Chicken Replacing Beef

[Econ101]

American beef consumption is declining...

"The beef industry says more beef is being eaten now than ever. But that's a function of a growing population. Most Americans eat less beef than in 1970; per capita consumption of beef has fallen 11 percent, while chicken consumption has gone up 68 percent, and turkey demand has gone up 74 percent. Americans are also spending less on beef. Adjusted for inflation, Americans spent $355 per capita on beef in 1980. In 2001, they spent $200." Judd Slivka. Ranchers a dying breed: West's once-thriving cattle industry suffering. The Arizona Republic (July 15, 2002).

Anyone have any current data on this topic?

Do you wonder why?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Do you wonder why?"

No, I know why, you obviously don't!

Consumers have less discretionary spending available to them due to higher fuel prices.

Hmmmm.....let's see.....fill the tank or eat a steak vs. cheaper chicken?

You really don't have a clue do you?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Do you wonder why?"

No, I know why, you obviously don't!

Consumers have less discretionary spending available to them due to higher fuel prices.

Hmmmm.....let's see.....fill the tank or eat a steak vs. cheaper chicken?

You really don't have a clue do you?


~SH~

So my arguments that an economy like Mexico may not be that good for cattle rancher's profits isn't off at all is it?

By the way, I am eating steak tonight and I just filled up my diesel pickup.

You don't have a clue SH-- Hawker.

 

[Cattleman]

It is certainly not that simple SH. What about health issues, convenience, take a look at this latest McDonalds release....they offered premium, "more expensive chicken sandwhiches" to increase profit. These new sandwhiches must have sold well. This is not a good sign for beef. I certainly have some concerns, and in the past it took economists a while to catch on how poorly beef demand was doing.

I know there are several reasons for increased profit, but I had read in another article, about how well the more expensive premium sandwhiches were doing.

My question is what should the beef industry be doing to try and counter the competition from chicken.


McDonald's August Sales Increase 3.4 Percent, Helped by New Chicken Sandwiches

Reuters and such had some releases.....
OAK BROOK, Ill. (AP) -- The introduction of chicken sandwiches helped McDonald's Corp.'s same-store sales rise 3.4 percent in August over the same month a year earlier, the fast-food chain said Friday.

Besides the new premium chicken strips, McDonald's said extended hours and an improved breakfast business had helped produce the 29th straight increase in U.S. same-store sales -- its longest such streak in 25 years.

 

[RobertMac]

Kindergarten: "Do you wonder why?"

No, I know why, you obviously don't!

Consumers have less discretionary spending available to them due to higher fuel prices.

Hmmmm.....let's see.....fill the tank or eat a steak vs. cheaper chicken?

You really don't have a clue do you?


~SH~

Right, only one factor effects demand, but there are many that effect supply!!!!! :?

What is the first thing a doctor tells his patient with heart problems...STOP EATING RED MEAT!!!!!!!!!! And what is CBB/NCBA response....eat only a THREE OUNCE serving of LEAN beef...insinuating that FOUR OUNCES is bad for you or fatty beef is bad for you!! Chicken is the PC meat and CBB/NCBA must be PC with their "sound science". The beef industry has to give consumers a reason to eat beef.

 

[Econ101]

The profit margin for chicken for Tyson is a lot more than beef. They have an incentive to switch consumers over.

Think about that one while you are arguing about these issues.

 

[Econ101]

Sorry, SH, I was having a hard time with getting this copied over for this forum. I thought someone else might have it better.
Meat Consumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Consumption per Capita, Retail Weight Basis
:-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Year : : : : : : Lamb :
:Broilers : Beef : Pork : Turkeys : Veal : and :Total 1/
: : : : : : Mutton :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: pounds
:
2000 : 76.9 67.8 51.2 17.4 0.7 1.1 216.2
2001 : 76.7 66.3 50.3 17.5 0.6 1.1 213.7
2002 : 80.6 67.7 51.5 17.7 0.6 1.2 220.8
2003 : 81.6 64.9 51.8 17.4 0.6 1.1 218.9
2004 : 84.3 66.1 51.3 17.0 0.5 1.1 221.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/ Total includes other chicken. World Agricultural Outlook Board (202)
720-9805.

 

[agman]

American beef consumption is declining...

