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

Give us a Break

Having read only the last post, and time is limited, I have a question: because there is beef available in many, maybe most, markets which is organic, 'natural' (whatever that means today) or non-specified, and it costs more to raise, produce, and process non-hormone and specific labelled beef; and USUALLY, it is those having the finances to be more 'particular' about their food DO choose products with such labels, isn't it logically serving ALL our customers to have choices of beef product???

That seems far wiser than catering to these unfounded perceptions, which, in plain talk, are actually lies perpetuated to harm the entire beef industry with a goal of ending using animals as food, IMO.

Have fun, as I'm going to do. Off to the store, then later in the day to visit a great local historical society museum at White River, SD. I recommend it highly, as well as another great one, open in summertime, or by request at other times, in Midland, one of the older communities in the area dating back before 1890 when the town was incorporated.

mrj
 
What about the perception out there that Angus beef is better that the rest? The Angus people are sure pushing that. Fast food chains, restaurants, and grocers are peddling Angus products and consumers are buying it under the unsubstantiated belief that Angus is the best. On top of that, a good portion of beef sold as Angus comes from animals that only LOOK like Angus! Where is your outrage over that, Mr S H Nader?
 
~SH~ said:
Sandhusker: "If the fact is they want their beef a certain way and will pay for it, the truth is I will give it to them. That's called free enterprise."

It's one thing to sell consumers what they want, it's quite another to cater to the unsubstantiated belief that beef treated with hormones or antibiotics is unsafe when withdrawl times have been adhered to in order to sell more natural beef. In other words, if you are perpetuating the lie that hormone and antibiotic treated beef is unsafe even when proper withdrawl times have been adhered to. I would fully expect you to place money ahead of truth Sandhusker.


Tex: "SH, what are you talking about here on your little quote at the bottom of the page? These statements can be totally accurate given the right scenario being described. I have actually been told by packer representatives that they were trying to get other competitors to keep supplies low so that prices would go up and stay up. Walmart's model that is advertised all the time is for them to lower costs to consumers so they can sell more. Both statements are not phony at all so I would suggest you take a lesson from this Econ 101."

The statement that "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down" is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read at this site. If demand increases and supplies remain the same prices will rise. If you don't know that, you are totally clueless.

The statement that "the packers pass those lower costs to the consumers so they can sell more than their competitors" is just as ignorant because it's an absolute to suggest they do this all the time. First, most packers sell to retailers who sell to consumers. Most packers do not sell directly to consumers. Second, the only reason to lower prices at the retail level is to move product. You can only lower prices so much before it affects your profits as well as the profits of your competitors. Taking this statement to it's ridiculous eternal end, why not just give the beef away so you can sell it lower than your competitors? How stupid would that be?

Lastly, this goes against the entire packer blaming mindset that you believe so strongly in. Why would packers lower prices to the consumers if they didn't have to in order to move product? Generosity?

Can someone check Tex's IP # and see if matches the former Econ 101. It would be just like you to give yourself support. LOL!


~SH~

SH, this is a perfect example of your stupidity. Context is everything or words can just be rearranged to mean anything other than what was intended. This is exactly what you did when you stated that Taylor "said he didn't test his"theories"" and probably what you have done in taking these quotes out of context.

Why anyone would listen to anything you have to say is beyond me. Look at any supply and demand curves and you will see the relationship between price and either supply or demand. If you can not read graphs because you did not pass math class then please spare us all your personal lack of understanding of economics. Like I said, you might learn a thing or two from this Econ 101 but you could also just pick up a textbook and get the same information.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me with your: "Why would packers lower prices to the consumers if they didn't have to in order to move product?"

Didn't your post just say that packers don't sell directly to consumers? You are so convoluted that it is hard to tell what end you spew things from.

By the way, packers would lower prices to their clients to undercut competitors they wished to put out of business BECAUSE without those competitors, they can increase prices. Yes, that is probably located in the latter sections of an economics book. Don't you wish you could get past the first page?

Tex
 
Sandhusker said:
What about the perception out there that Angus beef is better that the rest? The Angus people are sure pushing that. Fast food chains, restaurants, and grocers are peddling Angus products and consumers are buying it under the unsubstantiated belief that Angus is the best. On top of that, a good portion of beef sold as Angus comes from animals that only LOOK like Angus! Where is your outrage over that, Mr S H Nader?
You implying the "H" word? :wink:

That does seem to be a novel idea...give in to consumer perception in order to sell more beef!!!

mrj, would you care to answer my question?
 
Tex: "SH, this is a perfect example of your stupidity."

