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

Country Of Origin Matters To Only 2-3% Of Shoppers

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Country Of Origin Matters To Only 2-3% Of Shoppers
Only 2-3% of shoppers say they look for country of origin when buying meat, produce or seafood. That's one of the findings in "U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends, 2005" the latest annual shopping trends survey conducted by the Food Marketing Institute and released this week, Progressive Grocer reports.

The survey also learned the top three features consumers consider important in selecting a primary supermarket are high-quality produce, high-quality meats and a clean neat store. Close behind were low prices and a fast checkout, followed by the availability of money-saving specials, a convenient store layout and personal safety outside the store.

On average, consumers visit the grocery store 2.2 times/week and spend an average of $92.50/week/household, of which $70.90 is spent at the primary store. And, shoppers' top savings strategies are making a list (54%), using frequent shopper programs (41%), checking the newspaper for specials (40%), and stocking up on sale items (24%).

In addition, the survey found supermarkets are still by far consumers' number-one choice for buying groceries, followed by super centers, conventional discount stores and warehouse club stores.
-- Joe Roybal
Country Of Origin Matters To Only 2-3% Of Shoppers
Only 2-3% of shoppers say they look for country of origin when buying meat, produce or seafood. That's one of the findings in "U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends, 2005" the latest annual shopping trends survey conducted by the Food Marketing Institute and released this week, Progressive Grocer reports.

The survey also learned the top three features consumers consider important in selecting a primary supermarket are high-quality produce, high-quality meats and a clean neat store. Close behind were low prices and a fast checkout, followed by the availability of money-saving specials, a convenient store layout and personal safety outside the store.

On average, consumers visit the grocery store 2.2 times/week and spend an average of $92.50/week/household, of which $70.90 is spent at the primary store. And, shoppers' top savings strategies are making a list (54%), using frequent shopper programs (41%), checking the newspaper for specials (40%), and stocking up on sale items (24%).

In addition, the survey found supermarkets are still by far consumers' number-one choice for buying groceries, followed by super centers, conventional discount stores and warehouse club stores.
-- Joe Roybal of Cow Calf weekly
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Tam, your point is? Do you not want USA to label their beef? This study is biased as the supermarkets don't want it. NCBA and R-calf did a poll and the consumers wanted cool by a high number.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,150
Reaction score
26
Location
BC
rancher said:
Tam, your point is? Do you not want USA to label their beef? This study is biased as the supermarkets don't want it. NCBA and R-calf did a poll and the consumers wanted cool by a high number.

Never trust a poll. Someone somewhere is trying to convince you of something by manipulating numbers to make their case.
I say label it. Every other food we buy is labled. And IMHO, the only label that really impacts consumers is the one with the price on it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rancher: "This study is biased as the supermarkets don't want it."

Did they tell consumers how to respond??? LOL!

Supermarkets don't want it BECAUSE CONSUMERS AREN'T ASKING FOR IT!


"But, but, but don't those who claim to be in the "cattle industry" and not the "beef industry" know more about selling beef than those who actually sell beef"?

I think not!


This poll is no surprise as country of origin has already been tested in the lamb market. Country of Origin labeling is nothing more than a concept that sounds good to producers. It has no basis in actual consumer based shopping preferences.


