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

Checkoff, doctors, beef, & whatever!

graybull said:
MRJ.....you wanted some constructive suggestions.........although I have lots of them.......here is the main one.....

The beef board and checkoff dollars have to be spent more aggressively.........

What do I mean by aggressively? I mean that the promotion for beef has to be more forceful in support of what a terrific product beef is........believe it or not....beef is the single best product in the entire world......it has more positive life and vitality sustaining properties than any other food....and the beef industry's promotion should shout about it.......rather than the limp-wristed......"we support the USDA food pyramid (which is quite erronous when looked at from a human metabolic standpoint)......"we suggest 3 oz servings" Hell......face the facts and let consumers know....

YOU CAN NEVER EAT TOO MUCH BEEF! PERIOD!!! Think about it......for every bite of beef you eat.....you displace a food of lessor nutritional content and value.

My real suggestion.......is this.......in order to counter the adverse publicity of many groups.......you have to be a stronger supporter of the value of beef on human health..........you can't just meekly proclaim that you agree with whatever the government or self interest, "wave in the wind" quasi scientific groups such as the AMA, ACS, or ADA say.

Remember that consumers are not stupid.......they know who funds checkoff advertising (the beef industry)........so what do you think they think when they see some of the real watered down.......try to please all the "initial groups" type statements, press releases and advertising?

Here is what many consumers think when they read this stuff........

"It doesn't sound like the beef industry is too convinced they have a great product.............so therefore.....if the people who stand to profit from the sale of this product.....seem hesitant about the total nutritional value.......then this product must really be somewhat detrimental to my health and vitality.....like so many are proclaiming."

We, in the beef industry, are very lucky that Dr. Atkins had the guts to take a stand.....rather than bow down to the misguided "health authorities".........and you know what?? He was RIGHT! As RobertMac understands.........of course he was right.......he had nature and it's processes on his side.

SUGGESTION.....

Make every message count........and make every message more aggressive..........if you don't believe (understand) the true nutritional value of beef on human health and vitality..........who will?????

NOTE TO fedup2......

Great to hear that you are educating yourself and working to learn the real story about cardiovascular health and diet......again....there is NO BETTER product for heart (and total) health than beef.
Click to expand...

graybull, thanks for sharing something constructive. NOW, for the real challenge.......have you shared this with your state beef council? I know that SDBIC continually asks for inputs from the ranchers in SD, and would be very surprised if WY does not do the same. Certainly CBB would welcome suggestions......it's as easy as emailing [email protected]!

Now, I'm going to critique just a little.

You criticize support of the USDA Food Guide Pyramid........but you may not be aware of the strong and aggressive campaign by checkoff staff that put beef in the favorable position it has on both the new and the old pyramid. There is very well funded opposition to beef. There is "researchers" making counter claims to ours.

BTW, have you really seen a statement that ONLY says "we support the USDA food pyramid"? Or does it say more along the lines of "we recommend the two servings which total 5 to 7 ounces, the recommended DAILY consumption for beef"?

Yes, some do believe we can eat all the beef we want every day, but how much trouble would government, and especially a beef industry checkoff get into if someone filed a class action lawsuit claiming damages to health from following such a "recommendation"? We can be aggressive without being foolish, and we can (and do) point to the good research we have, as well as the fact that beef is usually under-consumed by many people.

How can we justify telling people "YOU CAN NEVER EAT TOO MUCH BEEF! PERIOD!!!" like you did, when advertising beef? We would need the research to back that claim up, wouldn't we? I would love to be able to do that honestly, though!

Isn't it the wiser course to get the science via peer reviewed research before we make the farther out there claims about beef and health? Remember, not every person enjoys perfect health and metabolism. Some people have systems that turn good foods into high cholesterol. Do we want to be responsible for them if they take our word that they can't eat too much good beef? What if they do not follow the adage to displace every bite of something less nutritious, but instead go on and eat too much "bad", high calorie "white" foods.....flour, processed sugar, etc. Then blame their health problems on the beef? How can the beef industry prove which foods damaged their health?

