• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"Are the Packers to Blame"

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
This is an older article, but I thought it has some good points. In the article Dr. Price speaks of the Heleniak's, Richard actually passed away earlier this year. He with his brother owned Nor-Pac, here in Ontario.

Dr. David Porter Price,
"American Beef Cattleman"

ARE THE PACKERS TO BLAME?
The feedlot industry is just now coming out of one of the worst marketing periods in history. If fed cattle levels were to reach $.70, most cattlemen would feel things were good. The reality is that cattle sold for $.70 in 1972. To be comparable in terms of real dollars (adjusted for inflation), cattle would have to sell for well over a dollar. The fact is that since the 1970s, the consumption of beef has fallen by nearly 30%, and the price of beef in real dollars has declined 40%. Faced with that scenario, any other industry would be making massive changes, .... but not us.

Why? Because most of us believe we know what the problem is. If you ask virtually any feedlot operator, you will get one of two answers: 1. either packer concentration or; 2. captive supply.

The reality is that this belief is not the result of an analysis, but a gut reaction. It is long-standing animosity, not detailed research, that has brought producers to these conclusions. Every credible study or packer concentration has concluded this is not the problem.
The Real Problem

The fact is that while packers, through contract cattle, could conceivably affect price on a short-term basis, the problem is much greater than that. The problem is long-term. It is and has been long-term because supply is not the problem. That is, to really understand the situation, one must understand the basic principles of economics - supply and demand. The first principle of economics is that price is affected by supply. As supply goes up, price comes down. But long-term, beef supply has gone down, ... and so has price.

Price has gone down because demand has gone down. That is, there are two factors that control price: How much we produce is one factor, but how intently the public wants to buy is another. The reality is that the public does not want to buy our product to the same extent as before. And that is something the packer doesn't have control over. Or do they?

In the 21 years I have been serving this industry, I have been reading research pertaining to what constitutes meat quality. And what that research says is that our grading system doesn't get the job done. In fact, it works against us. One of my favorite quotations is from a Canadian meat scientist, Dr. S.D. Morgan Jones: "The idea that the grading system works is a charade that plays out on a daily basis." Scientists from our own USDA have said, "Based on available data, it appears that between 5 and 10% of the variation in tenderness can be accounted for by USDA marbling degree. Most importantly, none of the studies (on USDA marbling score) detected palatability differences, ... that could justify the price differentials (between Select and Choice grades)."

The bottom line is that our grading system assumes that marbling is essentially the only determinant of quality. The reality is that marbling is only one of several aspects affecting quality (more later).

Our grading system also assumes that the relationship with marbling is linear. The reality is that it is curvilinear. In other words, once you reach a certain point with respect to marbling, there is diminishing value to further increases.

The reality, is that once there is enough marbling to reach the Select grade, further increases are of marginal value. At that point muscle texture becomes much more important - yet our system does not even consider muscle texture.
The Crux of the Problem

Our grading system was designed in 1916 and has essentially remained unchanged since that time. It is a crude system, originally designed to differentiate corn-fed Midwest steers from grass-fed Texas Longhorns. It assumes (but does not measure) that muscle texture will be similar to British breeds. The problem is that dozens of new breeds have been introduced since the inception of the grading system that have vastly different muscle texture.

The net result is that when a consumer buys a "Choice" steak, he or she has no idea whether it will be tender or tough. That steak could be from a super-tender, calf-fed Holstein with more than 300 days on feed, to a tough-as-nails roping steer that never saw the inside of a feedlot ‘till he was two years old.

Why Demand is Down
There are two primary reasons demand is down. One is the health issue, which to a certain extent our trade associations have tried to deal with. Although not relevant to this discussion, it is important to realize there is a lot more to this issue than meets the eye. Within the scientific literature there is a great deal of information that for some reason public health agencies have chosen to ignore. This is a major problem and it may take more than we are currently doing to correct it.

What is germane to this discussion is the other reason demand is down - inconsistency. This is a problem we know we have and it is something over which we have control, and yet there is enormous inertia with respect to doing anything about it. Why?

