Anything From NCBA on This?

[mrj]

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: :???: :???: :???:

Continue to "roll and wink" if that's what entertains you. I cannot spend my whole life watching this site to answer comments instantaneously.

There are some veterinarians who know about more segments of the cattle industry than just taking of situations the rancher can't handle. Some of them pay attention to the entire industry and read about innovations in processing and packaging, among other things.

What I referred to was a comment I believe you made in another thread, which sounded as if you did not really believe much in the value of vaccinations of calves, other than just a couple of just the most basic injections. It sounded as if you, like some people I've heard comment in person, believe most 'shots' are just to make more money for the pharmaceutical companies, probably don't do any good anyway, and may even cause more illnesses in calves than they prevent.

Now, if that was not the idea behind your much shorter comment, I'm sorry I misunderstood. The comment I thought you made was like some we frequently heard a few years ago by people who were reluctant to vaccinate their calves. I may have jumped to a conclusion which fit others but may not apply to you. I may have confused you with another person posting. In either case, I apologize if I took you comments wrong.

BTW, I'm not one who pretends to know how people "do things" (or think, for that matter) but go by what they say or post, or what I thought they posted.

MRJ

 

[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.

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

MRJ, when have you taken up for producers over packers? Every time you take up for the packers, and give them the benefit of the doubt, even though you do not have the evidence to support those positions. Just about every time. I don't have a crystal ball, but I can see how you take up for these guys continually on this site. It is incessant.

For example, when the OIG report came out on GIPSA, you indicated it was a democrat conspiracy against GIPSA because Tom Harkin asked the OIG to investigate what was happening at GIPSA.

In addition, when it first came out, you poo pahhed the results of the investigation even without reading the report. The investigation pointed out how GIPSA was not adequately doing investigations and saying they were being done to Congress. GIPSA administration was found to be hiding investigations when it came to the top.

Tell me you don't support your packer fed NCBA led agenda over producer concerns, MRJ.

YOU ARE JUST LYING.

It is too bad you are using up all your character capital defending packers and shafting producers. This late in life you should have more respect---but you have to act respectable to get it.

 

[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: :???: :???: :???:

Continue to "roll and wink" if that's what entertains you. I cannot spend my whole life watching this site to answer comments instantaneously.

Your discourteous interpretation of people's posts is getting monotonous. You should really have the facts before you give your observation of what you thought you had read. It is discourteous to post things about people that are not true. There are new people that read these posts and don't know the posters and if they read your rude remarks or nonentities remarks, this could give them a wrong impression of the person you are trying to discredit. You do this to back up your NCBA Propaganda. I for one am getting tired of it. Your excuses of maybe I read where you posted, or I mixed your up with ???? is not a good elucidation of why it was done. So please in the future take the time to investigate before you try to disprove a poster's posts. You may not have the time, but then if you don't have the time then don't post. It is good etiquette if nothing else.

There are some veterinarians who know about more segments of the cattle industry than just taking of situations the rancher can't handle. Some of them pay attention to the entire industry and read about innovations in processing and packaging, among other things.

[i]What I referred to was a comment I believe you made in another thread[/i], which sounded as if you did not really believe much in the value of vaccinations of calves, other than just a couple of just the most basic injections. [i]It sounded as if you,[/i] like some people I've heard comment in person, believe most 'shots' are just to make more money for the pharmaceutical companies, probably don't do any good anyway, and may even cause more illnesses in calves than they prevent.

Now, if that was not the idea behind your much shorter comment, I'm sorry I misunderstood. The comment I thought you made was like some we frequently heard a few years ago by people who were reluctant to vaccinate their calves. I may have jumped to a conclusion which fit others but may not apply to you. I may have confused you with another person posting. In either case, I apologize if I took you comments wrong.

BTW, I'm not one who pretends to know how people "do things" (or think, for that matter) but go by what they say or post, or what I thought they posted. If you are not one to pretend to know how people do things, then why post what you think they do?MRJ

:lol: :lol: 8) 8)

 

[mrj]

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?

Please tell me you are not advocating that consumers open the package in the store to smell the meat!!!!

That would be about as unsanitary and disgusting as anything I can imagine.

The open meat in a meat case in the grocery store is going out of style fast. What an opportunity for bacteria from many people to contaminate the meat.............and then blame it on everyone back up the chain instead of the meat cutters and handlers in the store, or the customers who may sneeze, wheeze, slobber, touch, or who knows what else to accidentally or intentionally contaminate the meat????

I will buy the sealed package, thank you, and the more air-tight and controlled atmospheric packaging, the better, for me and the health of my family. Plus, we get the benefit of a little more ageing of the meat. As stated by others, there is still the smell factor when it is opened to give warning if it has, by chance, gone bad.

