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

Atkins?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
DEAR DR. ATKINS
People don't stick to diets: never
have, never will

At its peak in 2004 low-carbo-hydrate diets such as Atkins and others had an estimated 135 million adherents in the U.S. alone, well over half the adult population. The Canadian proportion was probably similar and these diets were also popular in Europe. They were based on the concept that carbohydrate-rich foods were to be avoided in favor of high-protein foods, and that fat is not an important contributor to weight gain.

Basically because of these diets, flour consumption in the U.S. slid from 143 lbs. per capita in 2001 to 133 lbs. in 2004. Multiplied by the U.S. population averaging 290 million over the period, the trend had a massive, unexpected impact on flour milling and wheat demand. U.S. flour production dropped from 411 million cwt to 378 million last year. Part of the decline was due to reduced exports but then foods made with flour were not the only ones affected by the low-carb craze; there were similar trends in breakfast foods. Now the trend appears to be reversing. Flour grind for the latest quarter showed the first year-to-year gain in three years. Talk in baking trade circles is all about the startling turnaround in consumer buying patterns. However the impact on world wheat demand may be small because this is strictly a first-world issue.

Large-scale changes in dietary habits between grain-based carbohydrates and meat protein should have had a positive impact on per-capita meat demand, but the statistics do not show it. Red meat and chicken consumption changes have been well within historic ranges and have been related more to price and availability than consumer preference. Per-capita U.S. red meat consumption rose from 118 lbs. to 121 lbs. between 2001 and 2002, dropped back to 118 lbs. in 2003 and rose to 120 lbs. last year.

I found this interesting especially given the number of posts on this site that touted Atkins for the increase in beef demand. Was there a marked increase in beef demand? This article says no.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Bill, go look at the below website. It has the real data, or as close as you can get to it. While this article clearly states that chicken is in the "normal range", you can clearly see this is not the case. Per capita consumption of chicken rose from 77 lbs. in 2001 to 81 lbs in 2002 and 82 lbs. in 2003. You will have to go to another table to see the 2004 numbers. Beef consumption per capita went from 66 lbs to 67.5 lbs to 64.9 lbs in the respective years of 2001 to 2003. Total meat consumption went from 194.7 lbs to 201.5lbs to 200.3 lbs in 2001-2003 respectively.

Atkins or something definitely had an effect on total meat consumption. The article only quotes per capita consumption of red meat, which is selective picking of data for the article. As you can see by the tables of meat consumption, poultry has gained per capita consumption where beef has not. Atkins was the best "independent" advertising for the meat industries in recent years. Poultry just happened to take beef. I wonder why? May be Agman can explain or checkoff supporter MRJ.

I would agree with part of the article on people eating what they are used to eating. We all have habits.

he data does have some idiosyncracies noted as footnotes.



http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/FoodConsumption/FoodAvailSpreadsheets.htm#mtpcc
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Bill said:
DEAR DR. ATKINS
People don't stick to diets: never
have, never will

At its peak in 2004 low-carbo-hydrate diets such as Atkins and others had an estimated 135 million adherents in the U.S. alone, well over half the adult population. The Canadian proportion was probably similar and these diets were also popular in Europe. They were based on the concept that carbohydrate-rich foods were to be avoided in favor of high-protein foods, and that fat is not an important contributor to weight gain.

Basically because of these diets, flour consumption in the U.S. slid from 143 lbs. per capita in 2001 to 133 lbs. in 2004. Multiplied by the U.S. population averaging 290 million over the period, the trend had a massive, unexpected impact on flour milling and wheat demand. U.S. flour production dropped from 411 million cwt to 378 million last year. Part of the decline was due to reduced exports but then foods made with flour were not the only ones affected by the low-carb craze; there were similar trends in breakfast foods. Now the trend appears to be reversing. Flour grind for the latest quarter showed the first year-to-year gain in three years. Talk in baking trade circles is all about the startling turnaround in consumer buying patterns. However the impact on world wheat demand may be small because this is strictly a first-world issue.

Large-scale changes in dietary habits between grain-based carbohydrates and meat protein should have had a positive impact on per-capita meat demand, but the statistics do not show it. Red meat and chicken consumption changes have been well within historic ranges and have been related more to price and availability than consumer preference. Per-capita U.S. red meat consumption rose from 118 lbs. to 121 lbs. between 2001 and 2002, dropped back to 118 lbs. in 2003 and rose to 120 lbs. last year.

I found this interesting especially given the number of posts on this site that touted Atkins for the increase in beef demand. Was there a marked increase in beef demand? This article says no.