Several reasons. To begin with, most of us eat our own beef. We don't walk into a supermarket and pay $5.99/lb. For a T-bone, when (as discussed) unpredictably the steak might be tough. Several years ago I wrote an article entitled "Curse of the Quality Grade," which pointed out that tenderness is the primary item consumers think of in terms of quality, yet our grading system does not address tenderness in any objective manner.

Since that time, we have made a token gesture in the form of the B-maturity issue, but it has had no consequential effect. To begin with, depending upon the cut, research has shown 15 to 40% of all supermarket beef does not meet minimum tenderness standards. Yet a USDA audit showed only about 1.5% of all carcasses graded B.

The reality is that B maturity was a token gesture, because no one wanted to get into the real issue ... which is breeds. The facts are that there is much more variation between breeds than between A and B-maturity. The problem is that some of the breed associations are highly political and vocal. There are breeds that benefit by having an ineffective grading system and will do virtually anything to prevent improvement.

A client who is on the NCBA Grading Task Force asked a major packer about grading their own meat. The reply was that if forced to do so, they would simply continue to use the old USDA system. Given the fact that even USDA's own scientists criticize the ability of the current system to identify quality, why don't the packers want to change?

The reason is that the entire marketing system would change. As it is today, packers have evolved competing on procurement and packaging. Put them on a value-based system, and their world would be turned upside-down. Instead of selling #2 beef or #3 beef, they would have to genuinely identify quality. Most unnerving, they would essentially have to guarantee that quality to the customer.
How Much Would This Cost?

Nothing. As it is today, we assume that Choice is superior to Select and spend $20-$50 in extra feed to try to make every animal grade Choice. The reality, however, is that for any given animal, that extra feed does little more than generate excess fat that costs extra labor to trim off. For any given steer, the carcass with 100-120 days on feed will eat just as good as the same carcass with 130-150 days. Under a value-based system, cattle would be killed when they reach physiological maturity - in other words, with fewer days on feed. That saves money, ... all the way from the feedlot to the butcher. (Less money for unnecessary feed and less labor to trim off excess fat).

An Enormous Risk/Benefit
I recently was visiting with a couple of clients who thoroughly understand value-based marketing. Richard and Ron Heleniak own a highly successful regional packing facility and feed a large percentage of their own cattle. Ron said something that is totally obvious, but most of us probably haven't thought about it: "The big packers are not going to want to become involved in branded products due to the damage a recall could do. Conversely, this would be to the advantage of the industry as a whole. In other words, in case of an E. coli 0157:H7 recall, the public doesn't get turned-off on beef in general. If the packer's name appears on the package, they discriminate against that brand, ... not the product." Such would also be the case with quality. If a housewife gets a tough steak, she doesn't quit buying beef, ... she just switches to another brand.
The Future

If we want to change things for the better, we have to face reality. To reiterate, the reality is that our current grading system does not measure tenderness in any objective manner. As a result, it guarantees inconsistency, while causing us to feed excessively. Most important, it ignores the genetic diversity in cattle and keeps us locked into a commodity-based pricing system.

Every one of our competitors has gone to a value-based system. Ham, bacon, broilers, turkey, catfish, cheese and dairy products all have the quality guaranteed by the processor. This not only creates consistency, but also leads to innovation.

Every marketing study has indicated that the consumer is becoming less and less traditional. Vital to the future will be products that can be prepared quickly or are otherwise "user-friendly." Our competitor's products are available in a myriad of precooked, packaged and/or microwavable forms. Uncooked, they often come with instructions, breaded, basted or in their own cooking utensil. Turkeys even come with internal thermometers.

The packer achieves success not for accurately predicting quality or providing convenience. Rather, the packer is rewarded only through buying, processing and shipping at a lower cost.
Can We Blame The Packer?

No. As long as we continue to put blind faith in a system that ignores muscle texture and says marbling is the only indicator of quality, ... the packer has no choice. As long as we adhere to a system that says a crossbred Brahman with 150 days of feed is the same as an Angus with 100 days; is the same as a calf-fed Simmental with 200 days, the packer has no choice. He has to buy them as cheap as he can, put them all in the same box, and worry not what the consumer thinks.

