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

For those who thought -

Help Support Ranchers.net:

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
For those that thought groups like ours were screwing you by offering natural product while yours is just as good!

Yours truely Randy the beef industry wrecker??? :roll:


Tyson adds two natural beef product lines

by Deborah Silver on 1/18/2006 for Meatingplace.com




Tyson Foods Inc. and Certified Angus Beef have teamed up to produce CAB brand natural beef. In addition, Tyson will soon add natural beef to its Star Ranch Angus Beef line.

"Consumer demand for natural beef is increasing, and we believe there's an opportunity for us to grow with it," said Noel White, group vice president of Tyson Fresh meats. "While we have every confidence in our traditional beef products, we also believe in giving our customers a choice."

The beef products will come from cattle that have never received antibiotics or hormones and have been given a 100 percent grass and grain diet. They will be black Angus, source verified to birth and fed in "natural" designated feed yards. The Beef Marketing Group, a cooperative of Kansas and Nebraska feed yards, is the first cattle feeding organization to participate in the initiative.

Tyson Fresh Meats became a licensed CAB packer in 1992 and is the leading supplier of CAB products to the foodservice and retail industries both nationally and abroad. According to Tyson, it was a natural progression for the two companies to jointly enter the natural beef marketplace. The joint commitment raises the bar for production standards and product quality for all natural beef brands, according to Jim Riemann, CAB president.
 

PPRM

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,964
Reaction score
11
Location
NE Oregon
The customers I have, HMMMMMM.........just try to take them away, LOL

I am selling more than a steak. I am also selling value and volume. My 50 pound packs work great. Also, not only are they sold on the natural part, when they try it I consistently get it is the best beef they have ever had. It makes a lot of thier steakhouse visits a disappointment.


PPRM
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
PPRM said:
The customers I have, HMMMMMM.........just try to take them away, LOL

I am selling more than a steak. I am also selling value and volume. My 50 pound packs work great. Also, not only are they sold on the natural part, when they try it I consistently get it is the best beef they have ever had. It makes a lot of thier steakhouse visits a disappointment.


PPRM

Congrats on going to the extra work to MARKET your beef. I would have no problem with selling it by stating how it is raised, how it tastes, etc., only with those who say or imply that it is more healthful than beef others raise in the very same way........unless they have test results to prove those claims.

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
rkaiser said:
For those that thought groups like ours were screwing you by offering natural product while yours is just as good!

Yours truely Randy the beef industry wrecker??? :roll:


Tyson adds two natural beef product lines

by Deborah Silver on 1/18/2006 for Meatingplace.com




Tyson Foods Inc. and Certified Angus Beef have teamed up to produce CAB brand natural beef. In addition, Tyson will soon add natural beef to its Star Ranch Angus Beef line.

"Consumer demand for natural beef is increasing, and we believe there's an opportunity for us to grow with it," said Noel White, group vice president of Tyson Fresh meats. "While we have every confidence in our traditional beef products, we also believe in giving our customers a choice."

The beef products will come from cattle that have never received antibiotics or hormones and have been given a 100 percent grass and grain diet. They will be black Angus, source verified to birth and fed in "natural" designated feed yards. The Beef Marketing Group, a cooperative of Kansas and Nebraska feed yards, is the first cattle feeding organization to participate in the initiative.

Tyson Fresh Meats became a licensed CAB packer in 1992 and is the leading supplier of CAB products to the foodservice and retail industries both nationally and abroad. According to Tyson, it was a natural progression for the two companies to jointly enter the natural beef marketplace. The joint commitment raises the bar for production standards and product quality for all natural beef brands, according to Jim Riemann, CAB president.


How are they ever going to keep all those packages seperate? :? They've already got the Star Ranch Angus line, now they'll have Natural Star Ranch and CAB Natural too - they'll never be able to do it! All those expsenses will be passed down to the producer! :wink: :lol: :lol:

And another thing, is this based on sound science? Aren't they presenting the "ILLUSION" that natural or CAB is better and healthier than other beef? Why does the USDA allow this deception? :shock: :lol: What precidence is this setting for the rest of the beef that is not CAB or natural? We can't have that! :mad: Now, everybody will have to do the same! THE INDUSTRY CAN NOT SUPPORT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :p :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
rkaiser said:
For those that thought groups like ours were screwing you by offering natural product while yours is just as good!

Yours truely Randy the beef industry wrecker??? :roll:


Tyson adds two natural beef product lines

by Deborah Silver on 1/18/2006 for Meatingplace.com




Tyson Foods Inc. and Certified Angus Beef have teamed up to produce CAB brand natural beef. In addition, Tyson will soon add natural beef to its Star Ranch Angus Beef line.