"The beef industry says more beef is being eaten now than ever. But that's a function of a growing population. Most Americans eat less beef than in 1970; per capita consumption of beef has fallen 11 percent, while chicken consumption has gone up 68 percent, and turkey demand has gone up 74 percent. Americans are also spending less on beef. Adjusted for inflation, Americans spent $355 per capita on beef in 1980. In 2001, they spent $200." Judd Slivka. Ranchers a dying breed: West's once-thriving cattle industry suffering. The Arizona Republic (July 15, 2002).

Anyone have any current data on this topic?

Do you wonder why?

Well, yes I do and the mere fact that you even have to ask a question regarding this matter tells me how little you truly know about the beef and meat industry. No wonder you quote the gibberish when confronted with the Pickett case.

Per capita beef consumption peaked in 1976 at 94.4 pounds, almost thirty years ago. That is how far out of date you are. Per captia beef consumption in 2004 was 66.1 pounds. During the same period per captia consumption of chicken increased from 39.5 pounds to 84.3 pounds last year. The statement in the attached article that the per captia consumption decline of beef is because of population growth is as dumb as dumb can get. Was not the same population base used to calculate per capita consumption of competing meats which increased?!!!! Total meat demand has continued to increase and it is at record levels. The entire gain in per capita supply/consumption since 1976 has been in the competing meats, namely poultry. point: Per captia beef consumption/supply has barely kept pace with population growth.

Consumption by itself is never a measure of demand as implied in the aforementioned article. Whoever wrote that article did not what he was talking about either. Demand is a price/quantity function. That measurement shows a decline in beef demand from 1980-1998. From 1999-2003 beef demand made significant gains. Why do you think I asked the question regarding Dr Taylor's work and his inability to show any downward price influence from "captive supply" in 1999-2000 when beef demand was improving? Is that just a coincidence or was he just measuring the downward price impact of declining demand in previous years disguised as being caused by "captive supply" cattle?

I am certain you will come up with some lame conspiracy theory as to why poultry gained prominence with consumers. I will list the real reasons. Vertical integration brought major efficiencies into poultry production. That is, they could produce the same product cheaper, unlike beef. The poultry industry transitioned from "commodity" production to "value added" product production. Yes, you have to give Tyson some credit here; they led the way. They addressed consumer concerns regarding cost, taste and convenience. You can buy chicken breasts today in nearly 100 different forms to satisfy consumer tastes.

Now I am quite certain you will say broiler producers got screwed. You stated as much in a previous post. BS, you don't increase production to provide 170 million chickens for slaughter a week if the raw product producer is losing money. You spend too much time listening to complainers who cannot compete.

It is nice to see your total lack of knowledege of this industry on dispaly. All the legal and literary gibberish you spew does no not qualify you as knowledgeable regarding the beef and meat industry. I do want to give you credit for asking for some pertinent data per this subject. You might even be salvageable yet!! The more facts you learn the more the fallacy of conspiracy theorists are revealed.

 

[agman]

The profit margin for chicken for Tyson is a lot more than beef. They have an incentive to switch consumers over.

Think about that one while you are arguing about these issues.

Another lame conspiracy theory espoused by none other than Econ101. You are really misguided and misinformed.

Yes, they do have a larger margin in chicken because of "value added" production. Are they not doing the same thing now to beef or are you so far removed from the marketplace that you have failed to take notice? How many new value added beef products have they introduced? Why, to expand margins which is a precursor to growing the beef industry just as they grew the broiler industry. The beef industry is virgin territority for them to apply their "value added" product expertise. They have just scratched the surface with "value added" beef product. That is a good thing. Just think of all the new products that will be introduced to capture more consumer dollars for the beef industry.

 

[Soapweed]

My question is what should the beef industry be doing to try and counter the competition from chicken.

Besides the new premium chicken strips, McDonald's said extended hours and an improved breakfast business had helped produce the 29th straight increase in U.S. same-store sales -- its longest such streak in 25 years.

My theory is that since a third of all meals are "breakfast", the Beef Industry should concentrate on more breakfast-friendly beef entrees'. Beef bacon should be perfected and promoted, and any other beef-start-your-day cuts should be considered.

