katrina
Well-known member
Yup this is way over my head................ 
RobertMac
Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Ben, you inadvertently posted this to me...hope MRJ see it! :shock: :wink: :lol:
RobertMac
Well-known member
Katrina said:
You are correct in that beef is our product...not weaned calves or fat cattle. How producers choose to market is very important. Today, 80-90% of fed cattle are marketed by the same companies that market the majority of our competition...pork and poultry. When market share shifts from beef to poultry, who loses? Not the packers...they make up their lose by selling more poultry. We beef producers are the losers! So why are producers content selling to Tyson, Cargill, Smithfield...and letting them be in charge of marketing our beef??? If we want thing to change(as in taking control of our destiny), it matters to whom we sell our calves and fats. Independent processors didn't go under because of efficiency(as some would have us to believe), they went under because of lack of support by independent cattlemen!
I've always thought that, in agriculture, if you aren't thinking five years down the road, you are already behind. Canadians sold out their Canadian processing industry for a few dollars per head. We are doing the same in the USA. If we don't support and help build independent processors, we won't have options to market our calves or fats. Our only option will be which multi-national we contract with and follow their protocol. I don't know about the rest of you, but I got into production agriculture because I liked doing things my way.
P.S. I'm sure their is no one your hubby would rather argue with than you. :wink:
Ben Roberts
Well-known member
RobertMac said:
RobertMac, please excuse me for my unintentional mistake, i'm sure the message will be received by the right people. I believe tellers are really nice people, they just don't know what is going on.
Best Regards
Ben Roberts
RobertMac
Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Seriously,
Two steps to regaining themarkets and getting premiums. The first I can control. Identify my own product and Brand it. I will also get discounted if I do poorly...
The second, I have no control over. The competition identifies thiers. If they do a great job, they will also get the market share they deserve. However, I am not sure they will,
You talk about this generation having no backbone...The guys at the Concord Bridge did not give up easily. Many in this thread seemingly are,
PPRM
Two steps to regaining themarkets and getting premiums. The first I can control. Identify my own product and Brand it. I will also get discounted if I do poorly...
The second, I have no control over. The competition identifies thiers. If they do a great job, they will also get the market share they deserve. However, I am not sure they will,
You talk about this generation having no backbone...The guys at the Concord Bridge did not give up easily. Many in this thread seemingly are,
PPRM
Ben Roberts
Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Jason
Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Ben you contradict yourself in the above post.
First small processors cannot compete, but they can survive with local demand. That's all they need, local demand.
Then you say the supply of cattle cannot be consumed (you forget that it is the beef consumer that ultimately consumes cattle supplies) by small processors even with producer support. Where will the big boys get enough cattle if all producers send theirs to small local processors for the local demand?
Somehow now packers control the retail marketing of beef? They sign contracts to supply beef to retailers, but boxed beef moves just as live cattle prices do. Retailers bid on beef as packers bid on cattle.
The consumer is the one that says if they will send any monies back down the line. If they buy beef they send money. If they buy anouther product because beef is too expensive for their budget, we have lost that revenue source.
Producers have control of this industry to the extent that is possible. Every producer I know sells where they get the highest dollar for the work they are willing to invest. Sell the cattle turn control to the next in line. The bottom line is the consumer. Give them what they want at a price they will pay, or find a new job.
Let's see how far someone would get by pushing for lower standards for small processors so they can compete. Let's see how far someone gets who sells inconsistant beef at premium prices.
Before you try to be a processor, you better know a lot about the whole system, or economic reality will bite you.
Ben Roberts
Well-known member
Jason said:
Jason, read the question I was replying to!
Best Regards
Ben Roberts
Jason
Well-known member
Once you state you went out of business because of lack of producer support(read you couldn't pay as much for their cattle as others could).
Then you state that you were regulated out of business.
Somehow big packers have less regulations to process beef than small packers have?
You have also stated that small processors cannot consume the supply of cattle. How can a producer be expected to support a small processor that will pay him less and not take all his cattle?
You have just proved the point that there is not huge profits left in the beef industry. Regulations and economic factors have forced everyone to get bigger.
There is a small segment of the population that will spend more to feel good about who they think it is helping, but most consumers spend on what they think is the best deal. Some even think only large companies can track the safety of food, and they will only buy from large chains.
Then you state that you were regulated out of business.
Somehow big packers have less regulations to process beef than small packers have?
You have also stated that small processors cannot consume the supply of cattle. How can a producer be expected to support a small processor that will pay him less and not take all his cattle?
You have just proved the point that there is not huge profits left in the beef industry. Regulations and economic factors have forced everyone to get bigger.
There is a small segment of the population that will spend more to feel good about who they think it is helping, but most consumers spend on what they think is the best deal. Some even think only large companies can track the safety of food, and they will only buy from large chains.