Talk is no cheaper than it is from you.


Tex: "Context is everything or words can just be rearranged to mean anything other than what was intended. This is exactly what you did when you stated that Taylor "said he didn't test his"theories"" and probably what you have done in taking these quotes out of context."

Blah, blah, blah! Why should "THEORIES" carry more weight than "FACTS"?? The simple fact that you can't present more than "THEORIES" in court speaks volumes towards the desperation of your case.


Tex: "Why anyone would listen to anything you have to say is beyond me."

As always, the factually void seek comfort in discrediting those they cannot refute.


Tex: "Look at any supply and demand curves and you will see the relationship between price and either supply or demand. If you can not read graphs because you did not pass math class then please spare us all your personal lack of understanding of economics. Like I said, you might learn a thing or two from this Econ 101 but you could also just pick up a textbook and get the same information."

Want to watch Tex dance again?

Here it is.....

Tex, if supplies remain stable, can consumer demand affect the price of beef, YES OR NO??

Watch the diversion........


Tex: "By the way, packers would lower prices to their clients to undercut competitors they wished to put out of business BECAUSE without those competitors, they can increase prices. Yes, that is probably located in the latter sections of an economics book. Don't you wish you could get past the first page?"

Once again ignorant Tex, I hate to point out the obvious but Tyson hasn't put their LARGE competitors out of business by lowering their prices. A monopoly does not exist.

I get such a kick out of guys like you who pretend to be so smart but are so clueless to the obvious.


~SH~
 
Sandhusker: "What about the perception out there that Angus beef is better that the rest? The Angus people are sure pushing that. Fast food chains, restaurants, and grocers are peddling Angus products and consumers are buying it under the unsubstantiated belief that Angus is the best. On top of that, a good portion of beef sold as Angus comes from animals that only LOOK like Angus! Where is your outrage over that, Mr S H Nader?"

Why should I be outraged over breed promotion? I haven't seen any adds claiming Angus beef is better than any other beef. That would be false advertising just like the claim that beef treated with hormones and antibiotics is unsafe WHEN PROPER WITHDRAWL TIMES HAVE BEEN ADHERED TO.

I have no problems with marketing antibiotic and hormone free beef. I do have a problem with any claims stating that it's safer than beef that has been treated with hormones or antibiotics WHEN PROPER WITHDRAWL TIMES HAVE BEEN ADHERED TO.


~SH~
 
The insinuation is that Angus beef is best, or that wouldn't be a selling point, now would it?

Speaking of false advertising, what do you think of selling beef as Angus simply because it came from a black hided animal?
 
~SH~ said:
Tex: "SH, this is a perfect example of your stupidity."

Talk is no cheaper than it is from you.


Tex: "Context is everything or words can just be rearranged to mean anything other than what was intended. This is exactly what you did when you stated that Taylor "said he didn't test his"theories"" and probably what you have done in taking these quotes out of context."

Blah, blah, blah! Why should "THEORIES" carry more weight than "FACTS"?? The simple fact that you can't present more than "THEORIES" in court speaks volumes towards the desperation of your case.


Tex: "Why anyone would listen to anything you have to say is beyond me."

As always, the factually void seek comfort in discrediting those they cannot refute.


Tex: "Look at any supply and demand curves and you will see the relationship between price and either supply or demand. If you can not read graphs because you did not pass math class then please spare us all your personal lack of understanding of economics. Like I said, you might learn a thing or two from this Econ 101 but you could also just pick up a textbook and get the same information."

Want to watch Tex dance again?

Here it is.....

Tex, if supplies remain stable, can consumer demand affect the price of beef, YES OR NO??

Watch the diversion........


Tex: "By the way, packers would lower prices to their clients to undercut competitors they wished to put out of business BECAUSE without those competitors, they can increase prices. Yes, that is probably located in the latter sections of an economics book. Don't you wish you could get past the first page?"

Once again ignorant Tex, I hate to point out the obvious but Tyson hasn't put their LARGE competitors out of business by lowering their prices. A monopoly does not exist.

I get such a kick out of guys like you who pretend to be so smart but are so clueless to the obvious.


~SH~


How little you know, SH.

Is Tyson trying to drive its biggest chicken competitor out of business? 4

* Tom Philpott
Posted 6:35 AM on 14 Nov 2008
by Tom Philpott
o More from this author
o Subscribe by RSSAuthor Feed
*
Posted in
o Food,
o Business
*
Read More About
o Big Ag,
o economy,
o livestock

* Print
* Share
* Comment

In Meat Wagon, we round up the latest outrages from the meat and livestock industries.