~SH~
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
SH are you saying NCBA and R-calf are liars from the polls they took on cool?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
A majority of consumer respondents, 59%, agreed that it is difficult to find country of origin and grower information. These results point to a need for growers, processors, and retailers to provide consumers with more details about their products. Table 1.Food system information needsAgreeDisagreeNeutral/Not SureI already know enough about how my food is grown,processed,transported,and/or sold15.8%59.8%24.4%It is difficult to find out information about how my food is grown,processed,trans-ported and/or sold59.0%12.6%28.4%Eight food system-related topics were identified as themes that interested the focus groups; these topics were then presented in the written survey (table 2). Not surprisingly, the scores indicated that survey respondents were most interested in food safety and nutrition; nearly all respondents ranked these topics near the top of a scale from 1 to 10. A number of surveys have consistently shown these to be important concerns, even for those with few other food-related interests.2,3One focus group participant highlighted this fact when stating, “Who knows what the heck is in half the stuff we buy, I mean I don’t … Frankly, I don’t care as long as it doesn’t get me sick.” This was a minority view, however, as most focus group participants also had a number of concerns beyond their personal health. The survey results supported this broader concern. Treatment of animals involved in food production, environmental impacts, and working conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
CENTER RESEARCH BRIEF #5 | Winter 2005Consumer Interest in the Food System2conditions all received an average score of greater than 7 (table 2). In the focus groups, the treatment of animals elicited the most emotion. Several participants had toured slaugh-terhouses and said this experience had a lasting effect on them. Others had changed their consumption habits after learning of the way some animals are treated, such as veal calves. For some people the interest in animal welfare may also overlap with personal health concerns. For example, a focus group participant discussing the inhumane aspects of confinement animal pro-duction asked, “then are you eating growth hormone and … or whatever you’re putting in them, and what does that do? I mean, in the long run you know, what’s that doing to you?” On the issue of environmental im-pacts, focus group participants most frequently expressed concerns related to pesticides and genetic engineering. Some participants were also concerned about irradiation and the impacts of food packaging or food waste. Several participants noted that environmental impacts were much more important to them when compared to other con-cerns about the food system.On the topic of working conditions and wages, focus group participants were interested in the treatment of farm workers, such as the backbreaking la-bor performed for very low pay, and the exploitation of migrant workers. Workers involved in other aspects of the food system, such as processing or retail, were not discussed as frequently. When asked specifically to list criteria they would like to see improved for workers involved in the food system, focus group participants mentioned higher wages, protection from pesti-cide exposure, health care, education, adequate food, limited working hours, and adequate housing.The influence of large corporations had an average score of 6.6. This theme emerged in all of the focus groups, though it was much more strongly held by some individuals. One participant said, “The huge conglomerates that are controlling agriculture really, re-ally bother me,” and others named specific multinational food processors and chemical companies whose mo-tives they distrusted. Some participants blamed these corporations for the low prices that farmers receive for their products and the loss of family farms.How far food travels was the low-est-ranked topic on the survey, with a score of 5.8. Focus group participants had various reasons for their interest in this topic, involving economic, food safety, or environmental concerns. Most focus group participants wanted to know the country of origin of their food. “I guess I’d like to know [where fruits and vegetables are from] because I’d like to know are we producing our food or are we actually reaching out into other countries?” said one par-ticipant. Some participants wanted to support the U.S. economy, while others went further and expressed interest in supporting their local economies. Another stated reason for wanting this information was concern about the safety of imported food, such as thepresence of pesticides banned in the U.S.or contamination with microbial diseases.Finally,some participants wanted to know how much fossil fuel was con-sumed in transporting their food.Of 60 survey respondents who iden-tified additional topics in a write-in section, 22% had reservations about genetically engineered food, and 15% wanted more information on pesticides. Other interests identified by more than one respondent were fresh-ness, where food was grown, and the fate of food waste.PREFERRED SOURCES OF INFORMATIONWe also wanted to know the formats that people would choose to obtain more information about their food, and asked members of the focus groups which ones they preferred. The catego-ries in table 3 represent the themes that emerged. These information source options were then presented to survey respondents, along with instructions to choose up to 4. Table 3.Preferred sources of informationProduct labels81.3%Brochure or retail display76.4%Newspapers/magazines/books51.4%Web pages/the Internet46.1%TV/videotape/DVD26.3%Tours of farms and/or processing plants18.7% Radio13.4%Talking to seller11.8%Productlabelswerethemostpopular choice for obtaining more information about food, selected by 81.3% of sur-vey respondents. A brochure or retail display was a close second at 76.4%. These results suggest that consumers want information about food when they are actually making their pur-chasing decisions. Print media and web-based information were selected by approximately half of respondents. A number of focus group participants expressed an interest in labels, but also wanted more detailed information via a website. RANKING PRODUCTION STANDARDSA recent trend in food marketing is an increase in the number of “eco-la-bels”—seals or logos that signify that the product meets certain standards. These standards may include environ-mental protection or other criteria, such as social responsibility. Organic, which in 2002 became a national stan-Table 2.Level of interest in food system- related topic.Score of 10 equals great amount of interest,1 equals none at all.MeanStandard DeviationSafety9.41.4Nutrition8.91.7Treatment of animals7.42.7Environmental impacts7.32.4Working conditions7.22.6Wages6.72.7Influence of large corporations6.62.9How far food travels5.83.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