Please understand, I'm not arguing with you, but pointing out what the Checkoff leadership must consider in their decisions about what to publicize.

Also, please take your ideas to your beef council and the CBB......who knows, maybe I'm a few months behind the times, and the world is ready for your take on how beef should be promoted. Wishing you great success in selling more beef. That will benefit all of us!

MRJ
 
MRJ
Apparently my poor communication skills showed up again or/and you are reading something into my post that I never meant to be there. I wanted to avoid sites that would be 'considered' bias. I also said I was looking for information to help the check off.

Here is the site I mentioned earlier but never posted: http://www.vh.org/pediatric/patient/dietary/prose/leanbeef.html I thought it was excellent information and had content that I had never seen used in any commercial. When I saw that it was funded by the ncba, I felt that it was obvious that you already had this information as your organization paid for it. I am looking for information that you 'do not have'! Obviously, I am not going to find that on one of your own sites or in one of your paid for studies.

Also pork producers are going to post their strong points, chicken producers are going to hype chicken being better for you, and I would believe that a beef site would do the same. (Why not?) A cattleman's site is not going to say 'beef is good but fish oil is better for your brain!" (why would they?"
I am looking for sites that will compare these meats unbiased. That does not mean your sites are tainted, but I don't believe they would have researched competing meats as much as their own organizations. I felt that with the talk of comparing beef vs. chicken etc. one better do more research before that game was played. Am I explaining myself better or just digging my hole deeper? LOL! Again, my post was not meant to be a put down of anyone or anything.
 
~SH~ said:
Robert Mac,

Who made you the forum police? If you don't like Kindergarten's diversionary posts or my responses, DON'T READ THEM. Stay on the topic you want to discuss and ignore the rest.

Show a little class PLEASE!


~SH~
Click to expand...

You are right, I'm not the forum police and obviously Macon doesn't care how you post. I do have to apologize to Econ...he has shown class in his debating you.

I AM on topic on this thread, you aren't!!!!!!!!!!

One good thing about the old format, I could see the different parts of a thread and easily avoid the parts that didn't interest me.
 
Kindergarten: "Do you get any money from Agman or any of the packers? I just want to get the question of money laundering out of the way before it becomes an issue. Please don't Delay in answering."
Click to expand...

The only money I ever received from a packer was for the sale of my fat cattle and why would Agman pay me for anything?

This is so typical of parasites like you. You can't argue your "BELIEFS" from a factual merit so now you resort to digging up dirt OR CREATING AN ILLUSION to find a motive to discredit me with. You won't dig anything up on me because my only bias is truth and facts. Knock yourself out you pathetic SOB! Guys like you usually end up getting the boots at closing time.

I started a fire in a wastebasket on the last day of my senior year of high school. I painted bus sheds for two weeks because of it. There, you want dirt, there it is. As if that will help your worthless arguments.

Have you ever been convicted for child molestation? Two can play this game.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten: "Do you get any money from Agman or any of the packers? I just want to get the question of money laundering out of the way before it becomes an issue. Please don't Delay in answering."
Click to expand...

The only money I ever received from a packer was for the sale of my fat cattle and why would Agman pay me for anything?

This is so typical of parasites like you. You can't argue your "BELIEFS" from a factual merit so now you resort to digging up dirt OR CREATING AN ILLUSION to find a motive to discredit me with. You won't dig anything up on me because my only bias is truth and facts. Knock yourself out you pathetic SOB! Guys like you usually end up getting the boots at closing time.

I started a fire in a wastebasket on the last day of my senior year of high school. I painted bus sheds for two weeks because of it. There, you want dirt, there it is. As if that will help your worthless arguments.

Have you ever been convicted for child molestation? Two can play this game.


~SH~
Click to expand...