Bottom Line
The packer is not the cause of our problems, but he is the key to our future. By himself, however, he is not going to take us there. Left alone, he will continue to take us down the same road we are on. Declining real prices and market share.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
So many good points in that article. The packers should have to put their name on the beef they sell. Why not? Maybe it would make them compete for better quality cattle. I know I will never buy one of those painted steaks again.

Murgen there has been a lot of improvement on the data about breeding bulls as I am sure that Jason can attest to. Why can't we have the same gains for the consumer side? I know I will not ever try to eat another brahma or heavy cross again. The European breeds brought back the yield to the American herds, why aren't we testing for the things the consumer wants?

Jason, have you ever had some of the palatablity and tenderness issues that are brought up here? Can we have that type of data so that better quality cattle (what the consumer wants) are paid a premium instead of the current game? rkaiser, what do you say about that? What would either of you do if a heavy brahman mix (or similar type breed) got caught up in your production systems?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Econ101, since this article was written, I believe Branded Beef products have grown in numbers, and the Packers are putting their names on some of those product lines, but the advantage is to the producer to do the same, and produce a product that the consumer can purchase repeatedly with confidence of consistency.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I've seen this before, but it is a very good article. Thanks for some good stuff again, Murgen.

You must be laying off that big bong! :wink:
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Murgen said:
This is an older article, but I thought it has some good points. In the article Dr. Price speaks of the Heleniak's, Richard actually passed away earlier this year. He with his brother owned Nor-Pac, here in Ontario.

Dr. David Porter Price,
"American Beef Cattleman"

ARE THE PACKERS TO BLAME?
The feedlot industry is just now coming out of one of the worst marketing periods in history. If fed cattle levels were to reach $.70, most cattlemen would feel things were good. The reality is that cattle sold for $.70 in 1972. To be comparable in terms of real dollars (adjusted for inflation), cattle would have to sell for well over a dollar. The fact is that since the 1970s, the consumption of beef has fallen by nearly 30%, and the price of beef in real dollars has declined 40%. Faced with that scenario, any other industry would be making massive changes, .... but not us.

Why? Because most of us believe we know what the problem is. If you ask virtually any feedlot operator, you will get one of two answers: 1. either packer concentration or; 2. captive supply.

The reality is that this belief is not the result of an analysis, but a gut reaction. It is long-standing animosity, not detailed research, that has brought producers to these conclusions. Every credible study or packer concentration has concluded this is not the problem.
The Real Problem

The fact is that while packers, through contract cattle, could conceivably affect price on a short-term basis, the problem is much greater than that. The problem is long-term. It is and has been long-term because supply is not the problem. That is, to really understand the situation, one must understand the basic principles of economics - supply and demand. The first principle of economics is that price is affected by supply. As supply goes up, price comes down. But long-term, beef supply has gone down, ... and so has price.

Price has gone down because demand has gone down. That is, there are two factors that control price: How much we produce is one factor, but how intently the public wants to buy is another. The reality is that the public does not want to buy our product to the same extent as before. And that is something the packer doesn't have control over. Or do they?

In the 21 years I have been serving this industry, I have been reading research pertaining to what constitutes meat quality. And what that research says is that our grading system doesn't get the job done. In fact, it works against us. One of my favorite quotations is from a Canadian meat scientist, Dr. S.D. Morgan Jones: "The idea that the grading system works is a charade that plays out on a daily basis." Scientists from our own USDA have said, "Based on available data, it appears that between 5 and 10% of the variation in tenderness can be accounted for by USDA marbling degree. Most importantly, none of the studies (on USDA marbling score) detected palatability differences, ... that could justify the price differentials (between Select and Choice grades)."

The bottom line is that our grading system assumes that marbling is essentially the only determinant of quality. The reality is that marbling is only one of several aspects affecting quality (more later).

Our grading system also assumes that the relationship with marbling is linear. The reality is that it is curvilinear. In other words, once you reach a certain point with respect to marbling, there is diminishing value to further increases.