Ben Roberts
Well-known member
Jason said:
Jason
Well-known member
Ben, don't start the where did I say that routine. Go back and re-read your posts.
Now you tell me packers that had the same regulations as you and paid less for cattle survived, proving huge profits in the packing business.
Yet a small premium and the same expenses forced you under.
If the profits were there and the larger packers were just pocketing money, you would have survived.
Expenses in excess of revenue forced you out. Sad but true. That happens everyday in every business.
The cyclical nature of the beef industry makes packing a tough job. You might have to endure losses for several quarters before profits pick up. I think whatis starting to happen is in response to this.
Feedlots and ranches are getting bigger. Bigger to compete, bigger to reduce overhead, bigger to reduce the ebb and flow of cattle numbers. Look at the signals calling for expanded cowherd yet no expansion is happening. The bigger players can't jump up quickly and they know doing so is just goig to rebound on them.
Consumers will have to get used to the idea of paying a lot more for their food if there is going to be a resurgence of small family farms/ranches. Even if things just consolidate, food costs will rise. Business models guarantee it. Maybe some will have to experience empty store shelves before they believe it.
Now you tell me packers that had the same regulations as you and paid less for cattle survived, proving huge profits in the packing business.
Yet a small premium and the same expenses forced you under.
If the profits were there and the larger packers were just pocketing money, you would have survived.
Expenses in excess of revenue forced you out. Sad but true. That happens everyday in every business.
The cyclical nature of the beef industry makes packing a tough job. You might have to endure losses for several quarters before profits pick up. I think whatis starting to happen is in response to this.
Feedlots and ranches are getting bigger. Bigger to compete, bigger to reduce overhead, bigger to reduce the ebb and flow of cattle numbers. Look at the signals calling for expanded cowherd yet no expansion is happening. The bigger players can't jump up quickly and they know doing so is just goig to rebound on them.
Consumers will have to get used to the idea of paying a lot more for their food if there is going to be a resurgence of small family farms/ranches. Even if things just consolidate, food costs will rise. Business models guarantee it. Maybe some will have to experience empty store shelves before they believe it.
Ben, I'm curious about your "friend that is in prison today, he was an independent processor that went up against the multinational packers and they ruined him."
I'm curious as to how multi-national business packers could caues a man to go to prison simply by ruining his business????
Also, looks to me you are right on about a certain bank teller who posts on this site! But I can't believe many of them could keep their job very long being THAT ignorant of the facts of the cattle/beef business!
mrj
I'm curious as to how multi-national business packers could caues a man to go to prison simply by ruining his business????
Also, looks to me you are right on about a certain bank teller who posts on this site! But I can't believe many of them could keep their job very long being THAT ignorant of the facts of the cattle/beef business!
mrj
RobertMac
Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Ben, part of the 'support by independent cattlemen' would have been one cattlemen's organization helping to get the government off the backs of independent processors and saving that marketing option for producers to go directly to the consumer. HACCP was another government program fixing a problem that didn't exist! But it was a big help for someone!!!
So, RobertMac, do you still want inspectors to simply look at beef in the processing plant, and when they can't see or smell the e. coli or any other bacteria, tell the workers to wrap it up and sell it?????
HACCP, with the scientific testing and management steps to reduce the probability of problems has to be better than the old look and sniff system.
Until we hear reasons for the current rash of e coli outbreaks, shouldn't we support efforts to make the system better, rather than accuse people of deliberately problem meat?
Maybe we never had a name for E. coli: 0157H7 ages ago, or maybe we simply never heard the results of the apparently few illnesses caused by it. Increased requirements for reportable illnesses and the tendency of the media to use scarey stories to sell themselves adds to the hysteria, IMO, and makes it more difficult to solve the real problem.
mrj
HACCP, with the scientific testing and management steps to reduce the probability of problems has to be better than the old look and sniff system.
Until we hear reasons for the current rash of e coli outbreaks, shouldn't we support efforts to make the system better, rather than accuse people of deliberately problem meat?
Maybe we never had a name for E. coli: 0157H7 ages ago, or maybe we simply never heard the results of the apparently few illnesses caused by it. Increased requirements for reportable illnesses and the tendency of the media to use scarey stories to sell themselves adds to the hysteria, IMO, and makes it more difficult to solve the real problem.
mrj
Ben Roberts
Well-known member
mrj said:
Maxine, I would like for you to do little research, when was the first E.coli: 0157H7 recall and also the first death related to E.coli:0157H7 in the United States. I want you to do this research, because you won't believe me or what i'm going to tell you about the "old look and sniff system" of meat inspection. And just what do you believe, is the real problem?
