S.S.A.P. said:I can't find the link where it was explained but this is how I understood it.
Live imports will continue to equal domestic per head fee
BEEF imports are charged on an average carcass weight. Average carcass weights have increased so the fee is not actually lowered but the fee covers a few more pounds.
Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.
MRJ said:S.S.A.P. said:I can't find the link where it was explained but this is how I understood it.
Live imports will continue to equal domestic per head fee
BEEF imports are charged on an average carcass weight. Average carcass weights have increased so the fee is not actually lowered but the fee covers a few more pounds.
Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.
SSAP, you have the change quite accurately described. Per live animal imported will stay the same, but the carcass equivalent weight will increase to reflect average carcass weight increases over the past few years.
I seriously doubt it will decrease by half, but do not have the numbers in hand. To do that it seems average carcass weights would have to have increased by half. Have they really done that????
MRJ
ocm said:I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef.
OCM: "I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef."
~SH~ said:OCM: "I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef."
SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!
95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.
Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."
The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
~SH~
~SH~ said:OCM: "I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef."
SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!
95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.
Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."
The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
~SH~
~SH~ said:OCM: "I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef."
SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!
95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.
Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."
The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
~SH~
ocm said:~SH~ said:OCM: "I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef."
SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!
95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.
Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."
The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
~SH~
Was there something new in that response that we have not heard before?
I'm beginning to think that the idea of supporting beef without supporting US beef should be considered unpatriotic. It kind of reminds me of the absurdity of "supporting the troops" but "not supporting the war."
Econ101 said:ocm said:~SH~ said:SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!
95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.
Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."
The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
~SH~
Was there something new in that response that we have not heard before?
I'm beginning to think that the idea of supporting beef without supporting US beef should be considered unpatriotic. It kind of reminds me of the absurdity of "supporting the troops" but "not supporting the war."
Perhaps Sh advocates supporting generic troops.
Sandbag: "Do you see imports increasing or decreasing in the future?"
OCM: "Was there something new in that response that we have not heard before?"
OCM: "I'm beginning to think that the idea of supporting beef without supporting US beef should be considered unpatriotic."
Chief: "I'm beginning to think that the idea of supporting beef without supporting US beef should be considered unpatriotic."
Sandbag: "SH just supports anything the USDA/NCBA/AMI do without question. Then he calls others lemmings."
New postPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:57 am
I deal in facts not speculation.
Sandbag: "What you just told us is that you lack the wisdom to plan ahead. I'm not real surprised."
Stalker: "If you say it to yourself, sh, does that make it true?"