"Consumer demand for natural beef is increasing, and we believe there's an opportunity for us to grow with it," said Noel White, group vice president of Tyson Fresh meats. "While we have every confidence in our traditional beef products, we also believe in giving our customers a choice."

The beef products will come from cattle that have never received antibiotics or hormones and have been given a 100 percent grass and grain diet. They will be black Angus, source verified to birth and fed in "natural" designated feed yards. The Beef Marketing Group, a cooperative of Kansas and Nebraska feed yards, is the first cattle feeding organization to participate in the initiative.

Tyson Fresh Meats became a licensed CAB packer in 1992 and is the leading supplier of CAB products to the foodservice and retail industries both nationally and abroad. According to Tyson, it was a natural progression for the two companies to jointly enter the natural beef marketplace. The joint commitment raises the bar for production standards and product quality for all natural beef brands, according to Jim Riemann, CAB president.


How are they ever going to keep all those packages seperate? :? They've already got the Star Ranch Angus line, now they'll have Natural Star Ranch and CAB Natural too - they'll never be able to do it! All those expsenses will be passed down to the producer! :wink: :lol: :lol:

And another thing, is this based on sound science? Aren't they presenting the "ILLUSION" that natural or CAB is better and healthier than other beef? Why does the USDA allow this deception? :shock: :lol: What precidence is this setting for the rest of the beef that is not CAB or natural? We can't have that! :mad: Now, everybody will have to do the same! THE INDUSTRY CAN NOT SUPPORT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :p :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You sound like your ready to go gopher trapping :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
rkaiser said:
For those that thought groups like ours were screwing you by offering natural product while yours is just as good!

Yours truely Randy the beef industry wrecker??? :roll:


Tyson adds two natural beef product lines

by Deborah Silver on 1/18/2006 for Meatingplace.com




Tyson Foods Inc. and Certified Angus Beef have teamed up to produce CAB brand natural beef. In addition, Tyson will soon add natural beef to its Star Ranch Angus Beef line.

"Consumer demand for natural beef is increasing, and we believe there's an opportunity for us to grow with it," said Noel White, group vice president of Tyson Fresh meats. "While we have every confidence in our traditional beef products, we also believe in giving our customers a choice."

The beef products will come from cattle that have never received antibiotics or hormones and have been given a 100 percent grass and grain diet. They will be black Angus, source verified to birth and fed in "natural" designated feed yards. The Beef Marketing Group, a cooperative of Kansas and Nebraska feed yards, is the first cattle feeding organization to participate in the initiative.

Tyson Fresh Meats became a licensed CAB packer in 1992 and is the leading supplier of CAB products to the foodservice and retail industries both nationally and abroad. According to Tyson, it was a natural progression for the two companies to jointly enter the natural beef marketplace. The joint commitment raises the bar for production standards and product quality for all natural beef brands, according to Jim Riemann, CAB president.

Imitation is the best form of flattery, rkaiser. Keep it up.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Mike said:
is this based on sound science

You keep forgetting Sandy. There is no more "Sound Science". It's been changed to "The Best Available Science"! :lol: :lol:

Actually, even that has been changed to "The Best Available Science unless it hinders trade".
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,172
Reaction score
405
Location
Big Muddy valley
For those that thought groups like ours were screwing you by offering natural product while yours is just as good!

Yours truely Randy the beef industry wrecker??? Rolling Eyes



I think your giving yourself to much credit Randy.

I think you need to fill Econ in on the difference between Celtic beef and Big C. Me thinks he thinks they are one and the same. :cowboy:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
For those that thought groups like ours were screwing you by offering natural product while yours is just as good!

Yours truely Randy the beef industry wrecker??? Rolling Eyes



I think your giving yourself to much credit Randy.

I think you need to fill Econ in on the difference between Celtic beef and Big C. Me thinks he thinks they are one and the same. :cowboy:

No, BMR, I know the difference. If there are no packing plants that allow rkaiser to keep his meat, Celtic beef will be no more. It will go under a packer lable.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I have to say that MRJ's response is the best. It is a travisty for the industry to have Canadian Celtic SAY that that their beef is superior since they do not allow hormones in their beef nor antibiotics in the finishing period.

This is unproven and a slur against the industry.

Now then if Cargill or Tyson start spreading the word and actually spending some of THEIR :lol: hard earned money testing for residue and adding value to THEIR product, the checkoff will likely even kick in some moey to help.