Best Regards
Ben Roberts
Best Regards
Ben Roberts
RobertMac
Well-known member
mrj said:
I was at my processor a few weeks ago. My inspector and processor were at my trailer while I was loading my meat. The inspector talking to my processor said..."Robert sells the safest meat around. I believe we have tested every animal he has processed." The plant has periodic mandatory test for E.coli (which I pay for) and then the inspector takes random test that FSIS pays for (part of the step-up testing FSIS implemented after the Greeley recall). Also, every animal over 24 months is tested for brucellosis. The inspector visually inspects my animal in the pen before processing...he is on the kill floor to inspect the internals for problems. How do you think all those livers get condemned???? Inspector looked at them!!! By the way, all my livers were perfect!!!
I also asked the inspector if he had ever seen any problems with my cattle...his only comment was that he didn't think my bulls marbled well enough. If every processing plant had their cattle inspected as well as mine, we would have very few if any problems with beef safety.As for E.coli: 0157H7 , that strand is a product of an acid environment in the rumen and digestive tract. An acid rumen and digestive tract are a product of grain feeding. Don't believe me...search the Journal of Animal Science.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
mrj said:
You can say what you want about the "old" system, but when you look at the results of the "new" system, questions have to be answered; Are there fewer people getting sick? Is there less contaminated product making it's way to consumers?
With what we know about e-coli and the technology that we have, there is absolutely no excuse for contaminated beef reaching the consumer. None. It's not like Botulism, which can be introduced by any handler up and down the system. E-coli comes from poop and guts, and you only find that at the packer. So, we know where it comes from, where it is introduced into the product, and we have a test that can find it. Just what the heck is the problem?
Ben Roberts
Well-known member
Sandhusker E-coli comes from poop and guts said:
Ben, I tend to believe things which are plausible, make sense, and do not fit into someones conspiracy theories, for starters. Are you saying the Jack In The Box outbreak was not the first in the nation? I would not be surprised to hear that, but don't know the date of first outbreak or death. I consider dates something which can be looked up if desired, not worth memorizing just for the sake of memorizing them.
I believe the e coli problem has many "real problems", starting with things I've heard about some bacteria being able to change somewhat in order to survive when attacked by either changes or introduced means to change them. I know that when some of the acid washes for equipment and even meat, which seemed so promising at first, were put into practice in some plants, the 'bug' simply was forced into 'safe' places such as heating and AC ducts, etc., by the movement of air before the wash could hit it. The de-hairing process was promising, but costs and the PERCEPTION that cow scale 'nair' was painful for the animal, in the minds of PETA types. And those are only a very few of the problems.
Why was there such a dramatic reduction in incidences of e coli for a few years until recent outbreaks?
I believe we desperately need to find ALL the reasons for these outbreaks.
I believe we need to look further than simply blaming the packer.
Why do you believe the speed of movement in the packing plant is a bad thing"
Wouldn't it be better to find the means to stop the bacteria and keep the meat moving as quickly as possible? It seems reasonable to me that the more quickly the meat is in the box or hanging for dry aging (realizing there may not be much of that done these days) the LESS likely for introducing pathogens we don't want in or on the meat.
Do you think more automation of the processing bears part of the blame?
It seems logical to me that the surest way to eliminate e coli from harming people would be to zap the meat with irradiation and putting it into atmospheric packaging either before or after irradiation if there is no way for the pathogen to be introduced in the home or other final preparation area, wouldn't it?
mrj
I believe the e coli problem has many "real problems", starting with things I've heard about some bacteria being able to change somewhat in order to survive when attacked by either changes or introduced means to change them. I know that when some of the acid washes for equipment and even meat, which seemed so promising at first, were put into practice in some plants, the 'bug' simply was forced into 'safe' places such as heating and AC ducts, etc., by the movement of air before the wash could hit it. The de-hairing process was promising, but costs and the PERCEPTION that cow scale 'nair' was painful for the animal, in the minds of PETA types. And those are only a very few of the problems.
Why was there such a dramatic reduction in incidences of e coli for a few years until recent outbreaks?
I believe we desperately need to find ALL the reasons for these outbreaks.
I believe we need to look further than simply blaming the packer.
Why do you believe the speed of movement in the packing plant is a bad thing"
Wouldn't it be better to find the means to stop the bacteria and keep the meat moving as quickly as possible? It seems reasonable to me that the more quickly the meat is in the box or hanging for dry aging (realizing there may not be much of that done these days) the LESS likely for introducing pathogens we don't want in or on the meat.
Do you think more automation of the processing bears part of the blame?
It seems logical to me that the surest way to eliminate e coli from harming people would be to zap the meat with irradiation and putting it into atmospheric packaging either before or after irradiation if there is no way for the pathogen to be introduced in the home or other final preparation area, wouldn't it?
mrj