The reality, is that once there is enough marbling to reach the Select grade, further increases are of marginal value. At that point muscle texture becomes much more important - yet our system does not even consider muscle texture.
The Crux of the Problem

Our grading system was designed in 1916 and has essentially remained unchanged since that time. It is a crude system, originally designed to differentiate corn-fed Midwest steers from grass-fed Texas Longhorns. It assumes (but does not measure) that muscle texture will be similar to British breeds. The problem is that dozens of new breeds have been introduced since the inception of the grading system that have vastly different muscle texture.

The net result is that when a consumer buys a "Choice" steak, he or she has no idea whether it will be tender or tough. That steak could be from a super-tender, calf-fed Holstein with more than 300 days on feed, to a tough-as-nails roping steer that never saw the inside of a feedlot ‘till he was two years old.

Why Demand is Down
There are two primary reasons demand is down. One is the health issue, which to a certain extent our trade associations have tried to deal with. Although not relevant to this discussion, it is important to realize there is a lot more to this issue than meets the eye. Within the scientific literature there is a great deal of information that for some reason public health agencies have chosen to ignore. This is a major problem and it may take more than we are currently doing to correct it.

What is germane to this discussion is the other reason demand is down - inconsistency. This is a problem we know we have and it is something over which we have control, and yet there is enormous inertia with respect to doing anything about it. Why?

Several reasons. To begin with, most of us eat our own beef. We don't walk into a supermarket and pay $5.99/lb. For a T-bone, when (as discussed) unpredictably the steak might be tough. Several years ago I wrote an article entitled "Curse of the Quality Grade," which pointed out that tenderness is the primary item consumers think of in terms of quality, yet our grading system does not address tenderness in any objective manner.

Since that time, we have made a token gesture in the form of the B-maturity issue, but it has had no consequential effect. To begin with, depending upon the cut, research has shown 15 to 40% of all supermarket beef does not meet minimum tenderness standards. Yet a USDA audit showed only about 1.5% of all carcasses graded B.

The reality is that B maturity was a token gesture, because no one wanted to get into the real issue ... which is breeds. The facts are that there is much more variation between breeds than between A and B-maturity. The problem is that some of the breed associations are highly political and vocal. There are breeds that benefit by having an ineffective grading system and will do virtually anything to prevent improvement.

A client who is on the NCBA Grading Task Force asked a major packer about grading their own meat. The reply was that if forced to do so, they would simply continue to use the old USDA system. Given the fact that even USDA's own scientists criticize the ability of the current system to identify quality, why don't the packers want to change?

The reason is that the entire marketing system would change. As it is today, packers have evolved competing on procurement and packaging. Put them on a value-based system, and their world would be turned upside-down. Instead of selling #2 beef or #3 beef, they would have to genuinely identify quality. Most unnerving, they would essentially have to guarantee that quality to the customer.
How Much Would This Cost?

Nothing. As it is today, we assume that Choice is superior to Select and spend $20-$50 in extra feed to try to make every animal grade Choice. The reality, however, is that for any given animal, that extra feed does little more than generate excess fat that costs extra labor to trim off. For any given steer, the carcass with 100-120 days on feed will eat just as good as the same carcass with 130-150 days. Under a value-based system, cattle would be killed when they reach physiological maturity - in other words, with fewer days on feed. That saves money, ... all the way from the feedlot to the butcher. (Less money for unnecessary feed and less labor to trim off excess fat).

An Enormous Risk/Benefit
I recently was visiting with a couple of clients who thoroughly understand value-based marketing. Richard and Ron Heleniak own a highly successful regional packing facility and feed a large percentage of their own cattle. Ron said something that is totally obvious, but most of us probably haven't thought about it: "The big packers are not going to want to become involved in branded products due to the damage a recall could do. Conversely, this would be to the advantage of the industry as a whole. In other words, in case of an E. coli 0157:H7 recall, the public doesn't get turned-off on beef in general. If the packer's name appears on the package, they discriminate against that brand, ... not the product." Such would also be the case with quality. If a housewife gets a tough steak, she doesn't quit buying beef, ... she just switches to another brand.
The Future

If we want to change things for the better, we have to face reality. To reiterate, the reality is that our current grading system does not measure tenderness in any objective manner. As a result, it guarantees inconsistency, while causing us to feed excessively. Most important, it ignores the genetic diversity in cattle and keeps us locked into a commodity-based pricing system.