The Atkins diet was a contributing factor to increased demand for beef but the aforementioned article way overstates the impact. People ascribing to the diet were approximately 11% of the population, not 50% as the article mentions. Has beef demand improved, absolutely? To suggest otherwise is sheer folly.

Also, consumption by it self only measures available supply, not demand. The aforementioned article only shows that the author does not understand DEMAND. Perhaps it was written by Econ101!!!
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
agman said:
Bill said:
DEAR DR. ATKINS
People don't stick to diets: never
have, never will

At its peak in 2004 low-carbo-hydrate diets such as Atkins and others had an estimated 135 million adherents in the U.S. alone, well over half the adult population. The Canadian proportion was probably similar and these diets were also popular in Europe. They were based on the concept that carbohydrate-rich foods were to be avoided in favor of high-protein foods, and that fat is not an important contributor to weight gain.

Basically because of these diets, flour consumption in the U.S. slid from 143 lbs. per capita in 2001 to 133 lbs. in 2004. Multiplied by the U.S. population averaging 290 million over the period, the trend had a massive, unexpected impact on flour milling and wheat demand. U.S. flour production dropped from 411 million cwt to 378 million last year. Part of the decline was due to reduced exports but then foods made with flour were not the only ones affected by the low-carb craze; there were similar trends in breakfast foods. Now the trend appears to be reversing. Flour grind for the latest quarter showed the first year-to-year gain in three years. Talk in baking trade circles is all about the startling turnaround in consumer buying patterns. However the impact on world wheat demand may be small because this is strictly a first-world issue.

Large-scale changes in dietary habits between grain-based carbohydrates and meat protein should have had a positive impact on per-capita meat demand, but the statistics do not show it. Red meat and chicken consumption changes have been well within historic ranges and have been related more to price and availability than consumer preference. Per-capita U.S. red meat consumption rose from 118 lbs. to 121 lbs. between 2001 and 2002, dropped back to 118 lbs. in 2003 and rose to 120 lbs. last year.

I found this interesting especially given the number of posts on this site that touted Atkins for the increase in beef demand. Was there a marked increase in beef demand? This article says no.

The Atkins diet was a contributing factor to increased demand for beef but the aforementioned article way overstates the impact. People ascribing to the diet were approximately 11% of the population, not 50% as the article mentions. Has beef demand improved, absolutely? To suggest otherwise is sheer folly.

Also, consumption by it self only measures available supply, not demand. The aforementioned article only shows that the author does not understand DEMAND. Perhaps it was written by Econ101!!!

The article states "At its peak in 2004 low-carbo-hydrate diets such as Atkins and others had an estimated 135 million adherents in the U.S. alone, well over half the adult population." I suspect the actual number is somewhere between the 11% you suggest were on the Atkins diet and the suspiciously high "over 50%" the above author maintains were on carb- reduced diets. Thanks for your input 101 and Agman.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Bill said:
DEAR DR. ATKINS
People don't stick to diets: never
have, never will

At its peak in 2004 low-carbo-hydrate diets such as Atkins and others had an estimated 135 million adherents in the U.S. alone, well over half the adult population. The Canadian proportion was probably similar and these diets were also popular in Europe. They were based on the concept that carbohydrate-rich foods were to be avoided in favor of high-protein foods, and that fat is not an important contributor to weight gain.

Basically because of these diets, flour consumption in the U.S. slid from 143 lbs. per capita in 2001 to 133 lbs. in 2004. Multiplied by the U.S. population averaging 290 million over the period, the trend had a massive, unexpected impact on flour milling and wheat demand. U.S. flour production dropped from 411 million cwt to 378 million last year. Part of the decline was due to reduced exports but then foods made with flour were not the only ones affected by the low-carb craze; there were similar trends in breakfast foods. Now the trend appears to be reversing. Flour grind for the latest quarter showed the first year-to-year gain in three years. Talk in baking trade circles is all about the startling turnaround in consumer buying patterns. However the impact on world wheat demand may be small because this is strictly a first-world issue.

Large-scale changes in dietary habits between grain-based carbohydrates and meat protein should have had a positive impact on per-capita meat demand, but the statistics do not show it. Red meat and chicken consumption changes have been well within historic ranges and have been related more to price and availability than consumer preference. Per-capita U.S. red meat consumption rose from 118 lbs. to 121 lbs. between 2001 and 2002, dropped back to 118 lbs. in 2003 and rose to 120 lbs. last year.