Sorry MRJ, I had to ad in the extra BS on my own.
 

PPRM

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,964
Reaction score
11
Location
NE Oregon
Thanks MRJ,

My work has been to see what I could do on my own. I sell natural because that is what most people buying this are asking for. When they ask to explain how it is raised I do. I do explain though that if an animal gets sick, I treat it and mark it accordingly. Those calves are marketed and sold to grocery stores, generally as a commodity. No claims, just explain what I do....Heck, must be working for everyone. When i started this, we were getting about $60.00/cwt on fats, now we are about $95.00, so I guess I have helped? LOL....

What I do gets my foot in the door along with the price. 50 pound packs @ $3.25 a pound, cut and wrapped.......Most people see that as a steal. But what keeps the customer, well it is the eating experience.....If it is great, customer for life or until a life change. My customers wants low fat burger, I guess it works for me....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
I would have no problem with selling it by stating how it is raised, how it tastes, etc., only with those who say or imply that it is more healthful than beef others raise in the very same way........

MRJ

MRJ- You have a problem with some producer implying that his beef may be more healthful because he knows what he has or has not fed them and the circumstances it was raised in-

but you have no problem with the Packer/retailer implying that his imported beef comes from the US--even when they know it comes from countries where disease is more prevalent and enviromental and pollution laws are nearly nonexistant.. :???:
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
MRJ,

can you explain to me why when a producer of meat or milk states that their product was raised without the use of antibiotics or hormones - how this is liable against the health status of these chemical products?

It is not stating anywhere that these products are bad.

It is only stating that their product doesn't contain additives which are used by the other guys.

Is it not stomping on the producers' "freedom of speach" to prevent him from using these words. This has been done, I am told, in the milk industry in regards to rBST.

Where on the label, does it say that the hormones and antibiotics are bad?

No false claim is being made.

Perhaps, the products that have used growth hormones or antibiotics (as a growth promoter) should have to put the references on their packaging which shows that these products are free of residues.

When I recently diced up a yellow pepper from Mexico, the label stated it was "tested pesticide free". How come they can sell peppers which state that they have no pesticide residues (this is not to say they didn't use them). Isn't that, according to your thinking, stating that the peppers without this label might be dangerous and be contaminated with pesticides?

Producers who are scared by the big guys lawyers into not labelling their product hormone free or antibiotic free, should stand up for their rights.
 

Andy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Location
south east central SD
I am not MRJ, but what I see happening is that some of the natural products don't just say that our beef is better and safer. They try to tell the consumers that all beef that isn't natural is unsafe.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Let the consumer decide what they eat and don't eat. It should be their choice. If it is not disclosed, they will never know.

Tyson's little arsenic in chicken feed was a huge blunder. Why shouldn't consumers have the right to know if the food they eat has these things in it? Because it puts the dents in the profitability of people like Tyson?

That is the worst reason.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rkaiser said:
I have to say that MRJ's response is the best. It is a travisty for the industry to have Canadian Celtic SAY that that their beef is superior since they do not allow hormones in their beef nor antibiotics in the finishing period.

This is unproven and a slur against the industry.

Now then if Cargill or Tyson start spreading the word and actually spending some of THEIR :lol: hard earned money testing for residue and adding value to THEIR product, the checkoff will likely even kick in some moey to help.

Sorry MRJ, I had to ad in the extra BS on my own.

Randy, if that is what you believe I've said, you missed my point, which is, as I have stated many times: IF rules for withdrawal are followed; and IF there are no residues found, I see nothing wrong with feeding ionophores and antibiotics (when needed). I DO see plenty wrong with people CLAIMING, with no testing as their basis, that beef produced as I stated above is a less safe and healthful product than "naturally" produced beef. Under those conditions such claims are nothing more than using fear mongering as a marketing ploy.

I would have no problem with you telling consumers how you raise your cattle and advertising the great taste of your beef so they will buy it simply because they like it and have a personal preference their beef be raised in that way. There are lots of consumers who would choose your beef for that LEGITMATE reason, without you creating unfounded distrust about the SAFETY of conventionally produced, RESIDUE FREE beef.

I'm surprised you thought anyone but the Canadian government "kicked in" money to help Tyson develop and market and even test their new products! If what some have said about bailouts of Tyson in Canada, your government seems to be an easier touch with deeper pockets than the US Beef Checkoff could possibly be!!!!

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Kathy said:
MRJ,

can you explain to me why when a producer of meat or milk states that their product was raised without the use of antibiotics or hormones - how this is liable against the health status of these chemical products?