Every one of our competitors has gone to a value-based system. Ham, bacon, broilers, turkey, catfish, cheese and dairy products all have the quality guaranteed by the processor. This not only creates consistency, but also leads to innovation.

Every marketing study has indicated that the consumer is becoming less and less traditional. Vital to the future will be products that can be prepared quickly or are otherwise "user-friendly." Our competitor's products are available in a myriad of precooked, packaged and/or microwavable forms. Uncooked, they often come with instructions, breaded, basted or in their own cooking utensil. Turkeys even come with internal thermometers.

The packer achieves success not for accurately predicting quality or providing convenience. Rather, the packer is rewarded only through buying, processing and shipping at a lower cost.
Can We Blame The Packer?

No. As long as we continue to put blind faith in a system that ignores muscle texture and says marbling is the only indicator of quality, ... the packer has no choice. As long as we adhere to a system that says a crossbred Brahman with 150 days of feed is the same as an Angus with 100 days; is the same as a calf-fed Simmental with 200 days, the packer has no choice. He has to buy them as cheap as he can, put them all in the same box, and worry not what the consumer thinks.

Bottom Line
The packer is not the cause of our problems, but he is the key to our future. By himself, however, he is not going to take us there. Left alone, he will continue to take us down the same road we are on. Declining real prices and market share.

This is an excellent article from a person who was a very good friend of mine. Perhaps most of you can realize why input from all sectors of the beef industry is vital to the long term success of the beef industry. As I have stated many times on these forums, improving beef demand is the the solution to the survival of this industry.

We are all members of the beef industry-like it or not. Nineteen years of declining beef demand should make it clear to every producer that trend will only shrink and consolidate our industry. To see the full benefits of increased consumer spending on beef one just needs to recall the gains made since the fall of 1998.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
We could all take some context from this article to defend ourselves in our arguements on ranchers. However, if we all agreed that we are truely fighting the other comodities for market share, we would have no fun what so ever on this site. I never see any chicken guys or pork producers chiming in here.

I truely believe that discussion about packers is needed, and even if it gets a bit rough from time to time, it is essential for the health of our industry.

I thought you were going to change jobs Murgen, what's all this talk about tenderness. :wink: :wink:

Yes Econo, flavour and simply palatability have not taken center stage where they belong, and we have seen that with our ease in developing a market share here in our little area of the world. Factory farming is a sure way to limit these factors in one hell of a hurry. Beef is not chicken, and beef is not pork. We cannot compete in a factory like environment with the products mainly because we need to deal with the environment in a major way. Brahman cattle survive better in the heat and the bugs but produce a different carcass than Hairy Fleshy Galloways. (you knew that was coming didn't you Murgen). What you might not expect is the next line. Consumers want Brahman cattle, and they want Galloway cattle. Better is the word used in sale, but different is the word used in reality.
If our industry could build on our diversity rather than try to fucos on trying to suit a factory line at the least possible expense, we could make a lot of headway.

Apologies to the continental breeders, but I personally believe that the invasion of these breeds gave us all the hope that we could compete with fish for cost of production and have our beef on the hook twice a year like the pig boys. Of course this was a dream, just as the use of hormmones was a dream. Both of these changes to our industry forgot about flavour and tenderness and concentrated on all the money we were going to make in the beef business now that we had woken up to the new age. Once again, as I said before, customers want Brahman as well as Galloway beef and some even want Continenetal carcasses. But most of all they want a satisfying eating experience, be it a tasty burger or a juicy steak.

I'll quit now and wait for my statements to be challenged.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
I also agree the breed has a major impact.

The vast majority of my beef sales are virgin bulls, very lean by industry standards and very lean by Angus standards. My butcher has complained on occassion the carcasses were too lean, they didn't set up in the cooler and he said they would be tough. I got rave reviews.