For the most part, beef gets left in the dust at breakfast-time. Pork is the breakfast King, and Chicken (at least the egg part) is the Queen. Beef is the Jack at best, and possibly "jest" the Joker. Beef needs to rise up on the chain of Cowmand to the position of Ace, and get some long overdue recognition.

 

[agman]

My question is what should the beef industry be doing to try and counter the competition from chicken.

Besides the new premium chicken strips, McDonald's said extended hours and an improved breakfast business had helped produce the 29th straight increase in U.S. same-store sales -- its longest such streak in 25 years.

My theory is that since a third of all meals are "breakfast", the Beef Industry should concentrate on more breakfast-friendly beef entrees'. Beef bacon should be perfected and promoted, and any other beef-start-your-day cuts should be considered.

For the most part, beef gets left in the dust at breakfast-time. Pork is the breakfast King, and Chicken (at least the egg part) is the Queen. Beef is the Jack at best, and possibly "jest" the Joker. Beef needs to rise up on the chain of Cowmand to the position of Ace, and get some long overdue recognition.

You make a valid point Soapweed. I have pointed out that the ad "Beef, whats for dinner" conditions consumers to beef for only one of the three meals eaten daily by most consumers. "Beef, the choice at everymeal" I believe would be a much better ad.

 

[the chief]

Since this article was dated July 2002, SH, I doubt if current fuel prices had little to do with beef consumption :shock: :???: :???: :???:

Agman, read your LONG reply. Are you this condescending with the people you work with, too? Usually it is difficult to read someone's emotions in the written word, but it is obvious while reading your replies how full of yourself you are and how little you think of someone whose opinion differs from yours. WOW.

No wonder I don't visit here like I used to. I like my serenity better.

 

[Soapweed]

"BEEF, it's what's for dinner." That is a pretty catchy line that sticks in a person's mind. One thing about it, with the confusion over what meal is "dinner", :wink: it kind of covers two of the meals anyway. To the la-de-da crowd, "dinner" is supper. To cowboys, "lunch" is a snack you eat in the middle of the night when you get up.........never mind. Anyway, "dinner" can be both "lunch" and "supper" so quite a few bases are covered with "BEEF, it's what's for dinner."

Agman, I do like your "BEEF, the choice at every meal," because that would also take in breakfast. Now what the Beef Industry needs to really figure out, is more "breakfast-friendly" beef products. In my opinion, there is as much "untapped" potential for this meal as there is for more wind energy capabilities across the American West. In other words, LOTS of potential.

I did hear on the radio that Dominoes Pizza is promoting a new beef pizza. They have also received permission to use the buzz words, "Steak, it's what's for Pizza." More power to them. Now if they'd kick out something like, "Steak Pizza, it's what's for breakfast."

 

[RobertMac]

The problem with beef is the negative image the diet dictocrats have been pushing without rebuttal from anyone. The villain of the food world is made out to be fat...with the idea that fat make you fat. We fatten cattle on starch, not fats or oils, yet carbs are considered the safe food. Look at the obesity in this country resulting from a high carb diet. The fast food industry receives most of the blame for the obesity problem which implies that ground beef is unhealthy...it has too much fat in it. Until we address these unfounded negatives about animal fats and differentiate animal fats from vegetable fats, putting beef in a different package will have a minimal effect on demand. We need a hardnosed campaign to promote the good essential nutritional qualities of beef and separate our product from the things that are truly harming human health...too much hydrogenated vegetable oils, refined sugar, and refined flour...un-natural, harmful starch products!

 

[Econ101]

Agman, thank you for agreeing with me so much in your post. You don't have to say you agree with me if you agree on the points.

By the way, those were USDA stats copied from their table (ERS).

The meat packer's argument (Tyson is a packer and poultry dealer) is that in poultry they deserve more of the dollar that poultry brings in because of their further processing. I am sure that will be the reason they use when they wring more money out of the cattlemen. Some of it may be true, but not all of it. Much of their share of the poultry dollar they get is because they take it from the farmers through market power. That will start happening to the beef industry I would guess within the next 5 to 10 years.

Tyson will say that they deserve more of the pie because of all the reasons you gave, Agman, but some of the reason will be market manipulation. Eventually more will be from market manipulation until all of the producer surplus is wrung out. Go read the history of the cattle industry and you will see that this has been the case before.