It is not stating anywhere that these products are bad.

It is only stating that their product doesn't contain additives which are used by the other guys.

Is it not stomping on the producers' "freedom of speach" to prevent him from using these words. This has been done, I am told, in the milk industry in regards to rBST.

Where on the label, does it say that the hormones and antibiotics are bad?

No false claim is being made.

Perhaps, the products that have used growth hormones or antibiotics (as a growth promoter) should have to put the references on their packaging which shows that these products are free of residues.

When I recently diced up a yellow pepper from Mexico, the label stated it was "tested pesticide free". How come they can sell peppers which state that they have no pesticide residues (this is not to say they didn't use them). Isn't that, according to your thinking, stating that the peppers without this label might be dangerous and be contaminated with pesticides?

Producers who are scared by the big guys lawyers into not labelling their product hormone free or antibiotic free, should stand up for their rights.

Kathy, either I haven't explained my points adequately, or you haven't read closely.......hoping you can admit it could be a little of both.

1. All US beef, untill very recently when marinades were allowed, was, and except for marinades, still must be residue free.

2. IMO, claiming "no ionophores or anti-biotics used in raising this beef", implies that beef not produced that way DOES have those residues.

3. That is why I believe there should be dual testing, both to prove the beef being promoted as free of hormones and antibiotics truly is free of them, and to prove that the "conventionally produced" beef HAS such residues.

Have you never seen ads, "news releases" and claims made by growers, usually producers of organic or natural meat or produce, detailing the dangers of hormones and antibiotics in our food? I still see the occasional story claiming that hormones in beef and/or milk are responsible for girls maturing too early, physically, and for boys growing "breasts".

IMO, there are plenty of positive nutritional benefits of beef that have gone seriously under-reported for years which can legitimately be used to promote and sell the beef we ALL produce, without "blaming" some producers who use those ionophores and antibiotics according to the rules.

If you bring legitimate test results showing residue problems in conventionally produced beef, it will be time to re-evaluate my stand on this issue.

MRJ
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
So when Tyson starts to advertise their product as residue free AND tested, they will not be
using fear mongering as a marketing ploy.
:lol: :lol:

We have a checkoff here in Canada as well MRJ. That was what I was talking about. But yes, our Liberal government and likely the new Conservative one as well will dole out corporate welfare cheques at the drop of a hat.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
MRJ, as learned by the advancement of prion testing, there are many ways to determine the ppm or ppb of residues. Not using a product does not guarantee that it is not there. This said, the producer who does not use hormones and/or antibiotics in their husbandry practices has the right to tell the producer that.

If they make claims in their news releases advertisements, than you must challenge the news releases and the advertisements. If the packaging simply states these products are not used in their business practices, then this must be allowed to stand on the label.

We cannot confuse labelling with advertising/news releases.

I have posted articles which mentioned that breast epithelial cells had their doubling times increased by 30-40% by growth hormones and that neoplastic transformations also occurred in the breast cell cultures. Finding out where the exposure to these hormones is coming from is important. Water sources contaminated with artificial cattle and human hormone supplements is a very serious issue, as these hormones are not filtered out of the drinking water.

The body is very capable of identifying the hormones which occur naturally and those which are artificially manufactured using ecoli bacteria or yeast - used in the manufactur of cattle growth hormones. The body reacts to these foreign substances. Constant bombardment with these types of artificial products, puts a huge strain on the immune system.

Some of the xenobiotic reactions which take place after exposure to non-hormone products can even stimulate hormone production, so we can agree this is an extremely complicated matter.

But why use the product in your cattle businesses? The consumers that don't care where their meat came from can continue to go on blissfully ignorant. The consumer that wants to know - has the right to be told if that producer did or did not use a particular chemical in their growing of that meat and the producer has every right to inform them.

If they pro-growth hormone side of the arguement spent more time divulging the reports which prove these products are safe, consumers could make their own educated decisions. Those people who are more awake to their surroundings do not trust the blanket reassurances of governments and large lobby groups.

Other claims are secondary and should be dealt with separately.

To answer my own question within this reply:

Why do ranchers use growth hormones? In my opinion they do it because they think they can make more money by having more pounds of beef. They do not use them because they know they are safe. You take the word of scientists, many of whom work for the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the product, that they are safe.

I don't believe enough research has been done, and I hope more will be done (preferrably by governments and not manufacturers). People will always be synical of the results. That is why they need to know as many facts as they can about what they are eating.
 

Latest posts

Top