that other products are inferior to production systems that don't use these methods of production just because you think they should.

Others can claim that these costlier systems are more beneficial (as Martha Stewart and a lot of chefs, enviros, health food stores, and others claim). Organic and hormone producers can claim that their methods are superior and don't have to PROVE that non organic or hormone free is inferior. They just have to point out the differences in production and be accurate about the differences in production methods, then they can claim those methods are superior. It is up to the consumer to decide whether they are or not. You can claim that they are not, but you can not stop the organics from saying their methods are not better.

Just because MRJ thinks it should be that way doesn't mean that it has to.

....and no, there doesn't need to be another disclaimer as you suggest.

Be careful MRJ we wouldn't want Econ to get Slim Shady Sharpton after you. Instead of "BOYS" maybe you should refer to ECON as a "Nappy headed economist dog". I think that's what they like to call themselves. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

So.............you boys are saying that anyone can say anything they choose, and malign any other producers beef production methods in order to fool the consumer, and so long as the consumer isn't wise enough to know the difference it is all OK with you?

You say corporations upon whom we depend to process most meats in the USA, as well as the government agencies responsible for inspections and assuring a safe food supply are corrupt, kept in place by corrupt politicians.

Apparently, the phrase "let the buyer beware" should be the largest print on the label of anything some of you sell!

MRJ

MRJ, take a look around you and pay attention to advertisements on the TV and radio. You will see malignment of the competition and claims, slogans, etc....

As far as your "buyer beware" claim - wouldn't that apply to selling a two week old cut of beef that only loosk fresh because of the gas added to the package (which you were in favor of last I knew)?

The NCBA/AMI have trained you well. You can always be counted on for defending the double standards that always benefit the big packers.

 

[mrj]

So.............you boys are saying that anyone can say anything they choose, and malign any other producers beef production methods in order to fool the consumer, and so long as the consumer isn't wise enough to know the difference it is all OK with you?

You say corporations upon whom we depend to process most meats in the USA, as well as the government agencies responsible for inspections and assuring a safe food supply are corrupt, kept in place by corrupt politicians.

Apparently, the phrase "let the buyer beware" should be the largest print on the label of anything some of you sell!

MRJ

MRJ, take a look around you and pay attention to advertisements on the TV and radio. You will see malignment of the competition and claims, slogans, etc....

As far as your "buyer beware" claim - wouldn't that apply to selling a two week old cut of beef that only loosk fresh because of the gas added to the package (which you were in favor of last I knew)?

The NCBA/AMI have trained you well. You can always be counted on for defending the double standards that always benefit the big packers.

Sandhusker, that you refuse to admit it, or do not know it, does not alter the fact that the packaging to which you refer was highly researched and designed to keep beef free of bacteria, and to seal out oxygen which discolors beef prematurely, to provide a FRESHER, CLEANER and SAFER product for the consumer.

Do you further believe most consumers are too stupid to read and observe the "use by" date on beef products? That packaging is vastly superior over simpler, or no packaging where the meat counter manager can toss discolored, outdated cuts into the grinder and truly fool the consumer, IMO. Unfortunately, some on this site advocate that action.

So far as false advertising claims, many shoppers, myself included, are choosing to buy from those who state what their product has, does, or does not have without telling outright lies about their competitors. Those who simply ignore the competition while showing their product features honestly do it the best, IMO. You have the right to buy from the shysters, since that appears to by your preference.

MRJ

 

[Mike]

So.............you boys are saying that anyone can say anything they choose, and malign any other producers beef production methods in order to fool the consumer, and so long as the consumer isn't wise enough to know the difference it is all OK with you?

You say corporations upon whom we depend to process most meats in the USA, as well as the government agencies responsible for inspections and assuring a safe food supply are corrupt, kept in place by corrupt politicians.

Apparently, the phrase "let the buyer beware" should be the largest print on the label of anything some of you sell!

MRJ

MRJ, take a look around you and pay attention to advertisements on the TV and radio. You will see malignment of the competition and claims, slogans, etc....