--------

Update [2008-11-18 12:4:19 by Tom Philpott]:The credit-rating agency Fitch has come out with a presentation claiming that a Pilgrim's Pride bankruptcy is "pretty inevitable" and would benefit its rivals (including Tyson), Reuters reports. PP's bonds are trading at a 10 cents on the dollar -- meaning investors are assuming it will soon slide into bankruptcy.

------

Something weird is happening in the meat industry, which is dominated [PDF] by a handful of large companies.

The weirdness involves Tyson Foods, which is the largest beef packer (at least for now), the second-largest pork packer, and the second-largest chicken producer.

In its latest quarterly report, the meat giant reported robust profits in its pork and beef lines, but a $91 million loss in chicken.

The economic conditions in the poultry business are tough: feed costs remain at high levels, while chicken prices at the retail level are low. In short, there's too much chicken on the market.

Normally under such conditions, giants like Tyson merely cut production: produce less chicken, and thus boost its market price. And here's the weird part: Tyson actually boosted chicken production in the latest quarter by 6 percent, thus worsening the problem. And the company has vowed not to cut chicken production going forward.

Why? Barclays Capital analyst Christopher Bledsoe thinks he has an answer: Tyson is intentionally taking losses in its chicken segment to "force other chicken processors to carry a disproportionate burden of this cycle's necessary production cuts."

Translated, I think he means to say that Tyson is trying to drive its largest poultry competitor, number-one chicken producer Pilgrim's Pride, out of business.

You see, while Tyson can, at least partially, offset losses in its poultry business with pork and beef profits, Pilgrim's Pride is a pure chicken company.

And for that reason, the tough economics of the chicken market, combined with the rigors of the credit crunch, have pushed Pilgrim's Pride to the brink of extinction.

A year ago, Pilgrim shares fetched $30 on the stock market; today, they hover at around 30 cents -- a near-total wipeout of the company's value.

Pilgrim's Pride leapt to the top of the chicken market a couple of years ago by snapping up competitor Gold Kist for $1 billion. Now, with high feed prices and low chicken prices pinching profits, the company is struggling to pay back the loan it took out for that purchase. And investors have no appetite to refinance the company's debt.

Thus it is extremely vulnerable to ongoing trouble in the chicken market -- and that is exactly what Tyson is creating with its policy of maintaining heightened levels of production.

If Pilgrim's Pride collapses into bankruptcy, its assets will be available for fire-sale prices -- and a company like Tyson could be poised to snap them up. At any rate, the fall of its largest competitor will give Tyson more leverage to dictate prices to both farmers and consumers.

Already, four companies -- Pilgrim's Pride, Tyson, Perdue, and Sanderson, in that order -- own 58.5 percent of the poultry market. In antitrust theory, when four companies dominate more than 40 percent of a market, the big players wield enough market power to damage suppliers -- in this case farmers. If Pilgrim's Pride falls, the market will concentrate yet more -- and the surviving players will wield yet more power.

However, Tyson is literally playing a game of chicken. Its own shares have fallen dramatically as investors weigh its puzzling chicken strategy; and credit-rating agency Moody's just downgraded its bonds, citing trouble in the chicken market.

Meanwhile, the company is investing heavily in its operations in Brazil, India, and China, as I reported a few days ago.


From:

http://www.grist.org/article/meat-wagon-fowl-play/

Sh, it is hard to see how you totally missed this one. Don't throw a fit now.

Tex
 
Speaking of chicken. And speaking of sub theraputic atibiotics. Check out what your last plate of fried chicken ate on it's way to the store. :shock: When I was working at the vets, even people who had a hundred chicks to start for their own use needed antibiotics to keep them alive until they got to be a few weeks old. If they didn't, they would lose up to half of them the first week. Interestingly, if these same people had a hen laying in the yard, she could raise her chicks all on her own and hardly ever lose one.
 
Kato said:
Speaking of chicken. And speaking of sub theraputic atibiotics. Check out what your last plate of fried chicken ate on it's way to the store. :shock: When I was working at the vets, even people who had a hundred chicks to start for their own use needed antibiotics to keep them alive until they got to be a few weeks old. If they didn't, they would lose up to half of them the first week. Interestingly, if these same people had a hen laying in the yard, she could raise her chicks all on her own and hardly ever lose one.

That certainly is no the case for everyone who raises chickens. The 200 or so that we raise get electrolytes for the first week and that is it. We rarely have any health issues, our biggest mortality rate resulting from crowding in the first week.
 