I had one customer ask for a heifer one year, he wanted a fatter animal, I sold him a short fed heifer that would have made the grade on the rail, maybe about midway on the fat cover. His kids didn't like the trim(fat cover). His next animal was a virgin bull.

My neighbor bought a virgin bull from me last year. He was short and didn't have an animal of his own. He said it was the best meat he had ever eaten. His animals are at least 50% Gelbievh (spelling?).

These examples are anecdotal, but I am sure there is a connection. Most call me biased if I say Angus have better quality meat. I have raised holstiens and their texture isn't as nice as Angus either. Shorthorn has been reported to be greasy and stringy, I have never eaten one. Nor have I eaten a Hereford.

All that being said, an inexperienced cook can ruin any piece of beef. And your expectations influence how you feel about the beef. Filet will always be better eating than round or chuck. It's not a fair comparison.

But all this still comes back to the little guy that just raises a few calves to suppliment is income. He will use anything to settle his cows. I have seen Holstien cross bulls out in the pasture with some. Then he is upset if a neighbor gets a better price for his uniform black baldie calves.

Many of us know the direction things should go, but human nature and economics drive the real world.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rkaiser said:
We could all take some context from this article to defend ourselves in our arguements on ranchers. However, if we all agreed that we are truely fighting the other comodities for market share, we would have no fun what so ever on this site. I never see any chicken guys or pork producers chiming in here.

I truely believe that discussion about packers is needed, and even if it gets a bit rough from time to time, it is essential for the health of our industry.

I thought you were going to change jobs Murgen, what's all this talk about tenderness. :wink: :wink:

Yes Econo, flavour and simply palatability have not taken center stage where they belong, and we have seen that with our ease in developing a market share here in our little area of the world. Factory farming is a sure way to limit these factors in one hell of a hurry. Beef is not chicken, and beef is not pork. We cannot compete in a factory like environment with the products mainly because we need to deal with the environment in a major way. Brahman cattle survive better in the heat and the bugs but produce a different carcass than Hairy Fleshy Galloways. (you knew that was coming didn't you Murgen). What you might not expect is the next line. Consumers want Brahman cattle, and they want Galloway cattle. Better is the word used in sale, but different is the word used in reality.
If our industry could build on our diversity rather than try to fucos on trying to suit a factory line at the least possible expense, we could make a lot of headway.

Apologies to the continental breeders, but I personally believe that the invasion of these breeds gave us all the hope that we could compete with fish for cost of production and have our beef on the hook twice a year like the pig boys. Of course this was a dream, just as the use of hormmones was a dream. Both of these changes to our industry forgot about flavour and tenderness and concentrated on all the money we were going to make in the beef business now that we had woken up to the new age. Once again, as I said before, customers want Brahman as well as Galloway beef and some even want Continenetal carcasses. But most of all they want a satisfying eating experience, be it a tasty burger or a juicy steak.

I'll quit now and wait for my statements to be challenged.

Randy, I agree that we need discussion about/with packers on here.

Have you ever seen any?

All I've seen is attacks against packers and anyone who posts anything positive about them.

Real discussion of real, rather than claimed, dreamed, or perceived, problems or actions of packers would be truly refreshing.

MRJ
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Well MRJ, that's your opinion of what goes on on here. Another might be that there are a number of people who attack anyone who sees anything other than packer innocence and integrity.

Disagreeing with this notion has resulted in some down and dirty discussion, but obvioulsy you have chosen your side and cannot even see it as that.

What is wrog with talking about packer ownership, or potential market manipulation? What is wrong with talking about mutinational control and power?

Don't read it if you don't like it MRJ - that's your choice, as it is every one else's choice. If you want to support one side like you have now stated on this thread, that is also your choice.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
rkaiser said:
We could all take some context from this article to defend ourselves in our arguements on ranchers. However, if we all agreed that we are truely fighting the other comodities for market share, we would have no fun what so ever on this site. I never see any chicken guys or pork producers chiming in here.

I truely believe that discussion about packers is needed, and even if it gets a bit rough from time to time, it is essential for the health of our industry.