It was just a question, one along the same line that I was asked. To answer your question: I have never molested a child, been accused of it, or convicted of it, although I have spoken out against it many times. I have 3 wonderful children and I think children are God's gift to humans to be treasured and protected. That includes you at one time.

I am sorry about your wastebasket incident, I understand it affects you more than anyone else, and I assure you I don't think that matters one bit in anything you say.

Since this is a discussion on cattle issues, why don't we just stick to them or their pertinent questions of bias?
 
SH, "Show a little class, please"
SH, "Have you ever been convicted for child molestation"

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
fedup2 said:
MRJ
Apparently my poor communication skills showed up again or/and you are reading something into my post that I never meant to be there. I wanted to avoid sites that would be 'considered' bias. I also said I was looking for information to help the check off.

Here is the site I mentioned earlier but never posted: http://www.vh.org/pediatric/patient/dietary/prose/leanbeef.html I thought it was excellent information and had content that I had never seen used in any commercial. When I saw that it was funded by the ncba, I felt that it was obvious that you already had this information as your organization paid for it. I am looking for information that you 'do not have'! Obviously, I am not going to find that on one of your own sites or in one of your paid for studies.

Also pork producers are going to post their strong points, chicken producers are going to hype chicken being better for you, and I would believe that a beef site would do the same. (Why not?) A cattleman's site is not going to say 'beef is good but fish oil is better for your brain!" (why would they?"
I am looking for sites that will compare these meats unbiased. That does not mean your sites are tainted, but I don't believe they would have researched competing meats as much as their own organizations. I felt that with the talk of comparing beef vs. chicken etc. one better do more research before that game was played. Am I explaining myself better or just digging my hole deeper? LOL! Again, my post was not meant to be a put down of anyone or anything.
Click to expand...

Econ, if you had stated why you did not want to read the research funded by NCBA, it would have helped my understanding. I am under time constraints right now, waiting for cowboys to arrive for a late lunch, so can't check your interesting sounding link. Are you finding the comparisons you seek? My guess is that NCBA used the information from USDA or other government sites as to the nutrient content in the beef ads comparing the two. As I recall, other foods such as spinach were included in the ad because of the huge amounts of those foods needed to get the high quality nutrient available in the three ounce serving of beef.

Are you thinking NCBA did not do adequate research, or am I mis-understanding that as well. I'm quite sure it was extensive because the usual tactic of NCBA is to do the best job possible, and have the most accuracy possible with the funds available. You may think that propaganda, but it has been hammered into members of the Dues/Policy division forever, and of the Federation division since the beginning of that group.

Also, I am not putting you down, just want to be sure that you understand what the Checkoff is doing and that considerable effort is put into achieving excellence in all their work.

Reader, I really believe the Beef Checkoff funded research is different than some other industries. Our product, beef, has been run down for several different reasons by various different groups. Ranchers felt that we needed research to prove or disprove our beliefs that the nutrients were such that it is a beneficial food. We knew some research was done by the Land Grant colleges, but at the time it was mostly on the production side, rather than into qualities of the meat. The goal was to learn what we had. Our intent and goals were far different than trying "to prove tobacco is beneficial", and I hope you can agree with me on that. What I heard from leadership and staff always was along the lines of "let's see what we have here, and if there is something that isn't good, what we can do to change our product to make it better". Many of the ranchers involved were of the mindset that this is our sole means of making a living and the best use for our land, so we either have to find ways to change beef if that is necessary (cholesterol, estrogen, other "scares" of the time). We were pretty surprised to learn that eating broccoli, cabbage and other veggie sources was giving people far more estrogen than was beef. And that some people have metabolism that produces cholesterol. Maybe soon we will learn that cholesterol benefits from beef fatty acids. I'm just touching the tip of the iceberg of research here. Most of us were very sure beef would check out very favorably, and it is gratifying to see it happen. Is PR wrong when it is honest and accurate?