Here Tex, let's dance again.........

If supplies remain stable, can consumer demand affect the price of beef, YES OR NO??

What's wrong Tex, question to difficult for you????

dance, dance, dance....hope nobody notices the diversion.


You throw out someone's opinion on the motive behind Tyson's poultry division absorbing losses that supports WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE and you think that is factually based???

You're a dandy!


Taylor's untested theories and Tex's opinions......what a winning combination to base a case from.

Yee Haw!


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Here Tex, let's dance again.........

If supplies remain stable, can consumer demand affect the price of beef, YES OR NO??

What's wrong Tex, question to difficult for you????

dance, dance, dance....hope nobody notices the diversion.


You throw out someone's opinion on the motive behind Tyson's poultry division absorbing losses that supports WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE and you think that is factually based???

You're a dandy!


Taylor's untested theories and Tex's opinions......what a winning combination to base a case from.

Yee Haw!


~SH~


SH, sorry I just saw this post so I wasn't avoiding anything.

The price of beef can be affected by a number of factors including consumer demand. At almost no time is there only one factor determining price. All of the factors have an impact and vary from time to time as to how much they affect price. Many of these affects can be ascertained within a range in a set of given circumstances but in life the circumstances change ALL THE TIME. Substitutes (and their costs) and supply are the main factors but there are many more like income, advertising and its affects on attitude, and other known and unknown factors exist.

On the bit with Tyson oversupplying the market to push Pilgrim's Pride out of the market: it happened. The motives of someone is not a determinate of a fact. When market power exists, a player can and will continuing to produce more supply if it is in their strategic interest to do so in knocking out a competitor. Pilgirm's Pride did take a huge bite by buying Goldkist which put them on really shaky ground especially since the other market participants had positions in the substitutes that could carry losses in poultry.

WHY DO YOU THINK THE PACKERS WERE UNDER A COURT CONSENT DECREE TO GET OUT OF OTHER ASPECTS OF THE FOOD INDUSTRY IN THE 19TH CENTURY?


SH, the problem with dancing with you is that you are so incredibly incompetent in dancing that there is no dance. You fall all over yourself.

Tex
 
Tex: "The price of beef can be affected by a number of factors including consumer demand."

Exactly!

So why did you defend Conman 101 when he ignorantly said, "prices can't go up unless the supplies comes down"?

Before you said he was right and now you say demand plays a role.

WHICH WAY IS IT TEX???

You just can't keep your story straight can you?



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Tex: "The price of beef can be affected by a number of factors including consumer demand."

Exactly!

So why did you defend Conman 101 when he ignorantly said, "prices can't go up unless the supplies comes down"?

Before you said he was right and now you say demand plays a role.

WHICH WAY IS IT TEX???

You just can't keep your story straight can you?



~SH~


Just as in dancing, context is everything, SH. If you could tune into the music a little better you might be a better dancer.

One way to definitely bring prices up is to bring supplies down with normal supply and demand curves. Unfortunately with the PSA not being enforced, there are no normal supply and demand curves, just those affected by market power when those with market power want to exert it.

Tex

Tex
 
What part does the fact that carcass weights of slaughter cattle are up tremendously from previous years play?

It seems logical that producing double the beef from the same number of cows MIGHT be an important factor.

What other aspects of the cattle/beef industry would be affected?

mrj
 
mrj said:
What part does the fact that carcass weights of slaughter cattle are up tremendously from previous years play?

It seems logical that producing double the beef from the same number of cows MIGHT be an important factor.

What other aspects of the cattle/beef industry would be affected?

mrj
Without doubling the beef consumption, it might mean half the beef producers are needed. :shock:
 
Is all the beef being eaten, or not? Where is the stored glut of beef located, if it is not eaten?

What effect does the current economy have upon beef consumption and prices???

What other factors affect beef consumption and prices/

How is Beef Demand calculated?

mrj
 
mrj said:
Is all the beef being eaten, or not? Where is the stored glut of beef located, if it is not eaten?

What effect does the current economy have upon beef consumption and prices???

What other factors affect beef consumption and prices/

How is Beef Demand calculated?

mrj

mrj, it is obvious that you need more secondary education. Perhaps you should enroll in a local community college.

Tex
 
"You see, when something becomes the status quo, only one person in a million will dare to raise questions. By then, most people accept things as they are as the only way they can be, and assume the world won't work any other way. They fail to see a problem, so they have no reason to seek solutions. It's blind acceptance that makes a paradigm a paradigm."----Jim Lents
 

Latest posts

Back
Top