RobertMac
Well-known member
Heard there was a USDA report that said beef consumption was to decline for the next two decades...reasons sited were price and health concerns. Anyone have a link to the report?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Decline in beef consumption
- Thread starter RobertMac
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
I thought this was interesting.
BEEF NEWS
Lower-income Americans eat more beef
by Pete Hisey on 10/12/2005 for Meatingplace.com
Steak may be perceived as a rich man's dinner, but figures compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that low-income consumers eat steak nearly as often as the wealthiest income bracket, and overall eat more beef than other income groups. Low-income Americans, defined as households earning 130 percent or less of the Federal poverty guidelines ($15,961 for a family of four), eat 72 pounds of beef per capita per year, about four pounds more than other groups.
Ground beef was the most consumed product by all three income groups, with lower-income consumers eating about 32 pounds each. The wealthiest Americans did indeed eat more steak than other groups, but the difference was marginal. Low-income households were also No. 1 in consumption of processed beef, "other cuts," and "beef dishes." They were marginally less likely than other groups to eat stew beef and steak.
BEEF NEWS
Lower-income Americans eat more beef
by Pete Hisey on 10/12/2005 for Meatingplace.com
Steak may be perceived as a rich man's dinner, but figures compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that low-income consumers eat steak nearly as often as the wealthiest income bracket, and overall eat more beef than other income groups. Low-income Americans, defined as households earning 130 percent or less of the Federal poverty guidelines ($15,961 for a family of four), eat 72 pounds of beef per capita per year, about four pounds more than other groups.
Ground beef was the most consumed product by all three income groups, with lower-income consumers eating about 32 pounds each. The wealthiest Americans did indeed eat more steak than other groups, but the difference was marginal. Low-income households were also No. 1 in consumption of processed beef, "other cuts," and "beef dishes." They were marginally less likely than other groups to eat stew beef and steak.
Here are some of the links to that report......
http://www.foodmarket.com/
Scroll down to Oct 10th - Headline = "U.S. beef consumption varies by age, gender, race"
At the bottom of the article is a link to the actual full report.
http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Article&artNum=10356
Headline = "OLDER AMERICANS EAT LESS BEEF"
The basic interpretation of the data regarding the prediction of lower beef consumption is based on the "age wave".......the fact that older Americans consume less beef than younger Americans.
I am optimistic that in the future......this lowered consumption may not hold true.......or at least to a lessor extent than in the past.
WHY?
1. Because mainstream media messages are more favorable to beef as it relates to good health......than them have been in the past 30 years.
2. The "Baby Boomers" tend to be more investigative about issues of their own health.......hopefully they find the "real" information about how beef enhances a person's health, vitality and performance rather than the myth about beef compromizing a person's health.
3. Today's information age......will allow greater access to the "real" facts about beef and health.
4. Now that many American's believe that beef is OK......they sure aren't going to go back to eating more fowl.
http://www.foodmarket.com/
Scroll down to Oct 10th - Headline = "U.S. beef consumption varies by age, gender, race"
At the bottom of the article is a link to the actual full report.
http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Article&artNum=10356
Headline = "OLDER AMERICANS EAT LESS BEEF"
The basic interpretation of the data regarding the prediction of lower beef consumption is based on the "age wave".......the fact that older Americans consume less beef than younger Americans.
I am optimistic that in the future......this lowered consumption may not hold true.......or at least to a lessor extent than in the past.
WHY?
1. Because mainstream media messages are more favorable to beef as it relates to good health......than them have been in the past 30 years.
2. The "Baby Boomers" tend to be more investigative about issues of their own health.......hopefully they find the "real" information about how beef enhances a person's health, vitality and performance rather than the myth about beef compromizing a person's health.
3. Today's information age......will allow greater access to the "real" facts about beef and health.
4. Now that many American's believe that beef is OK......they sure aren't going to go back to eating more fowl.
foodmarket
Member
Here's a direct link to that foodmarket article... no scrolling necessary
http://www.foodmarket.com/newsemail.asp?key=277353
http://www.foodmarket.com/newsemail.asp?key=277353
Chances are very good the headline would be more accurate if it read "Older Americans Eat Less"......of everything......as their activity levels decline!