CENTER RESEARCH BRIEF #5 | Winter 2005Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems3dard accredited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is currently the most prominent eco-label. Organic food sales have increased by at least 20% a year for the last 15 years, a trend that is expected to continue. Focus group participants wanted information on an eco-label to be in “plain English” and easily understood. They also emphasized that any label had to “mean what it says.” They were very skeptical of claims made about their food, particularly those that were not well defined, such as “natural.” A third party certification system is one way to ensure consumer confidence in claims, although focus group participants were not very familiar with the process. Education about how third party cer-tification works may be necessary to overcome current levels of consumer distrust in food marketers.We asked survey respondents to evaluate five potential standards that could be represented by third party cer-tified eco-labels. These standards were based on the themes that emerged from the focus groups. We did not include criteria related to safety or nutrition because making claims in these areas can be very contentious given the cur-rent state of scientific knowledge. We also excluded environmental criteria, because most of the issues raised by focus group participants related to this topic, such as pesticides and genetic engineering, were already prohibited under the USDA Organic label. The resulting standards were–Humane: meat, dairy products, or eggs from animals that haven’t been treated cruellyLiving wage: provides above-poverty wages to workers involved in producing the foodLocally grown: grown within 50 miles of point of purchaseSmall-scale: supports small farms or businessesU.S. grown: grown in the United StatesBecause most focus group par-ticipants were concerned about both workers’ wages and working condi-tions, for simplicity we chose just one of these topics. We selected a living wage because it was discussed more frequent-ly in the focus groups. For the distance food travels, on the other hand, some members of the focus groups wanted to support local food production, while others were more interested in purchas-ing food that was not imported from other countries, and we distinguished these criteria.We asked respondents to imagine a product that was identical except for two of the standards, and to choose the one that they preferred (i.e., locally grown OR humane). All possible com-binations were presented in a series of pairs. The result was a ranking of all five standards for each respondent (table 4). We learned from pre-testing the survey that these decisions were very difficult for most people. Many respondents said they would prefer food that represented all of these standards.Table 4.Ranking of standards criteriaHumane30.5%Locally grown22.0%Living wage16.5%U.S.grown5.9%Small-scale5.2%“Humane” was most often the top-ranked choice; it was chosen in every comparison by over 30% of respon-dents. Although not yet widespread, there are three humane labels in the U.S.: 1) the Animal Welfare Institute’s Humane Husbandry criteria for pigs, rabbits, and ducks, are used by over 300 operations; 2) “Free Farmed” is administered by the American Hu-mane Association for 5 operations; 3) “Certified Humane,” which is partially funded by The Humane Society of the United States, currently certifies 15 operations.Although interest in how far food travels was not as highly rated as other topics (see table 1), locally grown was the second most preferred of the five potential eco-labels. This may be due to the fact that people prefer local prod-ucts for other attributes, such as taste and freshness. The non-profit organiza-tion FoodRoutes has partnered with organizations across the United States to implement “Buy Local” initiatives, some of which include local eco-labels. In California, the local partner Com-munity Alliance with Family Farmers has a “Buy Fresh, Buy Local” campaign. Participating farmers and retailers dis-play a label that denotes the food was grown in either the Central Coast or Sacramento Valley of California. Living wage was the first choice of 16.5% of respondents. Currently, con-sumers interested in a living wage label can seek out the “Black Eagle” label. This label identifies produce from farms that have contracts with the United Farm Workers Union, which indicates “decent wages, benefits and working conditions.”4However, only 27 food-producing operations in the United States carry this label.An additional survey question asked respondents about their willingness to pay a price premium for strawberries that would guarantee a living wage and safe working conditions for farmwork-ers. After being told the regular price was $1.50 a pint, they were asked if they would pay 5 cents to $1.50 more for these standards, depending upon the version of the survey. The median price that people were willing to pay was $1.06, or a 71% increase over the regular price. Eighty-four percent of respondents were willing to pay a 3% increase of 5 cents. These figures indicate that there is consumer support for a domestic version of “fair trade” certified foods (see sidebar, next page), particularly if the price premium is small. Based on a typical piece rate for strawberry pickers of 10.5 to 12.5 cents per pint, increasing the price of a pint of strawberries by 5 cents could fund a 40% or greater increase in piece rate pay.Labels indicating U.S. grown and small-scale received much less support thantheotheroptions;theywerethefirst choice of fewer than 6% of respondents. This does not mean that respondents see these criteria as unimportant, only that they ranked them lower than the other criteria when forced to choose. U.S. grown, in particular, fared poorly in comparison with another geographic criteria, locally grown. However, a re-cent survey reported 86% of consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