I found this interesting especially given the number of posts on this site that touted Atkins for the increase in beef demand. Was there a marked increase in beef demand? This article says no.

The Atkins diet was a contributing factor to increased demand for beef but the aforementioned article way overstates the impact. People ascribing to the diet were approximately 11% of the population, not 50% as the article mentions. Has beef demand improved, absolutely? To suggest otherwise is sheer folly.

Also, consumption by it self only measures available supply, not demand. The aforementioned article only shows that the author does not understand DEMAND. Perhaps it was written by Econ101!!!

Agman, why would you think I wrote the article when I refuted parts of it?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Bill, go look at the below website. It has the real data, or as close as you can get to it. While this article clearly states that chicken is in the "normal range", you can clearly see this is not the case. Per capita consumption of chicken rose from 77 lbs. in 2001 to 81 lbs in 2002 and 82 lbs. in 2003. You will have to go to another table to see the 2004 numbers. Beef consumption per capita went from 66 lbs to 67.5 lbs to 64.9 lbs in the respective years of 2001 to 2003. Total meat consumption went from 194.7 lbs to 201.5lbs to 200.3 lbs in 2001-2003 respectively.

Atkins or something definitely had an effect on total meat consumption. The article only quotes per capita consumption of red meat, which is selective picking of data for the article. As you can see by the tables of meat consumption, poultry has gained per capita consumption where beef has not. Atkins was the best "independent" advertising for the meat industries in recent years. Poultry just happened to take beef. I wonder why? May be Agman can explain or checkoff supporter MRJ.

I would agree with part of the article on people eating what they are used to eating. We all have habits.

he data does have some idiosyncracies noted as footnotes.



http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/FoodConsumption/FoodAvailSpreadsheets.htm#mtpcc

The trend to increasing per capita consumption of chicken versus beef began in earnest in the mid 70's. That was long before the Atkins diet was mainstream news or Tyson merged with IBP. In fact since 197O beef consumption declined from 84.6# to 65.9# this year, a decline of 18.7 pounds per capita. During the same period total red meat and poultry consumption increased from 185.4# per capita to 217.3# this year, a gain of 31.9 pounds. Per capita chicken consumption increased from 36.9# in 1970 to 85.2 pounds this year, a gain of 48.3#. All the gain in total meat consumption went to poultry. Poultry captured all the market share that beef lost and was the sole meat contributing to the gain in total meat and poultry consumption. Remember that consumption only measures supply, not demand.

What about demand? Beef demand began a nineteen year precipitous decline in 1980 that ended in 1998. During that period consumers ate less beef at lower REAL prices. That is the worst case demand scenario. During the same period chicken consumption increased initially at lower Real prices then consumption continued to increase even while REAL prices increased. REAL prices means retail prices are adjusted to account for inflation. In summary, chicken benefited from the best of all demand scenarios, more product was consumed at steady to higher REAL prices while beef consumption and REAL beef prices were moving in the opposite direction.

Since 1998 per capita beef consumption has deceased less than one pound through 2005. However, that level of consumption is occurring at prices that are sharply above 1998 levels. Therefore only a very small portion of the price advance is due to a reduction in per capita supply/ consumption. Nearly the entire price advance from 1998 to 2005 is the result of improved demand for beef. Consumers have been willing to pay substantially higher prices for essentially the same quantity of supply. Demand does not get mcuh better than that.

This improved demand for beef can also be measured in consumer expenditures and market share of consumers spending. From 1980 - 1998 beef captured approximately 10% of annual NEW spending or red meat and poultry. Beginning in 1999 beef spending by consumers began to increase and now beef is capturing as much as 75% of all NEW spending on red meat and poultry.

The primary reason for record cattle prices is an sharp increase in consumer demand for beef. The empirical evidence to support that conclusion is irrefutable.

The only source of additional money to support higher cattle prices comes directly from the consumer and no one else. If you like the results of recent years then get on board with those who understand the future of the beef industry is in continuing to address consumer wants and preferences which will result in improved beef demand. Everything else is a waste of time and money. Sorry for the length of this response. good luck and stay focused on the consumer. agman
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman, I will make this much shorter:

beef and veal
The CPI for beef and veal, which rose 11.6 percent in 2004, is expected to increase only 1.0 to 2.0 percent in 2005. The large increase in beef prices in 2004 was attributed to relatively tight supplies of domestic beef cattle, continued strong consumer demand for beef, price increases from meat suppliers in response to the BSE findings in the U.S. and Canada, and subsequent trade issues between the U.S. and its trading partners. This was the largest increase in any food category in 2004 and was the largest increase in beef prices since 1979.