MRJ
 
MRJ.....thanks for taking the time to respond to my suggestion......see below.....for some of my further thoughts.....

graybull, thanks for sharing something constructive. NOW, for the real challenge.......have you shared this with your state beef council? I know that SDBIC continually asks for inputs from the ranchers in SD, and would be very surprised if WY does not do the same. Certainly CBB would welcome suggestions......it's as easy as emailing [email protected]!

Sorry.....I have zero interest in spending time in this type of activities............decided a very long time ago that I will spend my time doing what I can do myself to "improve beef".......and increase beef consumption. You are welcome to email my suggestions to anyone you choose.

Now, I'm going to critique just a little.

You criticize support of the USDA Food Guide Pyramid........but you may not be aware of the strong and aggressive campaign by checkoff staff that put beef in the favorable position it has on both the new and the old pyramid. There is very well funded opposition to beef. There is "researchers" making counter claims to ours.

Exactly what I am talking about....there are many, many well funded organizations and individules that make many, many erroneous claims about beef and health...........THAT is the reason that the beef board.......very much needs to get more aggressive. The Food Pyramid is total total trash......and it doesn't deserve the support of ANY well informed group or individual.

BTW, have you really seen a statement that ONLY says "we support the USDA food pyramid"? Or does it say more along the lines of "we recommend the two servings which total 5 to 7 ounces, the recommended DAILY consumption for beef"?

Time and time again......the head of the nutritional department......employed by NCBA or the checkoff......not sure which one and really could care less..........time and time again......I read her fawning support for the food pyramid......and do you know what her favorite word is......"moderation".......that is what she says and says about beef intake........again...........the message any thinking consumer would get is that the beef industry own spokesperson doesn't think it is a good idea to eat more beef than our misguided government preaches.

Yes, some do believe we can eat all the beef we want every day, but how much trouble would government, and especially a beef industry checkoff get into if someone filed a class action lawsuit claiming damages to health from following such a "recommendation"? We can be aggressive without being foolish, and we can (and do) point to the good research we have, as well as the fact that beef is usually under-consumed by many people.

Welcome to the modern world..........litigation is often the tool of choice......both with merit and without merit........there is nothing foolish about advising people to eat more beef.

How can we justify telling people "YOU CAN NEVER EAT TOO MUCH BEEF! PERIOD!!!" like you did, when advertising beef? We would need the research to back that claim up, wouldn't we? I would love to be able to do that honestly, though!

There is a world of research.........and no....you don't need specific research to back up that claim.....do you believe there is specific research to back up all the advertising claims of other products. Consider this......

Humans are "genetically programmed" to require adequate amounts of lean meat for optimum health.
Throughout almost the entire history of human development (more than 2 million years)....our species thrived on a diet base primarily on meat protein (many researchers agree that lean meat made up 70-80% or our species diet when based on caloric intake). It has only been during the last 10,000 years that some societies CHANGED their diets to include more grains and other cultivated plant products. The most important point is thar our DNA dictated metabolism has evolved on a diet of lean meat protein. We preform best and enjoy the highest level of health........when we receive enought meat derived protein. Beef is by far the most nutritious of all the major meat proteins consumed.

This is backed up by much anthropological and other research areas. It is a much more an accepted fact in those fields than any of the research ever done by the beef board.

Isn't it the wiser course to get the science via peer reviewed research before we make the farther out there claims about beef and health? Remember, not every person enjoys perfect health and metabolism. Some people have systems that turn good foods into high cholesterol. Do we want to be responsible for them if they take our word that they can't eat too much good beef? What if they do not follow the adage to displace every bite of something less nutritious, but instead go on and eat too much "bad", high calorie "white" foods.....flour, processed sugar, etc. Then blame their health problems on the beef? How can the beef industry prove which foods damaged their health?

MRJ.......I would advise you spend less time worrying about litigation.......and more time promoting the value of beef on human health.

Please understand, I'm not arguing with you, but pointing out what the Checkoff leadership must consider in their decisions about what to publicize.