CENTER RESEARCH BRIEF #5 | Winter 2005Consumer Interest in the Food System4This Center Research Brief is part of a series reporting on Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems’research efforts.For more information,contact CASFS,1156 High St.,University of California,Santa Cruz,CA 95064,831.459-3240,www.ucsc.edu/casfs.Photo credits, page 1: Jon Kersey (top), Jim Leap (bottom)favored country-of-origin labeling for fresh produce.5Interestingly, the focus group participants had more trust in operations that were local, even if they were very large, which may partially explain why support for small-scale criteria ranked last. PURCHASING BEHAVIORSAs part of the survey we asked respondents whether they purchased organic and locally produced food. Three out of four survey respondents reported buying organic food; nearly one in three said they purchased or-ganic products at least once a week.Sources of organic foods have ex-panded rapidly in recent years, and now include retail outlets such as su-permarkets and warehouse clubs. Local food sources have also been increasing, as evidenced by the expo-nential growth in farmers’ markets. Approximately half of respondents obtained food from gardens or retail outlets dedicated to local food, such as farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture subscriptions, roadside stands, or U-pick operations. However, less than 15% reported us-ing these sources at least weekly. Local food sources are much less convenient for consumers to access than 24-hour supermarkets, which may explain why purchasing locally is a less frequently reported behavior when compared with organic purchasing. Table 5.Purchasing patterns for obtainingorganic and local* foodPurchase organic74.5%Infrequently44.4%At least once a week30.1%Obtain food from local source48.0%Infrequently33.5%At least once a week14.5%*Local was defined as gardens, farmers’ markets,CSA subscriptions, roadside stands, or U-pick operations.IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORS,MARKETERS,AND CONSUMERSOur survey results indicate that growers, processors, and retailers could do a better job of providing their customers with information on the way that food is produced, processed, transported, and sold. They should recognize safety and nutrition as con-sumers’ top concerns, but they should also devote attention to ethical issues, particularly the humane treatment of animals, environmental impacts, and social justice issues. Because respon-dents identified labels as their preferred source of information, eco-labels may be an appropriate way to address these matters. A majority of respondents indicated a willingness to pay more for strawber-ries that embodied a living wage and safe working conditions, even at price premiums up to 71% higher. The rapid growth of organic food sales, as well as sales of fair trade products from other countries, suggests that promoting the ethical values (such as a living wage) represented in food will continue to be a promising marketing strategy. Consumers who are interested in ethical aspects of the food system should recognize that their purchasing decisions can influence the way their food is grown, processed, and distrib-uted. They should also recognize that this strategy of change works best for choices that are currently available, such as organic, and is far less effective for creating new alternatives, such as a domestic fair labor practices label. Consumers will have to express their concerns to growers, processors, retail-ers, and policy makers if the current food system is not meeting their needs; to be taken seriously this may requireamplifyingtheirvoicesbyworking with advocacy organizations, rather than relying solely on individual efforts. – Phil Howard1Further details of this study’s methodology are available by request to [email protected], or online at www.ucsc.edu/casfs. 2McBride, J. 1997. Food safety is major concern of shoppers. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. September 17. www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1997/970917.htm 3Steptoe, A., T. Pollard, and J. Wardle. 1995. Development of a measure of the mo-tives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite25:267-84.4United Farm Workers, 2004. UFW Union Label of the Month. Keene, CA. www.ufw.org/ulmth.htm5The Packer. 2002. Fresh Trends: 2002 profile of the fresh produce consumer. Lenexa, KS: Vance Publishing.6Fair Trade Federation. 2003. Report on fair trade trends in U.S., Canada and the Pacific Rim. Washington, DC. www.fairtradefederation.com/2003_trends_re-port.pdfThe Fair Trade Eco-LabelAnother eco-label enjoying rapid growth is “Fair Trade.” Fair trade is a term that applies only to select, imported products that are certified in the U.S. by a non-profit organization, Transfair USA. The standards ensure that grower cooperatives receive a minimum price, or that workers are paid a fair wage. Although the market share is much smaller than organic (which itself comprises less than 2% of total food sales), sales of fair trade products such as coffee and tea increased by more than 40% in the U.S. from 2001 to 2002,6and have recently expanded to include fruits, such as bananas. Participants in the focus groups were all familiar with the organic label, but most were unfamiliar with fair trade labels. Almost ev-eryone, even those who could define fair trade and reported purchasing fair trade products, easily confused the term with “free trade.” Free trade generally refers to treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which eliminates certain tariffs for imported goods but does not provide a minimum price or wage.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rancher said:
SH are you saying NCBA and R-calf are liars from the polls they took on cool?