As far as your "buyer beware" claim - wouldn't that apply to selling a two week old cut of beef that only loosk fresh because of the gas added to the package (which you were in favor of last I knew)?

The NCBA/AMI have trained you well. You can always be counted on for defending the double standards that always benefit the big packers.

Sandhusker, that you refuse to admit it, or do not know it, does not alter the fact that the packaging to which you refer was highly researched and designed to keep beef free of bacteria, and to seal out oxygen which discolors beef prematurely, to provide a FRESHER, CLEANER and SAFER product for the consumer.

Do you further believe most consumers are too stupid to read and observe the "use by" date on beef products? That packaging is vastly superior over simpler, or no packaging where the meat counter manager can toss discolored, outdated cuts into the grinder and truly fool the consumer, IMO. Unfortunately, some on this site advocate that action.

So far as false advertising claims, many shoppers, myself included, are choosing to buy from those who state what their product has, does, or does not have without telling outright lies about their competitors. Those who simply ignore the competition while showing their product features honestly do it the best, IMO. You have the right to buy from the shysters, since that appears to by your preference.

MRJ

Mask Spoilage

In a process approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, some meatpackers mix small amounts of carbon monoxide with other gases, including nitrogen and carbon dioxide, to maintain color stability in modified atmospheric packaging. While the carbon monoxide does not harm consumers, some fear that hiding meat discoloration can mask an indicator of spoilage.

Yet a team led by Dr. J. Chance Brooks found that 83.3% of trained panelists detected an unpleasant odor in packages containing carbon monoxide after 14 days of storage in the retail case.

Odor Indicator

"You cannot mask odor," said Brooks, assistant professor of meat science at Texas Tech. "What you'll find is that the meat may look good in the store, but once someone gets it home and peels the wrapping off, they'll know it has spoiled by the smell."

Brooks recommends that consumers use a decision tree that considers color first, then smell and taste, before deciding meat is good to eat.

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Sandhusker, that you refuse to admit it, or do not know it, does not alter the fact that the packaging to which you refer was highly researched and designed to keep beef free of bacteria, and to seal out oxygen which discolors beef prematurely, to provide a FRESHER, CLEANER and SAFER product for the consumer."

It's not fresher, MRJ, it only APPEARS fresh. A cut of meat that has been sitting in the cooler for two weeks is NOT fresh, no matter what you expose it to.

MRJ, "Do you further believe most consumers are too stupid to read and observe the "use by" date on beef products? That packaging is vastly superior over simpler, or no packaging where the meat counter manager can toss discolored, outdated cuts into the grinder and truly fool the consumer, IMO. Unfortunately, some on this site advocate that action."

I don't see the logic in stating it is wrong to throw old cuts in the grinder but it is acceptable to disguise the old cuts as fresh.

MRJ, "So far as false advertising claims, many shoppers, myself included, are choosing to buy from those who state what their product has, does, or does not have without telling outright lies about their competitors. Those who simply ignore the competition while showing their product features honestly do it the best, IMO. You have the right to buy from the shysters, since that appears to by your preference."

Wouldn't selling two week old beef as fresh be false?

 

[RobertMac]

So.............you boys are saying that anyone can say anything they choose, and malign any other producers beef production methods in order to fool the consumer,...

Like your NCBA rep...instead of promoting grassfed beef, she told consumers to eat fish!!!!!!

You say corporations upon whom we depend to process most meats in the USA, as well as the government agencies responsible for inspections and assuring a safe food supply are corrupt, kept in place by corrupt politicians.

NO, we're saying economics shouldn't drive our food supply, safety should!

Apparently, the phrase "let the buyer beware" should be the largest print on the label of anything some of you sell!

How about a cigarette type warning label on processed foods????? trans fats????

 

[mrj]

I'm not from 'The South' and don't play those games.

However, considering the term 'boys', it is too good for you when taken in the context in which real cowboys use it, such as "Boys, lets scatter out and make sure we find ALL the cattle in this rough pasture", said to the boss or owner of the ranch to his hands and friends, all of whom he respects and treats as equals to himself.