Even if they (Tyson) do not use the same economic tricks that they use in poultry (largely because it has a different market structure), their little tricks can unnaturally sway the beef markets and provide handsome returns in the poultry sector. All this comes at the expense of the cattlemen.

All of the enumerated prohibitions of Section 202 of the PSA are meant to protect the farmers/ranchers from these abuses.

I don't know about you, but I like my steaks cooked a certain way and I know how to do it right. I do not need a lot of further processing to get it that way. A hamburger is as processed as I want my beef. Some things are good the way God made them and they don't need a lot more "improving" by the food industry giants.

As I said before, the wrong kind of questions are being asked in agriculture today as far as the producer is concerned. All of the questions I see have to do with the answers processors want, not the producers.

 

[Anonymous]

I was at an NCBA recruitment meeting at the Stockyards that they were using the checkoff people to promote 5+ years ago, where the checkoff people were pushing breakfast beef products---one of the items that I thought was delicious was the beef bacon....

Since then we have searched the meat counters and asked butchers for it- but have never been able to find it available in this area.......

 

[RobertMac]

Econ101, where is there an open, free market for poultry???? It doesn't exist!!! If a farmer were to grow a house of chickens, he would have no place to sell them because all chickens are produced under contract. Poultry farmers have to have a contract access the market and that comes at the processors direction and under their thumb. Beef producers will be controlled by the processors having control of the market and limiting producer access to that market. The elimination of small and medium size, independent processors will be the end of independent cattlemen. Cattlemen had better wake up...it matters who you sell your calves to!!

 

[Econ101]

I was at an NCBA recruitment meeting at the Stockyards that they were using the checkoff people to promote 5+ years ago, where the checkoff people were pushing breakfast beef products---one of the items that I thought was delicious was the beef bacon....

Since then we have searched the meat counters and asked butchers for it- but have never been able to find it available in this area.......

Sounds good, Oldtimer. I usually just cook a lot more beef the night before and eat it for breakfast in the morning.

I remember the fake bacon of 20 years ago and cringe at the thought of it. I hope it is better than that.

I just hope this industry concentration thing does not kill that type of innovation, or that it becomes another profit center for the big packers who compete with who?????, themsleves!!! That may increase the beef sales but not necessarily the price cattlemen get for their cattle.

 

[CattleCo]

You really don't have a clue do you?


~SH~

BINGO SH

My theory is that since a third of all meals are "breakfast", the Beef Industry should concentrate on more breakfast-friendly beef entrees'. Beef bacon should be perfected and promoted, and any other beef-start-your-day cuts should be considered.

Agman, Now you are getting somewhere. Great responses!! I am agreeing with you on more issues as time goes on...... You must be talking to Ann!!
I was talking to a former packing house owner the other day and we both agreed the check-off get far more credit that it deserves. Casei n point....the Flat Iron Steak deal.....hell he was cutting chucks into stakes 30 years ago......... the check-off has done a lot of good in some areas. Personally, I would like to see it go away and come back in a different format. The administrators leave a lot to be desired. They must have been fired from FEMA!! :roll:

 

[Twotimer]

"BEEF, it's what's for dinner." That is a pretty catchy line that sticks in a person's mind. One thing about it, with the confusion over what meal is "dinner", :wink: it kind of covers two of the meals anyway. To the la-de-da crowd, "dinner" is supper. To cowboys, "lunch" is a snack you eat in the middle of the night when you get up.........never mind. Anyway, "dinner" can be both "lunch" and "supper" so quite a few bases are covered with "BEEF, it's what's for dinner."

Agman, I do like your "BEEF, the choice at every meal," because that would also take in breakfast. Now what the Beef Industry needs to really figure out, is more "breakfast-friendly" beef products. In my opinion, there is as much "untapped" potential for this meal as there is for more wind energy capabilities across the American West. In other words, LOTS of potential.

I did hear on the radio that Dominoes Pizza is promoting a new beef pizza. They have also received permission to use the buzz words, "Steak, it's what's for Pizza." More power to them. Now if they'd kick out something like, "Steak Pizza, it's what's for breakfast."

My favorite pizza (homemade) when I was a kid was steak pizza. Now that's a good idea.