So predictable of you, rancher!

Could it be that consumers think it sounds sensible to say they want labeling, but don't often follow through on choosing labeled or branded beef products?

Market driven is the only way to go on this unless/until there is something more on that label than ONLY country of origin.......there has to be source verification right to the ranch to have real food safety benefits. When consumers catch on that there is no real benefit to that law, will they be happy?

MRJ
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
SH...Supermarkets don't want it BECAUSE CONSUMERS AREN'T ASKING FOR IT!


"But, but, but don't those who claim to be in the "cattle industry" and not the "beef industry" know more about selling beef than those who actually sell beef"?

I think not!


Then what do you say about the nutrition label becoming mandatory on fresh whole-muscle cuts, ground meat, and poultry? NCBA is supporting this government mandated regulation. It has been voluntary.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
.HEY TAM <IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORS,MARKETERS,AND CONSUMERSOur survey results indicate that growers, processors, and retailers could do a better job of providing their customers with information on the way that food is produced, processed, transported, and sold. They should recognize safety and nutrition as con-sumers’ top concerns, but they should also devote attention to ethical issues, particularly the humane treatment of animals, environmental impacts, and social justice issues. Because respon-dents identified labels as their preferred source of information,with the grower and packing information in.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
PORKER said:
.HEY TAM <IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORS,MARKETERS,AND CONSUMERSOur survey results indicate that growers, processors, and retailers could do a better job of providing their customers with information on the way that food is produced, processed, transported, and sold. They should recognize safety and nutrition as con-sumers’ top concerns, but they should also devote attention to ethical issues, particularly the humane treatment of animals, environmental impacts, and social justice issues. Because respon-dents identified labels as their preferred source of information,with the grower and packing information in.

Will the beef label mean anything to the respondents if you can't even prove who the producer was or if he practices humane treatment of animals. You have no system in place to do that, R-CALF got M"ID" taken out of M"COOL". The only really verifible information on the label will be that it was processed in the US. Yes there are systems in the States that can verify some beef but the producer has to buy in and how many will not pay the price as some are bitching about having to buy a tag now. How many producers are not going to tag until it is MANDITORY. For the label to mean anything it have to be verifible on all beef not just the part where the producer had the foresight to buy in.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
"Will the beef label mean anything to the respondents if you can't even prove who the producer was or if he practices humane treatment of animals. You have no system in place to do that, R-CALF got M"ID" taken out of M"COOL"."
Tam does your tag show if your producer practices humane treatment of animals? Seems like you had some cattle starve up there from someone not feeding them at a feedlot that the bank took over and it never set the flashing lights off and sirens on the ear tags.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
You have no system in place to do that, TAM SAID*********Well I see that CANADA is Mandatory and why can't you use the system that does what you want. ITS www.scoringag.com or is it too hard to type.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tommy,

If consumers wanted source verified beef, which tells them a heck of a lot more about origin than unenforceable, generic country of origin labeling ON COMMODITIY BEEF, they can buy source verified branded beef products right now.