I thought you were going to change jobs Murgen, what's all this talk about tenderness. :wink: :wink:

Yes Econo, flavour and simply palatability have not taken center stage where they belong, and we have seen that with our ease in developing a market share here in our little area of the world. Factory farming is a sure way to limit these factors in one hell of a hurry. Beef is not chicken, and beef is not pork. We cannot compete in a factory like environment with the products mainly because we need to deal with the environment in a major way. Brahman cattle survive better in the heat and the bugs but produce a different carcass than Hairy Fleshy Galloways. (you knew that was coming didn't you Murgen). What you might not expect is the next line. Consumers want Brahman cattle, and they want Galloway cattle. Better is the word used in sale, but different is the word used in reality.
If our industry could build on our diversity rather than try to fucos on trying to suit a factory line at the least possible expense, we could make a lot of headway.

Apologies to the continental breeders, but I personally believe that the invasion of these breeds gave us all the hope that we could compete with fish for cost of production and have our beef on the hook twice a year like the pig boys. Of course this was a dream, just as the use of hormmones was a dream. Both of these changes to our industry forgot about flavour and tenderness and concentrated on all the money we were going to make in the beef business now that we had woken up to the new age. Once again, as I said before, customers want Brahman as well as Galloway beef and some even want Continenetal carcasses. But most of all they want a satisfying eating experience, be it a tasty burger or a juicy steak.

I'll quit now and wait for my statements to be challenged.

Randy, I agree that we need discussion about/with packers on here.

Have you ever seen any?

All I've seen is attacks against packers and anyone who posts anything positive about them.

Real discussion of real, rather than claimed, dreamed, or perceived, problems or actions of packers would be truly refreshing.

MRJ

If you could only understand and know the math on this issue you too would understand, MRJ. Packers are an important part of the chain for beef but they should not use their bottleneck to mess up the rest of the industry. To some people nothing is real. To others, the reality is what bites.
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
Brahman cattle survive better in the heat and the bugs but produce a different carcass than Hairy Fleshy Galloways. (you knew that was coming didn't you Murgen). What you might not expect is the next line. Consumers want Brahman cattle, and they want Galloway cattle.rkaiser quote

Only way that can be done at the retail shelf is with our system of placing that info on the meat container inside of a 2D Data- Matrix barcode built on the fly with data that controls all of the barcode info from Field To Fork threw our server system.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
STAFF said:
Brahman cattle survive better in the heat and the bugs but produce a different carcass than Hairy Fleshy Galloways. (you knew that was coming didn't you Murgen). What you might not expect is the next line. Consumers want Brahman cattle, and they want Galloway cattle.rkaiser quote

Only way that can be done at the retail shelf is with our system of placing that info on the meat container inside of a 2D Data- Matrix barcode built on the fly with data that controls all of the barcode info from Field To Fork threw our server system.

Something like that seems more likely to be "what the consumer wants" than simply a label indicating "Product of Canada", which too many people think is the only need.

Adding value such as such as more info about the product along with the quality IS something some consumers will be willing to pay more for, IMO.

MRJ
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
MRJ,We have been testing at major retail outlets a system like you see in the Wal-Marts already where you want a price and you walk over to the barcode reader and the reader will show amount of supply and the current price on the display screen.
What our new twist is that we take it a step farther with a live internet connection to the server and when the customer puts the tracebacked plant or animal product barcode under the reader ,the screen displays within 4 seconds the product info plus a micro brand picture of the product plus facts about it and its history. When no one is using the system paid advertizing is displayed on the montior screen like ,Eat Beef or Gallo Wine ads or Kraft movies.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
STAFF said:
MRJ,We have been testing at major retail outlets a system like you see in the Wal-Marts already where you want a price and you walk over to the barcode reader and the reader will show amount of supply and the current price on the display screen.
What our new twist is that we take it a step farther with a live internet connection to the server and when the customer puts the tracebacked plant or animal product barcode under the reader ,the screen displays within 4 seconds the product info plus a micro brand picture of the product plus facts about it and its history. When no one is using the system paid advertizing is displayed on the montior screen like ,Eat Beef or Gallo Wine ads or Kraft movies.