MRJ

 

[mrj]

MRJ:

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

MRJ, when have you taken up for producers over packers? Every time you take up for the packers, and give them the benefit of the doubt, even though you do not have the evidence to support those positions. Just about every time. I don't have a crystal ball, but I can see how you take up for these guys continually on this site. It is incessant.

For example, when the OIG report came out on GIPSA, you indicated it was a democrat conspiracy against GIPSA because Tom Harkin asked the OIG to investigate what was happening at GIPSA.

In addition, when it first came out, you poo pahhed the results of the investigation even without reading the report. The investigation pointed out how GIPSA was not adequately doing investigations and saying they were being done to Congress. GIPSA administration was found to be hiding investigations when it came to the top.

Tell me you don't support your packer fed NCBA led agenda over producer concerns, MRJ.

YOU ARE JUST LYING.

It is too bad you are using up all your character capital defending packers and shafting producers. This late in life you should have more respect---but you have to act respectable to get it.

CONman, I do enjoy and appreciate the respect of some very respectable people, that you and others whose agenda is to attack NCBA may not respect me is of no concern to me.

I most certainly am not lying. That is what you are doing.

You can choose to interpret the FACT that NCBA recognizes packers for what they are and what they do, and believes it is better to talk with them than to simply blame them for any problem of the cattle/beef industry however you choose.......but that does not include your right to lie about motivations and actions of myself, nor of NCBA. NCBA is NOT lead or controlled by packers. It is very probably the ag organization most directly controlled by the dues paying members in this country! We vote to the policy, and to elect the officers, and directors.

Your claim that my distrust of 'reports' of OIG and/or GIPSA is BECAUSE of my SUPPORT for PACKERS is a lie. It is because of my distrust of career POLITICIANS and BUREAUCRATS!

It is just tough if you believe anyone who reads an analysis or report of a government study rather than the actual study itself should not comment. I never claimed to have read the study, and have pointed out that I read many comments on it from various people, organizations, and media. You don't like my opinion, so I just may be the one who is right, given your anti-business, pro-government control; and my pro-business, anti-Democrat-business-bashing stance on issues.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

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

MRJ, when have you taken up for producers over packers? Every time you take up for the packers, and give them the benefit of the doubt, even though you do not have the evidence to support those positions. Just about every time. I don't have a crystal ball, but I can see how you take up for these guys continually on this site. It is incessant.

For example, when the OIG report came out on GIPSA, you indicated it was a democrat conspiracy against GIPSA because Tom Harkin asked the OIG to investigate what was happening at GIPSA.

In addition, when it first came out, you poo pahhed the results of the investigation even without reading the report. The investigation pointed out how GIPSA was not adequately doing investigations and saying they were being done to Congress. GIPSA administration was found to be hiding investigations when it came to the top.

Tell me you don't support your packer fed NCBA led agenda over producer concerns, MRJ.

YOU ARE JUST LYING.

It is too bad you are using up all your character capital defending packers and shafting producers. This late in life you should have more respect---but you have to act respectable to get it.

CONman, I do enjoy and appreciate the respect of some very respectable people, that you and others whose agenda is to attack NCBA may not respect me is of no concern to me.

I most certainly am not lying. That is what you are doing.

You can choose to interpret the FACT that NCBA recognizes packers for what they are and what they do, and believes it is better to talk with them than to simply blame them for any problem of the cattle/beef industry however you choose.......but that does not include your right to lie about motivations and actions of myself, nor of NCBA. NCBA is NOT lead or controlled by packers. It is very probably the ag organization most directly controlled by the dues paying members in this country! We vote to the policy, and to elect the officers, and directors.

Your claim that my distrust of 'reports' of OIG and/or GIPSA is BECAUSE of my SUPPORT for PACKERS is a lie. It is because of my distrust of career POLITICIANS and BUREAUCRATS!

It is just tough if you believe anyone who reads an analysis or report of a government study rather than the actual study itself should not comment. I never claimed to have read the study, and have pointed out that I read many comments on it from various people, organizations, and media. You don't like my opinion, so I just may be the one who is right, given your anti-business, pro-government control; and my pro-business, anti-Democrat-business-bashing stance on issues.

MRJ

Con-woman, the actual study and report was made available to you. You still took the packer line.

Stop denying you take up every one of the packer propaganda positions and claim to "work with" them all you can. It is hard to "work with" someone who is cheating other producers. I guess for you it isn't hard at all and can call these people "respectable". You need to look deeper.

 

[mrj]

Silly-man, you have no idea what you are talking about! The people whose respect I have are from a far broader spectrum of life and geographical location than those corporate packers you love to hate. Come to think of it, I can't say as I've talked to any packer in quite some time. Other than the local guys who process cattle for us from time to time, that is.