Now, at last, they are being told the facts of the nutritional superiority of beef over chicken, fish, etc. Possibly future headlines will read "Older Americans Eat More Beef, But Less Food For Better Health".
MRJ
Now, at last, they are being told the facts of the nutritional superiority of beef over chicken, fish, etc. Possibly future headlines will read "Older Americans Eat More Beef, But Less Food For Better Health".
MRJ
RobertMac
Well-known member
MRJ said:Chances are very good the headline would be more accurate if it read "Older Americans Eat Less"......of everything......as their activity levels decline!
Now, at last, they are being told the facts of the nutritional superiority of beef over chicken, fish, etc. Possibly future headlines will read "Older Americans Eat More Beef, But Less Food For Better Health".
MRJ
Back in 1986, with red meat becoming a dirty word in a more health-conscious United States,
The checkoff started in 1985(the year of peak per capita beef consumption)...what took you so long?????????????
agman
Well-known member
RobertMac said:MRJ said:Chances are very good the headline would be more accurate if it read "Older Americans Eat Less"......of everything......as their activity levels decline!
Now, at last, they are being told the facts of the nutritional superiority of beef over chicken, fish, etc. Possibly future headlines will read "Older Americans Eat More Beef, But Less Food For Better Health".
MRJ
Back in 1986, with red meat becoming a dirty word in a more health-conscious United States,
The checkoff started in 1985(the year of peak per capita beef consumption)...what took you so long?????????????
Just a correction: Domestic per capita consumption of beef peaked in 1976, not 1985 as you state RM. That is nine years before the beef checkoff started.
Beef demand, which is separate and distinct from consumption, began its decline in 1980 and continued through 1998. The decline in beef demand started five years prior to the beef checkoff.
RobertMac
Well-known member
agman said:RobertMac said:MRJ said:Chances are very good the headline would be more accurate if it read "Older Americans Eat Less"......of everything......as their activity levels decline!
Now, at last, they are being told the facts of the nutritional superiority of beef over chicken, fish, etc. Possibly future headlines will read "Older Americans Eat More Beef, But Less Food For Better Health".
MRJ
Back in 1986, with red meat becoming a dirty word in a more health-conscious United States,
The checkoff started in 1985(the year of peak per capita beef consumption)...what took you so long?????????????
Just a correction: Domestic per capita consumption of beef peaked in 1976, not 1985 as you state RM. That is nine years before the beef checkoff started.
Beef demand, which is separate and distinct from consumption, began its decline in 1980 and continued through 1998. The decline in beef demand started five years prior to the beef checkoff.
Agman, you are correct...I miss read the chart. Something that caught my interest that I would like you to explain the circumstances at the time...
In 1975, beef per capita was peaking in the upper 80s. Poultry took a slight dip, but pork, which has been relatively stable since the 1960s took a sharp drop. What were the reason behind the dramatic differences?
I understand per capita consumption is a function of volume and population and demand is a function of volume and price. I think volume is more relevant to the cattle sector(supply side) and demand is more relevant to beef sector margins. My complaint with beef industry leadership is that volume with respect to population growth(market share) isn't growing and it's a big fat lie for NCBA and CBB to represent it as otherwise. If market share was actually growing, most all these other disagreements would be moot points. At best, the checkoff has slowed a sinking ship. This should have been obvious to every beef producer when Tyson(the king of poultry) bought IBP(the king of beef)! Sure a multi-protein company wants each sector to be profitable, but how are they hurt when consumers switch from beef to poultry(a higher margin product for them)? How does that switch effect the beef producer?
RobertMac, while I have no statistics to offer as "proof", you probably do realize that beef interests started the checkoff with the build-up of YEARS of anti-beef promo and lobbying by various "health conscious" groups, several commodity groups, and even our government urging people to eat far less beef and other red meats.
We had to fund much of the research to prove that they were incorrect. THEN, we had to advertise and educate consumers about the results of that research.