You shall henceforth be referred to as "sand box bullies" when that is what you act like! My opinion is that "sand box bullies" are those who throw sand and rocks rather than reasoned arguments for their point

RM, will you please share with us the absolute proof that there is in fact a verified cause and effect between feeding MBM and an animal contracting BSE? Everything I've seen indicates that may be the cause, not that it definitely IS the cause.

BTW, while I didn't say ALL conventional practices are safe, neither did I say some are not safe. Fact is, some producers are careless with the way they do some conventional practices, such as un-approved uses of medications, pesticides, herbicides, etc. and failure to follow withdrawal times and more.

Obviously, being dependent upon the cattle business for my living, I want those who, deliberately or ignorantly, break the rules/laws prosecuted and punished properly, according to the law.

Your question about Nature, I would answer by saying what we know and understand about nature can change according to results of research and study.

Do you really feel all research should be funded by government rather than by groups (such as the Beef Checkoff, businesses, cattlemens organizations, Foundations, et. al.) who may be considered as having an interest in the outcome? Do you really believe that cattle producers, when funding the research with Beef Checkoff dollars are not going to give the researchers free rein to find the truth, even if painful for the industry? Research to find means to counter e Coli: 0157:H7 comes to mind. The cattle industry leaders, and the beef industry leaders (including packers and retailers) knew research might show costly practices would be necessary, but were willing to spend the money and do what was shown to be necessary to manage our industries to eliminate the problem. We have not totally gotten it under control, but the protocols followed as a result of the research has dramatically cut the incidences of infections from meat at a rate far faster than was believed possible.

While you may not personally be working to end all uses of animals by and for people, you surely cannot deny that there are those who are, nor that they have huge amounts of money at their disposal to push their agenda. Your customers, if they happen to be lead by those people, will continue to raise the bar for your products higher, and higher till it is difficult to impossible for you to comply with their wishes.

Econ, I was NOT saying that "they cannot claim their methods....". I AM saying they SHOULD not be able to say that other beef is not safe. I'm NOT "making up consumers minds for them", only insisting that consumers should not be deliberately fooled by being given false information! I did not refer to ads such as you champion, but to ads, which I have seen, stating or implying that beef that is not organically produced is not safe.

Do you know how many years bone meal has been fed to cattle? I've read mention of the practice going back at least hundreds of years in Europe. It darn sure couldn't have been processed back then as well as it is now! Not that I'm claiming current methods could eliminate prions, though we have not seen verification of that as a means of transmission, either. Lest you misconstrue that, I'm simply saying we do not KNOW, one way, or the other, for absolute fact on MBM.

Your lecture to me on economics of beef DEMAND is humorous, at best, since some of your posts have indicated you believe packers set beef prices arbitrarily, rather than the marketplace driving them.

Mike and Sandhusker, how long should beef be aged?
What are the temperature conditions when it is aged?We prefer ours aged at least 21 days.
Some prefer it aged 28 days.
Would you deny that aged beef is fresh?
What is the projected shelf life of beef in controlled environment packaging?

Mike, who was your Dr. J. Chance Brooks working for?
If, as he pointed out, consumers CAN tell that the meat is spoiled, doesn't that end the argument that such packaging is being used to foist spoiled meat off on consumers?
I don't recall reading about that study and don't recall hearing of Dr. Brooks and his work.
Did he, or his consumer study group, conclude that such packaging should not be allowed?

It is nice to know the whole story.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Mike and Sandhusker, how long should beef be aged?"

You're skirting the issue, MRJ. Do you think that the average shopper would consider a package of meat that has been sitting in the meat counter for two weeks or more to be fresh?

I contend that they do not. They are now left with a choice; 1) accept the meat for how it appears and buy it and take their chances or 2) not take the chance since they don't really know how long it has sat there and buy the chicken instead.

 

[PORKER]

All that needs to be done is Have dating placed on the label of last packing date with a harvest date for every peice of meat below it.