Quote from the ERS. Note, Agman, they said "relatively tight supplies".

Here is the link: http://151.121.68.30/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/outlook.htm#meats

The quote, "price increases from meat suppliers" deserves further investigating.

Agman, your analysis totally left out what happened to the prices for the substitutes for beef. Obviously poultry was substituted for beef. Here is what happened to the CPI for the substitutes:

pork
The CPI for pork increased 5.6 percent in 2004, as producers looked to fill the gap left by beef and poultry food safety and trade concerns. The CPI for pork is expected to increase 1.0 to 2.0 percent in 2005, as more stable production and prices in other meat categories will keep pork prices down at the retail level.

other meats
The CPI for other meats increased 4.5 percent in 2004, and 2005 prices are expected to increase 1.0 to 2.0 percent. Other meats are highly processed food items (hot dogs, bologna, sausages), with their price changes influenced by the general inflation rate as well as the cost of the meat inputs, which should be more stable in 2005.

poultry
The CPI for poultry increased 7.5 percent in 2004 (the largest 1-year increase since 1989), and an increase of 2.0 to 3.0 percent is expected in 2005. Broiler production in 2005 is forecast to increase by 3.1 percent, while turkey production is forecast to be up 2.4 percent.

Question: Does it pay Tyson and Swift to swing the beef markets even if their "packer margins" in beef decline?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Agman, I will make this much shorter:

beef and veal
The CPI for beef and veal, which rose 11.6 percent in 2004, is expected to increase only 1.0 to 2.0 percent in 2005. The large increase in beef prices in 2004 was attributed to relatively tight supplies of domestic beef cattle, continued strong consumer demand for beef, price increases from meat suppliers in response to the BSE findings in the U.S. and Canada, and subsequent trade issues between the U.S. and its trading partners. This was the largest increase in any food category in 2004 and was the largest increase in beef prices since 1979.

Quote from the ERS. Note, Agman, they said "relatively tight supplies".

Here is the link: http://151.121.68.30/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/outlook.htm#meats

The quote, "price increases from meat suppliers" deserves further investigating.

Agman, your analysis totally left out what happened to the prices for the substitutes for beef. Obviously poultry was substituted for beef. Here is what happened to the CPI for the substitutes:

pork
The CPI for pork increased 5.6 percent in 2004, as producers looked to fill the gap left by beef and poultry food safety and trade concerns. The CPI for pork is expected to increase 1.0 to 2.0 percent in 2005, as more stable production and prices in other meat categories will keep pork prices down at the retail level.

other meats
The CPI for other meats increased 4.5 percent in 2004, and 2005 prices are expected to increase 1.0 to 2.0 percent. Other meats are highly processed food items (hot dogs, bologna, sausages), with their price changes influenced by the general inflation rate as well as the cost of the meat inputs, which should be more stable in 2005.

poultry
The CPI for poultry increased 7.5 percent in 2004 (the largest 1-year increase since 1989), and an increase of 2.0 to 3.0 percent is expected in 2005. Broiler production in 2005 is forecast to increase by 3.1 percent, while turkey production is forecast to be up 2.4 percent.

Question: Does it pay Tyson and Swift to swing the beef markets even if their "packer margins" in beef decline?

No may analysis did not leave that. You are so inept that you do not even understand what I wrote. The question was did beef demand improve or not. The answer is YES. If total demand for all meats improves, which it did at varying rates, that is even better. But that is so far over your head you will never understand that. I have truly forgotten more about this subject then you will ever know. That is a fact of life unfortunately for you.

Ironically the price gains in 2004 were mostly supply drive, the second largest decline in annual domestic beef production on record. I have stated this many times of these forums.

Go back an read my entire comment. I talked about the period from 1999-2005 that is inclusive of 2004-get it. The result stands. The bulk of the price gains in beef during the 1999-2005 period are the result of improved beef demand. In fact I checked my data in real prices this PM and per capita supply/consumption this year is virtually unchanged from 1998. Yet retail beef prices adjusted for inflation are $.70 per pound above 1998. During the same period if I recall correctly fed cattle prices averaged $21.38/cwt more than in 1998 with virtually no change in per capita supply. Now when I took econ if you sold the same quantity of goods at a substantially higher price that was representative of an upward shift in the demand curve. I know now that you never got that far with you econ education.

From your prior post you stated "if supply does not go down prices cannot go up". I replied you did not know what demand was and you just made the dumbest statement I have heard. You exposed for all to see how little you really know about supply/demand analysis. Do you remember that post? Well the market proved you wrong, I am just the messenger. Prices did advance while supply was virtually unchanged when comparing 2005 to 1998. The bulk of that gain has gone to produces in the form of higher prices they are getting today.

Don't waste my time on a subject that I know and everyone else has figured out you know nothing about.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Agman, I will make this much shorter:

beef and veal
The CPI for beef and veal, which rose 11.6 percent in 2004, is expected to increase only 1.0 to 2.0 percent in 2005. The large increase in beef prices in 2004 was attributed to relatively tight supplies of domestic beef cattle, continued strong consumer demand for beef, price increases from meat suppliers in response to the BSE findings in the U.S. and Canada, and subsequent trade issues between the U.S. and its trading partners. This was the largest increase in any food category in 2004 and was the largest increase in beef prices since 1979.

Quote from the ERS. Note, Agman, they said "relatively tight supplies".

Here is the link: http://151.121.68.30/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/outlook.htm#meats

The quote, "price increases from meat suppliers" deserves further investigating.

Agman, your analysis totally left out what happened to the prices for the substitutes for beef. Obviously poultry was substituted for beef. Here is what happened to the CPI for the substitutes:

pork
The CPI for pork increased 5.6 percent in 2004, as producers looked to fill the gap left by beef and poultry food safety and trade concerns. The CPI for pork is expected to increase 1.0 to 2.0 percent in 2005, as more stable production and prices in other meat categories will keep pork prices down at the retail level.

other meats
The CPI for other meats increased 4.5 percent in 2004, and 2005 prices are expected to increase 1.0 to 2.0 percent. Other meats are highly processed food items (hot dogs, bologna, sausages), with their price changes influenced by the general inflation rate as well as the cost of the meat inputs, which should be more stable in 2005.

poultry
The CPI for poultry increased 7.5 percent in 2004 (the largest 1-year increase since 1989), and an increase of 2.0 to 3.0 percent is expected in 2005. Broiler production in 2005 is forecast to increase by 3.1 percent, while turkey production is forecast to be up 2.4 percent.

Question: Does it pay Tyson and Swift to swing the beef markets even if their "packer margins" in beef decline?

No may analysis did not leave that. You are so inept that you do not even understand what I wrote. The question was did beef demand improve or not. The answer is YES. If total demand for all meats improves, which it did at varying rates, that is even better. But that is so far over your head you will never understand that. I have truly forgotten more about this subject then you will ever know. That is a fact of life unfortunately for you.

Ironically the price gains in 2004 were mostly supply drive, the second largest decline in annual domestic beef production on record. I have stated this many times of these forums.

Go back an read my entire comment. I talked about the period from 1999-2005 that is inclusive of 2004-get it. The result stands. The bulk of the price gains in beef during the 1999-2005 period are the result of improved beef demand. In fact I checked my data in real prices this PM and per capita supply/consumption this year is virtually unchanged from 1998. Yet retail beef prices adjusted for inflation are $.70 per pound above 1998. During the same period if I recall correctly fed cattle prices averaged $21.38/cwt more than in 1998 with virtually no change in per capita supply. Now when I took econ if you sold the same quantity of goods at a substantially higher price that was representative of an upward shift in the demand curve. I know now that you never got that far with you econ education.

From your prior post you stated "if supply does not go down prices cannot go up". I replied you did not know what demand was and you just made the dumbest statement I have heard. You exposed for all to see how little you really know about supply/demand analysis. Do you remember that post? Well the market proved you wrong, I am just the messenger. Prices did advance while supply was virtually unchanged when comparing 2005 to 1998. The bulk of that gain has gone to produces in the form of higher prices they are getting today.

Don't waste my time on a subject that I know and everyone else has figured out you know nothing about.

Go ahead and post my whole paragraph or two instead of a little snippet. I could take little snippets of your posts and turn them into some arcane argument, but I don't have the need to flatter myself as you obviously do.

Agman, if you keep switching between what the cattleman gets and the retail prices, we will never see eye to eye on this forum. There are so many different ways of looking at the data that it is not feasable on this type of forum. I absolutely do not want to get into a "I said this" kind of argument on this forum. If I were at your office looking at the data it would be different. You are going into a quagmire on that one and I don't really want to go there with you. You are only trying to confuse those who don't know this data and its intricacies to trust you with an analysis. I don't. You have had so many things wrong it is pathetic.

You have a hard enough time understanding(or willingness to admit) that cattle prices for ranchers is different than the retail. The packers are in the middle and that makes all the difference.

Here is some ERS data on price spreads:http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodPriceSpreads/meatpricespreads/beef.htm

If I could post tabular data on this forum I would be glad to argue your little arguments, though it might be hard for anyone else to follow us. With selective time periods you can make almost any argument you want.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Agman has always specified what time frames he is commenting on. Taking a longer term look at the industry proves what is a trend and what is a blip.

It is an undeniable fact that all money coming to ranchers is ultimately from the consumer of the beef.

Deny that simple fact and anything else is pointless.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Agman has always specified what time frames he is commenting on. Taking a longer term look at the industry proves what is a trend and what is a blip.

It is an undeniable fact that all money coming to ranchers is ultimately from the consumer of the beef.

Deny that simple fact and anything else is pointless.

Jason, I never denied that fact or disputed it. Agman just had to win an argument and he couldn't do it on the merits of what I posted. He claimed that I "know nothing" about this industry by attributing something to me that I did not say and arguing with himself. He can win every argument he has with himself.

Retailers sell chicken, beef, lamb, pork, synthetic burgers and a lot more. Why should retailers pay an advertising "tax" on beef to promote it over their other products? Packers should, because that is their product. They get the consumer dollar before the cattlemen do, so why should they not pay for the checkoff?

This is just another example of Agman wanting to divert from the discussion, attribute something to me that I did not say so he could win an argument with himself. It is also another example of Jason sucking up to the packer backers.

Deny that point, Jason, and everything else is pointless.

How brown is your nose, Jason?
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Keep diverting yourself Conman, you have denied things you have said several times on these boards. You can switch your arguement in the middle of a thread and deny you ever said anything.

If packers pay the checkoff, it lowers their margin. They offer that much lower for the cattle, so in essence the cattleman has paid it anyway.

The packers pay for their own branded advertising programs, as any company does.

The retailers sell all types of meat and advertise it in their flyers.

Why should primary producers be the only ones who don't pay to advertise their product?


Again I will state the fact that all dollars to the primary producer come from the consumer.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Keep diverting yourself Conman, you have denied things you have said several times on these boards. You can switch your arguement in the middle of a thread and deny you ever said anything.

If packers pay the checkoff, it lowers their margin. They offer that much lower for the cattle, so in essence the cattleman has paid it anyway.

The packers pay for their own branded advertising programs, as any company does.

The retailers sell all types of meat and advertise it in their flyers.

Why should primary producers be the only ones who don't pay to advertise their product?


Again I will state the fact that all dollars to the primary producer come from the consumer.

I have not switched what I have said, I have had to correct the misinterpretations due to the lack of reading comprehension by others like you, Jason.

I don't have a problem with producers paying for their own advertising, as long as it is voluntary. It is not. It is also constrained by what the USDA wants it to say.


Jason:
Again I will state the fact that all dollars to the primary producer come from the consumer.

What is your point? We all know that.

I hope you get your operation reversed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Bill, go look at the below website. It has the real data, or as close as you can get to it. While this article clearly states that chicken is in the "normal range", you can clearly see this is not the case. Per capita consumption of chicken rose from 77 lbs. in 2001 to 81 lbs in 2002 and 82 lbs. in 2003. You will have to go to another table to see the 2004 numbers. Beef consumption per capita went from 66 lbs to 67.5 lbs to 64.9 lbs in the respective years of 2001 to 2003. Total meat consumption went from 194.7 lbs to 201.5lbs to 200.3 lbs in 2001-2003 respectively.

Atkins or something definitely had an effect on total meat consumption. The article only quotes per capita consumption of red meat, which is selective picking of data for the article. As you can see by the tables of meat consumption, poultry has gained per capita consumption where beef has not. Atkins was the best "independent" advertising for the meat industries in recent years. Poultry just happened to take beef. I wonder why? May be Agman can explain or checkoff supporter MRJ."


Assuming the above information is correct, does this mean demand for beef decreased between 2001 and 2003?

Think real hard before you answer that or you might get your teeth kicked in again.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Bill, go look at the below website. It has the real data, or as close as you can get to it. While this article clearly states that chicken is in the "normal range", you can clearly see this is not the case. Per capita consumption of chicken rose from 77 lbs. in 2001 to 81 lbs in 2002 and 82 lbs. in 2003. You will have to go to another table to see the 2004 numbers. Beef consumption per capita went from 66 lbs to 67.5 lbs to 64.9 lbs in the respective years of 2001 to 2003. Total meat consumption went from 194.7 lbs to 201.5lbs to 200.3 lbs in 2001-2003 respectively.

Atkins or something definitely had an effect on total meat consumption. The article only quotes per capita consumption of red meat, which is selective picking of data for the article. As you can see by the tables of meat consumption, poultry has gained per capita consumption where beef has not. Atkins was the best "independent" advertising for the meat industries in recent years. Poultry just happened to take beef. I wonder why? May be Agman can explain or checkoff supporter MRJ."


Assuming the above information is correct, does this mean demand for beef decreased between 2001 and 2003?

Think real hard before you answer that or you might get your teeth kicked in again.



~SH~

SH, I think that Agman's analysis of "demand" is flawed just as his analysis that importing meat from foreign sources is a net benefit to domestic producers. Agman just wants to confuse people who know little about economics so he can sell them on his BS. People in the U.S. are going to eat an average of 2 to 3 (I generally eat 2 but my kids eat 3 or a little more) meals per day. They are not going to change that pattern. If the cost of food goes up 30%, they are still going to eat those same number of meals. It is not an increase in demand that makes them do this. Agman's analysis is just a big heap of B.S. meant to give himself some semblance of credibility to people who do not know the subject. The same exact scenario in the oil business played out here just recently. Just because prices went up did not mean that demand went up. Maybe demand stayed the same and supplies were tight. That makes the prices go up.

Are you assuming that the ERS data is flawed? Do you want to dance on over there and tell them how to do their numbers just so it can fit into your "theory" that is total B.S.?

I haven't had my teeth kicked in by your garbage yet, but you are pert nere toothless.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Assuming the above information is correct, does this mean demand for beef decreased between 2001 and 2003?

DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????


ANSWER THE QUESTION!


Conman: "I haven't had my teeth kicked in by your garbage yet, but you are pert nere toothless."

Nobody has presented more phoniness to this site than you have. You have been corrected continually. You haven't contradicted anything I have stated with opposing facts yet.

Here's a short list of what you have been corrected on:

1. Packers grading their own cattle.
2. A price difference between formula based grid pricing and the cash market being proof of market manipulation.
3. "Free trim" from lean carcasses.
4. Producer does not benefit from imported lean trimmings.
5. Providing proof of Pickett vs. ibp market manipulation.
6. Proof of "behind closed door" meetings with Judge Strom
7. What constitutes beef demand
8. Fat cattle buyers determining how cattle will grade and yield.


That's just off the top of my head.

You are the biggest phony to ever disgrace this site Conman. A total joke!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Assuming the above information is correct, does this mean demand for beef decreased between 2001 and 2003?

DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????


ANSWER THE QUESTION!


Conman: "I haven't had my teeth kicked in by your garbage yet, but you are pert nere toothless."

Nobody has presented more phoniness to this site than you have. You have been corrected continually. You haven't contradicted anything I have stated with opposing facts yet.

Here's a short list of what you have been corrected on:

1. Packers grading their own cattle.
2. A price difference between formula based grid pricing and the cash market being proof of market manipulation.
3. "Free trim" from lean carcasses.
4. Producer does not benefit from imported lean trimmings.
5. Providing proof of Pickett vs. ibp market manipulation.
6. Proof of "behind closed door" meetings with Judge Strom
7. What constitutes beef demand
8. Fat cattle buyers determining how cattle will grade and yield.


That's just off the top of my head.

You are the biggest phony to ever disgrace this site Conman. A total joke!


~SH~

SH, all of those are misrepresentations of what I said. Will you pay BIG C or R-CALF if I refute them all? You have to make up stuff to win arguments. You and Agman can win any arguments you have with yourselves. I have already stated that. These points do all go back to your reading comprehension skills.

What grade did you complete?

Did they pass you just to get you out of school?

How many busses did you wash while class was in session?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



Why do you keep diverting Conman?

Afraid you can't back your economic theories?

Answer the question or keep diverting and show everyone you can't you phony.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



Why do you keep diverting Conman?

Afraid you can't back your economic theories?

Answer the question or keep diverting and show everyone you can't you phony.



~SH~

SH, in economics, everything is relative. It is obvious that per capita consumption of red meats and poultry combined went from 194.7 in 2001., to 201.5 in 2002 to 200.8 in 2003 as measured by the data by ERS. This supports the theory that the Atkins diet had something to do with an increase in meat consumption per capita. Actual beef per capita consumption went down during this period of 3 years.