You may choose to complain and claim not enough has been accomplished, but IMO, it is nothing short of miraculous that our Beef Checkoff dollars have helped to turn the tide of such a firmly entrenched anti-beef lobby in such a short time.
MRJ
We had to fund much of the research to prove that they were incorrect. THEN, we had to advertise and educate consumers about the results of that research.
You may choose to complain and claim not enough has been accomplished, but IMO, it is nothing short of miraculous that our Beef Checkoff dollars have helped to turn the tide of such a firmly entrenched anti-beef lobby in such a short time.
MRJ
RobertMac
Well-known member
MRJ, I understand that you don't have any "proof"...because the tide hasn't turned. Where is the growth in market share? Where is the increase in per capita consumption? Yearly fluctuations don't make a trend.
The fact is that beef's market share is less today than when the checkoff started. Has the checkoff done some good things...certainly, but my complaint is that they(CBB and NCBA) shouldn't claim credit for something they haven't done.
The fact is that beef's market share is less today than when the checkoff started. Has the checkoff done some good things...certainly, but my complaint is that they(CBB and NCBA) shouldn't claim credit for something they haven't done.
agman
Well-known member
RobertMac said:agman said:RobertMac said:The checkoff started in 1985(the year of peak per capita beef consumption)...what took you so long?????????????
Just a correction: Domestic per capita consumption of beef peaked in 1976, not 1985 as you state RM. That is nine years before the beef checkoff started.
Beef demand, which is separate and distinct from consumption, began its decline in 1980 and continued through 1998. The decline in beef demand started five years prior to the beef checkoff.
Agman, you are correct...I miss read the chart. Something that caught my interest that I would like you to explain the circumstances at the time...
In 1975, beef per capita was peaking in the upper 80s. Poultry took a slight dip, but pork, which has been relatively stable since the 1960s took a sharp drop. What were the reason behind the dramatic differences?
I understand per capita consumption is a function of volume and population and demand is a function of volume and price. I think volume is more relevant to the cattle sector(supply side) and demand is more relevant to beef sector margins. My complaint with beef industry leadership is that volume with respect to population growth(market share) isn't growing and it's a big fat lie for NCBA and CBB to represent it as otherwise. If market share was actually growing, most all these other disagreements would be moot points. At best, the checkoff has slowed a sinking ship. This should have been obvious to every beef producer when Tyson(the king of poultry) bought IBP(the king of beef)! Sure a multi-protein company wants each sector to be profitable, but how are they hurt when consumers switch from beef to poultry(a higher margin product for them)? How does that switch effect the beef producer?
If you just address volume by the size of our cattle herd then you overlook the production efficiencies that you and most other producers have strived so hard to achieve.
If you address volume as a function of per capita supply then you cannot dismiss the influence of declining beef demand on that condition. Do we have to increase per capita consumption to have a prosperous industry? The answer is no. We are now seeing per capita supply/consumption stabilize which means production volume is now keeping pace with population growth. That is something that did not occur for Nearly two decades. To keep pace with population growth we must grow our cattle herd by at least 1.25% per year. That is "bullish" and is a crucial factor supporting current cattle prices.
Your complaint with leadership is legitimate but I suggest very strongly it is one of misunderstanding what demand really is. You have to admit that before I took the time to explain the difference between consumption and demand you did not know the difference either. I compliment you for wanting to learn and understand the difference. Now you can teach others. I see people in leadership positions constantly confuse consumption with demand or vice versa.
The benefit of Tyson in the beef industry is their ability to add value to beef just as they did with poultry. You see the data. The demand and growth in market share for chicken did not just happen by itself. The good news for beef is that we are just in the infancy of adding value to beef. Tyson understands this better than anyone. That is why they wanted to be in the beef business. Will Tyson benefit, yes? Will producers benefit, yes, especially those producers who provide product that adds value to Tyson's value added products? Producers should be paid according to their contribution to the value added product, no more and no less. Diversification only helps Tyson to whether the storm. I believe that is a good thing.
If you PM me with your e:mail address I have some data that should interest you.