Sounds interesting. Any bugs in the system yet?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
MRJ, We have been testing at major retail outlets a system like you see in the Wal-Marts already where you want a price and you walk over to the barcode reader and the reader will show amount of supply and the current price on the display screen.
What our new twist is that we take it a step farther with a live internet connection to the server and when the customer puts the tracebacked plant or animal product barcode under the reader ,the screen displays within 4 seconds the product info plus a micro brand picture of the product plus facts about it and its history. When no one is using the system paid advertizing is displayed on the montior screen like ,Eat Beef or Gallo Wine ads or Kraft movies.OH you mean Pringles!!!

How about BoarsHead and Tropicana ,Bet the ad space is worth alot! Hey Guys and Gals at ScoringAg ,KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. This is what Agriculture NEEDS .
 

Denny

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
5,624
Reaction score
0
Location
Mn usa
STAFF said:
Brahman cattle survive better in the heat and the bugs but produce a different carcass than Hairy Fleshy Galloways. (you knew that was coming didn't you Murgen). What you might not expect is the next line. Consumers want Brahman cattle, and they want Galloway cattle.rkaiser quote

Only way that can be done at the retail shelf is with our system of placing that info on the meat container inside of a 2D Data- Matrix barcode built on the fly with data that controls all of the barcode info from Field To Fork threw our server system.

:cowboy: :cowboy:you sure your way is the only way :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
MRJ, We have been testing at major retail outlets a system like you see in the Wal-Marts already where you want a price and you walk over to the barcode reader and the reader will show amount of supply and the current price on the display screen.
What our new twist is that we take it a step farther with a live internet connection to the server and when the customer puts the tracebacked plant or animal product barcode under the reader ,the screen displays within 4 seconds the product info plus a micro brand picture of the product plus facts about it and its history. When no one is using the system paid advertizing is displayed on the montior screen like ,Eat Beef or Gallo Wine ads or Kraft movies.OH you mean Pringles!!!

How about BoarsHead and Tropicana ,Bet the ad space is worth alot! Hey Guys and Gals at ScoringAg ,KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. This is what Agriculture NEEDS .

So Guys Was Hormones a dream????

Of course this was a dream, just as the use of hormmones was a dream. Both of these changes to our industry forgot about flavour and tenderness and concentrated on all the money we were going to make in the beef business now that we had woken up to the new age.VERIFICATION
 

PPRM

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
8
Location
NE Oregon
Notice the proliferation of branded products??? Some are producer coops. The successful ones are getting a consistent product out there.

My point is, if there's an opportunity, take advantage of it, don't whine that someone else isn't doing it for you,


PPRM
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
PORKER said:
MRJ, We have been testing at major retail outlets a system like you see in the Wal-Marts already where you want a price and you walk over to the barcode reader and the reader will show amount of supply and the current price on the display screen.
What our new twist is that we take it a step farther with a live internet connection to the server and when the customer puts the tracebacked plant or animal product barcode under the reader ,the screen displays within 4 seconds the product info plus a micro brand picture of the product plus facts about it and its history. When no one is using the system paid advertizing is displayed on the montior screen like ,Eat Beef or Gallo Wine ads or Kraft movies.OH you mean Pringles!!!

How about BoarsHead and Tropicana ,Bet the ad space is worth alot! Hey Guys and Gals at ScoringAg ,KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. This is what Agriculture NEEDS .

So Guys Was Hormones a dream????

Of course this was a dream, just as the use of hormmones was a dream. Both of these changes to our industry forgot about flavour and tenderness and concentrated on all the money we were going to make in the beef business now that we had woken up to the new age.VERIFICATION

Great! And you did it without the COOL law forcing it on you. Better yet!

That is what I and many other NCBA members want......private enterprise and customer pressure to lead the way (and pay the costs, ultimately).

MRJ
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
Thanks For the support of the IDEA that is being TESTED here at ScoringSystem Inc. and it's division ScoringAg .
How much will NCBA give us for 30 seconds of air time on the screen?
Non of this Ad system would work without your IDEAS from the Ranchers and Farmers working and grazing the land and our world class server system serving the man on the land nomatter the country and or its foodhandlers.
 

Latest posts

Top