 

[RobertMac]

RM, will you please share with us the absolute proof that there is in fact a verified cause and effect between feeding MBM and an animal contracting BSE?

Beginning in 1997, the FDA banned using ruminant derived protein supplements (meat & bone meal) in cattle feed. This ban prevents the transmission of BSE, therefore all U.S. beef – organic and conventional – is safe and wholesome.

Do you not believe your beloved NCBA????????????????????????????

While on your beloved NCBA site, I decided to search...grassfed, grass-fed, and organic. I found ZERO hits for "grassfed" or "grass-fed" and only the above reference to "organic"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You hypocrites at NCBA are doing absolutely nothing to help promote the two fastest growing segments of beef sales, yet complain about those that are actually increasing beef sales. If I'm wrong, please link me to anything positive about organic or grassfed beef. I can't understand...why is twenty years of lack of regaining market share is acceptable to beef producers?????

I started to answer your other questions, but realized it would be a waste of time. If you want to find the problems in the beef industry...look in a mirror!

 

[Mike]

MRJ wrote: Mike, who was your Dr. J. Chance Brooks working for?

A Texas Univ. study for the.................................
FSIS - acronym for: "Food Safety and Inspection Service" a branch of the USDA.

If looks first, then smell are the defining factors, how would you know it smells good when it is sealed before you get it home?

 

[Econ101]

MRJ:

Your lecture to me on economics of beef DEMAND is humorous, at best, since some of your posts have indicated you believe packers set beef prices arbitrarily, rather than the marketplace driving them.

MRJ, nobody can lecture you on anything. You already have your mind made up and it is packers over producers, even though you may be doing it out of pure unadulterated ignorance.

You will have to acknowledge that in the poultry industry, the amount of money that is given to producers has no relation to the price of the product in the market. The more contracts can tie up supply in pork and in the beef industry, the more the prices paid to producers will be one that is not based on the supply and demand of the product, but on what the packers determine they can get away with. The more tied up supply through contracts, the less market forces will determine what producers get. You are losing the ability to get a fair price through these methods although you have two examples in industry from the same players and that of history. Yes, I do think you are hurting producers by going along with whatever the packers have in their plan book. It is really too bad you weren't educated in economics and refuse to learn now.

Yes, I do think you are ignorant on these issues, but is all voluntary on your part.

 

[mrj]

MRJ:

Your lecture to me on economics of beef DEMAND is humorous, at best, since some of your posts have indicated you believe packers set beef prices arbitrarily, rather than the marketplace driving them.

MRJ, nobody can lecture you on anything. You already have your mind made up and it is packers over producers, even though you may be doing it out of pure unadulterated ignorance.

You will have to acknowledge that in the poultry industry, the amount of money that is given to producers has no relation to the price of the product in the market. The more contracts can tie up supply in pork and in the beef industry, the more the prices paid to producers will be one that is not based on the supply and demand of the product, but on what the packers determine they can get away with. The more tied up supply through contracts, the less market forces will determine what producers get. You are losing the ability to get a fair price through these methods although you have two examples in industry from the same players and that of history. Yes, I do think you are hurting producers by going along with whatever the packers have in their plan book. It is really too bad you weren't educated in economics and refuse to learn now.

Yes, I do think you are ignorant on these issues, but is all voluntary on your part.

Con-man, last time I checked, you were not the All Knowing God, nor is your crystal ball working, nor are your mind reading skills up to par.

Your claim that I favor packers over producers is ludicrous. That I do not accept your claims as the Gospel apparently skews your ability to understand that I don't suffer conspiracy buffs gladly. Your silly games and baiting are tiresome. Boredom is rarely a problem for me, but your same old songs come close.

MRJ

 

[ranch hand]

Your silly games and baiting are tiresome.

MRJ

I am still waiting for your reply to the post that you wanted me to check with my vet on the gassing of meat. If you have the time, please post back your knowledge of how I do things. :roll: :roll: :roll: :wink: :wink: :wink: :???: :???: :???: