Beef industry decline...mrj

[RobertMac]

If I'm wrong, here are some simple facts for you to dispute...
Source:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/spreadsheets/mtpcc.xls#carcass!a1

I use 1976 because that is beef's peak, 1985 because that's the start of CBB, and 2005 because that's the last year for data.

1976 per capita consumption 88.8 lbs.___total production 19.4 Trillion lbs.
1985 per capita consumption 74.6 lbs.___total production 17.8 Trillion lbs.
2005 per capita consumption 62.4 lbs.___total production 18.5 Trillion lbs.

Yes, there is an increase in total production in 2005, but the vast majority of that increase came from increased imports.

Through this time pork was relatively stable...40.7 lbs. to 46.5 lbs. per capita.

Poultry more than doubled...28.6 to 60.4 lbs. per capita. That's the sign of a growing industry!!!

MRJ, if you factor in the point you made that carcass weights are heavier, then it is obvious that total cattle number in the USA are down as are number of USA cattle producers. In my world, that is not progress for the members NCBA is purported to represent!!!

I await your "facts" of rebuttal!!!

 

[mrj]

RobertMac, my time for this sort of 'fun and games' will be very limited for at least the next two and a half weeks. More fun requiring my time and/or effort is going on at home and in the community.

For starters, and not requiring any research.....obviously, producers have CHOSEN to produce more pounds with fewer cattle because for some it was/is believe more profitable to get more pounds of calf from each cow.

More smaller cows producing larger calves now look like a better deal to some who are finally beginning to consider the 'benefit' of difficult calveing and higher costs to feed those giant cows as not so great!

Some never bought into 'bigger is better' from the start, and some have developed small cows that can produce more pounds of calf more easily and profitably.

THIS IS NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL INDUSTRY! Whether raising cows, or processing beef, or selling beef, there are many niches to fill.

mrj

 

[RobertMac]

RobertMac, my time for this sort of 'fun and games' will be very limited for at least the next two and a half weeks. More fun requiring my time and/or effort is going on at home and in the community.

For starters, and not requiring any research.....obviously, producers have CHOSEN to produce more pounds with fewer cattle because for some it was/is believe more profitable to get more pounds of calf from each cow.

More smaller cows producing larger calves now look like a better deal to some who are finally beginning to consider the 'benefit' of difficult calveing and higher costs to feed those giant cows as not so great!

Some never bought into 'bigger is better' from the start, and some have developed small cows that can produce more pounds of calf more easily and profitably.

THIS IS NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL INDUSTRY! Whether raising cows, or processing beef, or selling beef, there are many niches to fill.

mrj

Typical...you tell someone they are wrong and then bring NOTHING to support your opinion! Why did I expect more????

 

[mrj]

Strange you trust "facts" from USDA so much.......when they support your claims.

There are no "facts" available to show the huge numbers of reasons people CHOOSE not to raise cattle! Length of work week, easier life are a couple of big ones. No one said cattle production is easy or cheap to enter. The education one needs to succeed isn't easily gained, nor is it all avaiable in a classroom setting.

Attitudes of "the world is against me" or "the packer won't let me be profitable" and the like are not conducive to entering or staying in business, either.

None of which can be demonstrated "factually" and you won't accept rhetorical or philosophical points to verify my points.

I've told you how early estimates or calculations of 'consumption' of beef included much that is not eaten, such as bones, offal, hide weight, which are currently excluded, making consumption APPEAR less now.

It is my OPINION that your simple comsumption rates as measure of success of the Beef Checkoff work have little or no bearing on that success. If I had nothing else to do, I probably could find facts to support my OPINION, but seriously doubt anything will change your mind, since previous experience has shown me you seem to WANT to find fault with the Beef Checkoff.

mrj

mrj

mrj

 

[Tex]

Strange you trust "facts" from USDA so much.......when they support your claims.

There are no "facts" available to show the huge numbers of reasons people CHOOSE not to raise cattle! Length of work week, easier life are a couple of big ones. No one said cattle production is easy or cheap to enter. The education one needs to succeed isn't easily gained, nor is it all avaiable in a classroom setting.

Attitudes of "the world is against me" or "the packer won't let me be profitable" and the like are not conducive to entering or staying in business, either.

None of which can be demonstrated "factually" and you won't accept rhetorical or philosophical points to verify my points.

I've told you how early estimates or calculations of 'consumption' of beef included much that is not eaten, such as bones, offal, hide weight, which are currently excluded, making consumption APPEAR less now.

It is my OPINION that your simple comsumption rates as measure of success of the Beef Checkoff work have little or no bearing on that success. If I had nothing else to do, I probably could find facts to support my OPINION, but seriously doubt anything will change your mind, since previous experience has shown me you seem to WANT to find fault with the Beef Checkoff.

mrj

mrj

mrj

mrj, did you find out if your consumption or supply numbers are correct and not already adjusted or are you just trying to blow smoke?

I would like for you to bring something real to the table as in supporting facts instead of just your uninformed opinion. Yes, I said uninformed.

 

[RobertMac]

I've told you how early estimates or calculations of 'consumption' of beef included much that is not eaten, such as bones, offal, hide weight, which are currently excluded, making consumption APPEAR less now.

If you had checked the source, you would have seen charts by carcass weight, retail cut equivalent, and boneless-trimmed equivalent...all with different weights, but the same trend.

Producers exiting the industry don't determine these weights. In other words, less beef being consumed isn't because less beef is being offered, less beef is offered because less beef is being consumed by consumers.

You also have this wrong...I'm not against CBB or even NCBA(especially not members), I believe they are not doing what needs to be done to increase beef consumption. These figures prove that things aren't improving, so something else needs to be tried. I hope all of Rush Limbaugh's listeners were listening when he said that saturated fats had never been proven to cause heart disease...and he is 100% correct!!!!!

The fear of beef being unhealthy is our biggest problem with consumption and the public is bombarded with wrong information every day. I want to see CBB standup for beef and state the correct facts. All beef producers should learn the truth and let it be known.

I don't have a problem with USDA data, I have a problem with SOME of their policies!!! Your logic is the same that liberals use...doesn't work with me!!! :lol2:

Bring something of substance next time.

 

[mrj]

RM,did YOU check what I've stated, which is that when amounts of beef consumed were first listed or claimed by government it was based on far more tonnage than the lean meat people actually ate.

It may have been at least in part because so much fat and bone was then sold on and in (chunks or seams beyond marbling) the cuts of meat popular before modernization of trimming excess fat.

That HAS changed over the years, only coincidentally the same as the beef checkoff existence, because consumers finally have been listened to when we said we didn't want to pay for fat we did not eat and some are not so keen on having to pay for the bones in the beef, either.

BTW, NCBA and predecessor organizations were involved in improving the skills of listening to consumers by other segments of the beef industry, probably originating with the CowBelles organization which is around 50 years old now, if I'm not mistaken. And I could be.....some people, women and men alike, are sensitive about age, and I don't like to offend them.

It seems you would rather attack my facts or beliefs on the subject than to admit I might be correct. I have been told this anecdotally by more than one person involved in beef processing and in nutrition related careers, so there is no "proof" or "sources" to check to "verify" my points on the subject of beef consumption.

However, I know that beef DEMAND is more important to my ranch profitability than is simple 'consumption'. People could be consuming five pounds per day and it would not help me if they would not pay more than two dollars a pound for it!

Beef Checkoff programs and projects HAVE increased beef demand!

Why do you fail to recognize my points that there are probably about as many 'reasons' people leave the cattle business as there are people leaving it? Not all have to do with profitability. Unless ALL who leave the business were in it only to make a killing at it! Meaning obscene profits in the eyes of some people.

BTW, what would all of you who believe we in ranching are getting cheated our of "fair" profit deem that fair profit is?

How much return on investment would be right and fair?

So, you say you aren't 'against' CBB and NCBA, yet you complain bitterly about activities and policies of them. What have both groups done that you do approve?

When you say "something else needs to be done" by CBB to increase beef consumption, again ignoring beef DEMAND, you fail to recognize (of is it to realize?) that actions by the CBB are not static and that they HAVE and DO change. The CBB is not infallible BECAUSE it IS controlled by cattlemen, who have to come to concensus on decisions and because the money available cannot possibly do all that needs to be done. Hard choices are made every time budgets are set and Authorization Requests are accepted and many valuable, worthwhile projects must be denied due to lack of funds.

I, too, am pleased that Rush L., your prized authors of health studies promoting unlimited beef diets, and others are being heard.

You still seem to ignore that I've pointed out many times over the years I've been posting that until government accepts those 'studies', it is very difficult to prevail among medical and nutrition professionals and with government agencies in removing "suggested" limits on serving size. Nutritional and medical professions seem to move at a snails pace. That may be influenced by business interests, but it is also heavily influenced by the ambulance chasing attorneys in our society. New 'cures' and theories have to be proven many times before they are accepted, it seems. You and I may not like that. I'm working on several front to change that. The Beef Checkoff is one of those fronts.

The Beef Checkoff is necessarily under some limits of government in what may or may not be said in advertising beef.

Additionally, caution has been used in claims made for health benefits of beef. The producers making the decisions have believed it better to err on the side of caution than get caught in cross fire of mistakes made by researchers. I agree with those decisions.

If my reasons for why I believe what I do fall short of your definition of "substance".......tough cookies! But Merry Christmas, anyway.

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "BTW, NCBA and predecessor organizations were involved in improving the skills of listening to consumers by other segments of the beef industry..."

Why didn't NCBA's and "other segments'" hear this?:

WASHINGTON - U.S. consumers overwhelmingly support stricter food labeling laws, with 92 percent of Americans wanting to know which country produced the food they are buying, a consumer magazine said on Tuesday.

Consumer Reports said recent food scares, including worries about peanut butter and lettuce, have made Americans more interested in knowing not only how their food was produced but where it was made.

"I was definitely shocked at how high these numbers were," said the study's coauthor Dr. Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist and policy analyst at Consumers Union, the nonprofit organization that publishes Consumer Reports magazine.


MRJ, "How much return on investment would be right and fair?

Return on investment is generally determined by risk/reward. When you can make more money by selling all your land and cattle and putting that in a CD and then just sitting on the porch all day instead of working and risking that capital, something is out of balance in the industry. That is how this industry has morphed under the leadership of NCBA.

 

[Anonymous]

Why didn't NCBA's and "other segments'" hear this?:

WASHINGTON - U.S. consumers overwhelmingly support stricter food labeling laws, with 92 percent of Americans wanting to know which country produced the food they are buying, a consumer magazine said on Tuesday.

NCBA only hears what the packers tell them they can hear :!: :!:

 

[PORKER]

Who heard was the US.Senators. They voted in the largest one sided vote for the farm bill in 50 years. Even Bush can't veto it anymore. They felt they wouldn't be re elected if they didn't vote for COOL and the new speciality produce section of the bill. Also U.S. consumers overwhelmingly support stricter food labeling laws having audit trails on meats back to the birth country source. Send them records Canada with the RFID tagged animal !!

 

[RobertMac]

RM,did YOU check what I've stated,...

Yes, I did....if you had checked the data link, you would have found a table for carcass weight which shows the same trend line I am trying to get you to acknowledge. Carcass weights negate your close trim argument!!!

BTW, NCBA and predecessor organizations were involved in improving the skills of listening to consumers....

NCBA leadership must have gone deaf...consumers want COOL...are concerned about the use of antibiotic and added hormones!!!!

It seems you would rather attack my facts...

You have presented NO FACTS!!!!!!!!!

However, I know that beef DEMAND is more important to my ranch profitability than is simple 'consumption'.

Demand is a function of consumption and price.

People could be consuming five pounds per day and it would not help me if they would not pay more than two dollars a pound for it!

This is exactly what you have been calling for...reducing the price of beef so more people can afford to buy it. NCBA policy for the last twenty years that believes the concentration of the industry under a few highly efficient packers and the pursuit of lower retail beef prices is the salvation of beef producers. The data absolutely refutes this scenario. Retail prices are at or near their limit for what average consumers will pay for commodity beef, So...the only way to reduce the price of retail beef is to reduce the price of live cattle!!!! The way to increase consumption AND increase or maintain prices is to offer what the consumer wants. That's why grassfed and organic are the fastest growing segments of this industry...increasing demand the best way...more consumption at a higher price!!!!!!!

Don't you find it ironic that I'm arguing against this NCBA that has provided me with a profitable niche???? If I didn't care about cattle producer and the industry as a whole, I would do as Soapweed says...shut my mouth and count my money!

Beef Checkoff programs and projects HAVE increased beef demand!

The best CBB can claim is to have slowed the decline. Poultry, during this same time period, has almost doubled consumption and increased prices. Until there is a long term increase in beef consumption and prices, any claim by CBB of increased demand is, at best, presumptuous and, at worst, an out right lie!!!!

You still seem to ignore that I've pointed out many times over the years I've been posting that until government accepts those 'studies', it is very difficult to prevail among medical and nutrition professionals and with government agencies in removing "suggested" limits on serving size. Nutritional and medical professions seem to move at a snails pace.

The facts are that the "government accepted studies" (starting in the late sixties) were done so on a politically correct basis...NONE WERE ABSOLUTELY PROVEN WITH SCIENTIFIC FACTS, all had flaws that were ignored to achieve their DESIRED conclusions. And it is these wrong conclusions that most medical and nutritional professional base their diet recommendations. This is what CBB has to address because these wrong conclusions condemn beef as the major cause of today's health problems and is why consumers are decreasing the amount of beef they eat. The true fact is that beef is the single most nutritionally rich and health promoting food humans can consume.

That is what this book is about and why I think it is the most important health book ever written!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Additionally, caution has been used in claims made for health benefits of beef. The producers making the decisions have believed it better to err on the side of caution than get caught in cross fire of mistakes made by researchers. I agree with those decisions.

That is gutless when the contradicting facts are there!! If CBB isn't going to stand up for OUR product against those that want to eliminate beef consumption, what good is CBB and the check-off?????????
And what especially frustrating to me is that the TRUTH is on our side!!!!!!!!!!!

Merry Christmas