Always looking for the government to solve your "PERCEIVED" problems.


~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
SH...If consumers wanted source verified beef, which tells them a heck of a lot more about origin than unenforceable, generic country of origin labeling ON COMMODITIY BEEF, they can buy source verified branded beef products right now.

Always looking for the government to solve your "PERCEIVED" problems.


Then answer why is the NCBA backing a government mandated nutrition label on whole-muscle cuts, poultry, and ground beef? It has been voluntary up untill now, but not enough were complying, so it is going to be mandatory.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
T: "Then answer why is the NCBA backing a government mandated nutrition label on whole-muscle cuts, poultry, and ground beef? It has been voluntary up untill now, but not enough were complying, so it is going to be mandatory."

Nutrition labels on many foods ALREADY EXIST. This is an EXISTING LAW that makes sense not some ridiculous, generic country of origin label on commodity beef when 80% of the beef is already U.S. beef and another 15% is blended into ground beef. Consumers want nutrition labels most don't care which 5% of our beef is foreign beef.

Second, comparing the nutritional value of poultry and beef gives beef a decided advantage.

Nutrition labels have proven their value to consumers while country of origin has proven to be worthless information.

That's what happens when you have those who claim to be in the "cattle industry" and not the "beef industry" determining the best way to sell beef for those who actually sell beef.


Now why did you skirt around the issue regarding the fact that if consumers wanted to they could buy source verified branded beef products now?


~SH~
 

Border rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Ab.- Mt. border
Darn! Lost my reply, now I have to type it again!
I don't know a lot of people in the USA, just a few scattered relatives and a few relatives of friends, but talking to the few I do know I would say that many people don't care,don't know and don't want to know!
An affluent couple in Washington, (she the sister of a good friend of mine)says they have quit eating beef since the price got so high. They always cooked prime rib on Sundays, now they have leg of lamb, and as they have aquired a taste for the mutton say they probably will never eat much beef again. I wonder how many other people are developing a taste for poultry, fish or something else and will not come back to the amount of beef they consumed in the past. Here in Canada the price of good cuts of meat is very high. This is because our very best is going in boxes to the US market. That is good for producers here and our fellow Canadians have been doing an admirable job of eating through the millions of tons of old cow hamburger! However we don't get a premium price for the meat that is costing you so much. I guess some middle men, either is our country or yours, are doing well.
Back to the topic, another couple I know well, lives in Miles City, just an eight hour drive south of us. They claim that when they try to talk to their friends there about BSE, Canadian beef etc., many don't even know what they are talking about. All they know is that beef costs too much!
Another few people I am aquainted with live in PA. They are in the health care professions, and even they don't know what it's all about.
Of course I have relatives who, because of my input, are very aware of the situation. We get along well. They are vegetarians!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
PORKER said:
You have no system in place to do that, TAM SAID*********Well I see that CANADA is Mandatory and why can't you use the system that does what you want. ITS www.scoringag.com or is it too hard to type.

As I said before Porker
Yes there are systems in the States that can verify some beef but the producer has to buy in and how many will not pay the price as some are bitching about having to buy a tag now. How many producers are not going to tag until it is MANDITORY. For the label to mean anything it have to be verifible on all beef not just the part where the producer had the foresight to buy in.
You are so fast to sell scoringag.com that you don't even read the rest post where I said there are systems in the States. But until it covers all cattle in the US it is not a national system.

Rancher
Tam does your tag show if your producer practices humane treatment of animals? Seems like you had some cattle starve up there from someone not feeding them at a feedlot that the bank took over and it never set the flashing lights off and sirens on the ear tags.

Rancher no but our system was designed to be use in a case of reportable disease control and we are now using it for age verification. So maybe someday, I know it was brought up at a meeting one time to allow the system to release information to the authorities if cattle were found and no one claimed them So why couldn't it be used to find the owners of abused cattle. Come on rancher, how can you blame our tagging system for some starving cattle, the bank, the authorities and the feedlot owners all knew who owned these cattle. It is not going to stop it but if cattle were found and no one claimed them at least with our system the authorites would have half a chance of finding the people involved.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,150
Reaction score
26
Location
BC
Those cows were not starved. I think if you research it you will find those cows died with full stomachs. Ignorance killed them. Don't know whats worse though, starving or bloat.
 