And I will say it again.......(I don't personally know well any of the people on the beef board at any level).........but they are far too cautious and give the impression that they really don't believe in their own product. Remember that contrary to what many may believe...........a medical degree does not make you more right than anyone else.........how much longer have your checkoff funded researchers been conducting studies than the emperical information on our ancestors..........and both their physical and cognitive development.........began more than 2 million years ago???

Also, please take your ideas to your beef council and the CBB......who knows, maybe I'm a few months behind the times, and the world is ready for your take on how beef should be promoted. Wishing you great success in selling more beef. That will benefit all of us!

Thanks!.........appreciate your work also.

MRJ
 
Kindergarten: "Since this is a discussion on cattle issues, why don't we just stick to them or their pertinent questions of bias?"
Click to expand...

Your questions of bias are irrelevant to whether or not I can back my position. What defines whether or not I can back my position is whether or not you can contradict anything I have stated with facts to the contrary. You have failed to do that even once. Establishing bias is nothing more than a diversionary tactic by the "factually void" such as yourself to discredit when you can't back your views with hard facts. You may own cattle but that doesn't mean you know anything about the cattle industry which obviously you don't.



~SH~
 
One more question about the checkoff MRJ. During this Canadian strike, I'm reading where X number of thousand head per week are being sent to the U.S. for processing. I went to the checkoff site to see if $1 per head was being paid to the checkoff. I see that packers pay $1 to the CBB, but if they process the cattle in 10 days, no money is paid to the checkoff here. Am I reading this correctly & if I am, does the checkoff board have any numbers on how many head are coming into this country without paying checkoff? I am talking about all imported cattle, Canada, Mexico etc. Thanks for reading.
 
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten: "Since this is a discussion on cattle issues, why don't we just stick to them or their pertinent questions of bias?"
Click to expand...

Your questions of bias are irrelevant to whether or not I can back my position. What defines whether or not I can back my position is whether or not you can contradict anything I have stated with facts to the contrary. You have failed to do that even once. Establishing bias is nothing more than a diversionary tactic by the "factually void" such as yourself to discredit when you can't back your views with hard facts. You may own cattle but that doesn't mean you know anything about the cattle industry which obviously you don't.



~SH~
Click to expand...

Motives are always a source of bias. They are always relevant as fedup2, I believe, has pointed out.
 
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten: "Motives are always a source of bias."
Click to expand...

Motives cannot change the facts!

My only motive is the truth.


~SH~
Click to expand...

If your only motive is the truth, why do you have to call everyone names? I have proven I am quite adept at matching you at that game. I do not continue it because it is juvinile. I see that you continue to do it.
 
Kindergarten: "If your only motive is the truth, why do you have to call everyone names?"
Click to expand...

I don't call everyone names. I call you Kindergarten Economics because you don't know enough about cattle industry economics to be called Economics 101. You don't have a clue what you are talking about most times so I had to find a more fitting title. I guess I could accomodate you somewhat by upgrading you to Elementary economics but certainly no more than that. You're not going to cry are you?

~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten: "If your only motive is the truth, why do you have to call everyone names?"
Click to expand...

I don't call everyone names. I call you Kindergarten Economics because you don't know enough about cattle industry economics to be called Economics 101. You don't have a clue what you are talking about most times so I had to find a more fitting title. I guess I could accomodate you somewhat by upgrading you to Elementary economics but certainly no more than that. You're not going to cry are you?

~SH~
Click to expand...

In case you didn't notice, that is still calling names. You sound so much like my two pre teens. Please stop. Did your mom ever tell you not to call people names? Did you have a mom?
 
Elementary economics: ]"Did your mom ever tell you not to call people names?"
Click to expand...

I am sure if she met a phony like you she would have some choice names for you as well.



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Elementary economics: ]"Did your mom ever tell you not to call people names?"
Click to expand...

I am sure if she met a phony like you she would have some choice names for you as well.



~SH~
Click to expand...

I guess that is the difference. My mom would not have had any derrogatory names for you. I am sorry for your circumstances.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top