I think the data clearly shows that the supply of beef went down during this period. My statement saying that you attribute to me was probably in the context of the cattle cycle, and not this particular time frame. Go get the whole post and post it and ask me the question if you want to make the two related. I will not answer little snippets of my posts unless they are contextualized.

Agman said that my "tight supplies" language was erred. I have posted several other industry sources from Darrel Marks at Nebraska to ERS to show the same language. It is Agman that has it wrong. This is the paragraph that Agman wrote:

From your prior post you stated "if supply does not go down prices cannot go up". I replied you did not know what demand was and you just made the dumbest statement I have heard. You exposed for all to see how little you really know about supply/demand analysis. Do you remember that post? Well the market proved you wrong, I am just the messenger. Prices did advance while supply was virtually unchanged when comparing 2005 to 1998. The bulk of that gain has gone to produces in the form of higher prices they are getting today.

In Agman's little analysis, he used selected time periods that I did not use to call my statement "the dumbest statement..." I have shown that the "illusion" I have is shared by more than just myself. That might make Agman delusional. During the time period in question, the prices of substitutes is also important, as they were in the benefits of the price manipulation scheme by Tysons.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Bill, go look at the below website. It has the real data, or as close as you can get to it. While this article clearly states that chicken is in the "normal range", you can clearly see this is not the case. Per capita consumption of chicken rose from 77 lbs. in 2001 to 81 lbs in 2002 and 82 lbs. in 2003. You will have to go to another table to see the 2004 numbers. Beef consumption per capita went from 66 lbs to 67.5 lbs to 64.9 lbs in the respective years of 2001 to 2003. Total meat consumption went from 194.7 lbs to 201.5lbs to 200.3 lbs in 2001-2003 respectively.

Atkins or something definitely had an effect on total meat consumption. The article only quotes per capita consumption of red meat, which is selective picking of data for the article. As you can see by the tables of meat consumption, poultry has gained per capita consumption where beef has not. Atkins was the best "independent" advertising for the meat industries in recent years. Poultry just happened to take beef. I wonder why? May be Agman can explain or checkoff supporter MRJ."


Assuming the above information is correct, does this mean demand for beef decreased between 2001 and 2003?

Think real hard before you answer that or you might get your teeth kicked in again.



~SH~

SH, I think that Agman's analysis of "demand" is flawed just as his analysis that importing meat from foreign sources is a net benefit to domestic producers. Agman just wants to confuse people who know little about economics so he can sell them on his BS. People in the U.S. are going to eat an average of 2 to 3 (I generally eat 2 but my kids eat 3 or a little more) meals per day. They are not going to change that pattern. If the cost of food goes up 30%, they are still going to eat those same number of meals. It is not an increase in demand that makes them do this. Agman's analysis is just a big heap of B.S. meant to give himself some semblance of credibility to people who do not know the subject. The same exact scenario in the oil business played out here just recently. Just because prices went up did not mean that demand went up. Maybe demand stayed the same and supplies were tight. That makes the prices go up.

Are you assuming that the ERS data is flawed? Do you want to dance on over there and tell them how to do their numbers just so it can fit into your "theory" that is total B.S.?

I haven't had my teeth kicked in by your garbage yet, but you are pert nere toothless.


Econ, those of us who know Agman and know of his business success feel quite confident in his analysis and numbers relating to the cattle/beef industry. No, we are not customers of his business, so I have no bias in that way. I have listened to him speak and seen his charts and notice his accuracy re. industry and consumer trends. We are fortunate that he shares the information he does on this site. Some will take not and benefit. Some will do as you do, use ridiculous statements attempting to discredit him. Agman most assuredly does not need anything from this site to "give him credibility". He has earned that in spades in the real business world.

Your comment "it is not an increase in demand that makes them do this (eat two to three meals per day).....It is not an increase in demand that has made them do this." has things turned about in your attempt to make your point, IMO. Isn't it the fact people eat two or three or more meals per day CHOOSING MORE BEEF, even as prices rise, that INCREASES THE DEMAND for beef????? PEOPLE eating MORE beef at HIGHER prices increases DEMAND. It is not DEMAND that makes them eat more beef as your post indicates. BTW, there are all too many people who WILL eat fewer meals if they believe prices are too high, or they simply do not have enough money to serve their needs. But I'm sure you know this and just didn't think about how your post reads.

Giving you your due, maybe my definition of "demand" differs from yours. How do you define it (as the basis for your comments above), so we may better understand where you are coming from on this issue?

MRJ
 

Latest posts

Top