Border rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Ab.- Mt. border
Hi, I know this adds little to this discussion,but it might bring a little head shake and smile to your day. In Canada we have a relatively new Privacy
Act. We have had compulsory cattle ID tags for several years. Our land borders one of the larger ranchs in the area.
A few weeks ago we got a call from the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency, I believe it came from Ottawa. A very pleasant lady told me that an animal with our ID tag had been turned in as a stray. I asked where the animal was and she told me that I would have to call a number in Calgary. She couldn't tell me because of the Privacy Act. Well, Calgary is about 200 miles away, but I called the number. Another very pleasant person, but from them I got a number in Lethbridge. Calgary person did say the animal was in the Lethbridge district, BUT they couldn't say where because of the Privacy Act. SO, I called the Lethbridge office, no answer, but left a message for the head Brand Inspector (I think now their title has changed to Livestock Identification Officer or something) A few days later, the man called me and he laughingly said (we know him well) that the yearling steer was turned in by our neighbours with the large place just a few miles away. I asked if these people had read the brand, but no, I guess they don't deal in brands any more.
So, time to call the owners, not around, so I spoke to the head hired man, foreman, I think he calls himself. I asked if we could pick up our steer. He said it was not convenient as the steer was turned out with about 600 head of other yearlings again. As our selling day was coming near, I left a message, hoping the owners had returned. The foreman called later that day, said he had captured the animal, could he deliver him. I said "WONDERFUL" as it was about 2 weeks since the initial call from tha CCIA.
The man pulls in a short time later, backs up to the corral gate, opens it and out jumps a large, shiney black, obviously grain fed steer, our brand emblazioned across his right rib cage.
Visiting with the foreman a few minutes later, he admitted that he has not bothered to learn the neighbours brands, the new system is much easier. He also said he had the same experience as we had with the ID people. All he could find out was that the animal was from this area, but none of the offices would say where, due to the Privacy Act. He had to wait until WE called HIM to find out whose stray he had. He, too, was frustrated. He said he told the ID people "All I want to do is take the steer home", but the Privacy Act had to be followed to the letter. Progress, progress, progress!!!!
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Tam said:
PORKER said:
You have no system in place to do that, TAM SAID*********Well I see that CANADA is Mandatory and why can't you use the system that does what you want. ITS www.scoringag.com or is it too hard to type.

As I said before Porker
Yes there are systems in the States that can verify some beef but the producer has to buy in and how many will not pay the price as some are bitching about having to buy a tag now. How many producers are not going to tag until it is MANDITORY. For the label to mean anything it have to be verifible on all beef not just the part where the producer had the foresight to buy in.
You are so fast to sell scoringag.com that you don't even read the rest post where I said there are systems in the States. But until it covers all cattle in the US it is not a national system.

Rancher
Tam does your tag show if your producer practices humane treatment of animals? Seems like you had some cattle starve up there from someone not feeding them at a feedlot that the bank took over and it never set the flashing lights off and sirens on the ear tags.

Rancher no but our system was designed to be use in a case of reportable disease control and we are now using it for age verification. So maybe someday, I know it was brought up at a meeting one time to allow the system to release information to the authorities if cattle were found and no one claimed them So why couldn't it be used to find the owners of abused cattle. Come on rancher, how can you blame our tagging system for some starving cattle, the bank, the authorities and the feedlot owners all knew who owned these cattle. It is not going to stop it but if cattle were found and no one claimed them at least with our system the authorites would have half a chance of finding the people involved.

Tam "Will the beef label mean anything to the respondents if you can't even prove who the producer was or if he practices humane treatment of animals. You have no system in place to do that, R-CALF got M"ID" taken out of M"COOL". "

Sorry, thought that what you were saying with R-calf taking M'ID' out of Cool that they would not be able to prove the producer was practicing humane treatment of animals. Maybe you could clear up your meaning. I posted it right above this one. Thanks.
 

Latest posts

Top