You lie....again!.....when you say I "claim to work with....[packers]....all I can". What I have said is that NCBA, as an organization, is willing to listen to packers, to tell them our points of view on issues, and (Horrors!) to work with them on an issue such as finding solutions to e. Coli and other such problems. We never have supported them in "cheating other producers". We believe everyone has the right to market their cattle as we choose, not according to dictates of people like you, who would deny us that precious and valuable right.

BTW, I never claimed to know "every one of the packer propaganda positions".

Another BTW, how many pages are in those reports? Too many to print economically? Reading on the computer screen is physically painful. Maybe after/if I get my neck repaired.....

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "What I have said is that NCBA, as an organization, is willing to listen to packers, to tell them our points of view on issues, and (Horrors!) to work with them on an issue such as finding solutions to e. Coli and other such problems."

If that is where it stopped, that would be great. However, we're not so lucky. They're also working with them to increase consolidation and to reduce US producer's selling power.

 

[mrj]

MRJ, "What I have said is that NCBA, as an organization, is willing to listen to packers, to tell them our points of view on issues, and (Horrors!) to work with them on an issue such as finding solutions to e. Coli and other such problems."

If that is where it stopped, that would be great. However, we're not so lucky. They're also working with them to increase consolidation and to reduce US producer's selling power.

Sandhusker, here is your chance to be act like a gentleman and show some facts to back that charge against NCBA.

Please tell us specifically what NCBA is doing to achieve that end, as well as why the 26,000 plus cattle producer members of NCBA would allow such action. Reason tells a different story than your claims do.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

Geeeze, MRJ, I don't know where to start. Maybe instead of starting anew, I'll try to get you to address a recent issue that you dont like - NCBA's idiotic and hypocritical backing of the USDA banning private BSE testing.

That is a prime example of NCBA helping the big boys further consolidate the packing industry and reduce producer's options. The USDA's reasons made no sense and even contradicted established policy. They were simply doing the bidding of the folks who donate the most. Agribusiness is one of the largest sectors that "contribute" to Washington and they do it for a reason. The expect a return on their investment and they get it. The AMI doesn't want testing because that is a differentation of product, and that is an expense and hurdle in their ability to arbitrage product worldwide. This hurts US producers because a market (people who want tested beef) was disallowed and the little guys are shut out of a niche market - jeopardizing their future.

Why do the thousands of NCBA members allow it? You're in the best seat to answer that. Why did you think it was OK to disallow a product on the grounds that it wasn't based on sound science when other products that also do not follow "sound science" have been and are allowed? You didn't notice the double standard? Why didn't you question your organization that is supposed to support free enterprise when free enterprise was quashed by the heavy hand of Uncle Sam?

You NCBA members all repeated the AMI scare mantra that if Creekstone tests, everybody will have to test and that the costs of testing will fall on producers. Yet, you didn't look at hormone free and say, "Hmmm, not everybody has to provide hormone free and the consumers are paying for the cost. Could that possibly apply here as well?" I've asked several times why that wouldnt' apply, and get no answer. The question is still on the floor - unless of course, you choose to remain loyal to the NCBA/AMI chant.

Maybe I could of saved two paragraphs by saying NCBA members allowed it because they didn't take a minute to think.

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, "What I have said is that NCBA, as an organization, is willing to listen to packers, to tell them our points of view on issues, and (Horrors!) to work with them on an issue such as finding solutions to e. Coli and other such problems."

If that is where it stopped, that would be great. However, we're not so lucky. They're also working with them to increase consolidation and to reduce US producer's selling power.

Where does the ecoli problem come from MRJ? The meat on the cattle does not have ecoli contamination until after the hide comes off. What things can producers do (except maybe changing the acid content of the stomach) to stop ecoli problems?

The answer?---NOTHING!!!!

If packers would slow down their lines, allow their workers to have NORMAL COMMON SENSE food safety procedures before and during working, and allow the time it takes to be careful with crap coming into contact with the meat, the problem would be solved!!!!!

Spending producer's time and money on this problem is running money down a rathole.

Tell me, for all the efforts NCBA has put into this problem, what other solutions have they come up with other than hiding potential growing contamination on meat by packaging it in gas?

You have got to be one of the slowest people I know. Please stop long enough to think of what you are doing instead of making yourself feel good for inconsequential squanderings of time and producer money!!!

BSE has been a huge problem for beef demand. Please tell me what the NCBA has done in this regards other than trying to help the USDA hide the problem. Our trading partners are not buying that bogus strategy!!!

They're also working with them to increase consolidation and to reduce US producer's selling power.

As this example shows.

MRJ, the NCBA is actually hurting producers by not supporting policies that benefit them, wasting producer money on packer controlled problems with no results, and doing everything they can to advantage big packer commodity programs while not supporting programs like grass fed and organic that actually help producers make more money.

It is not hard to see that the NCBA is the producer's biggest problem. It is because they support all the packer BS without thinking of the producer's interests!