Rod,
AGAIN...........
Why do you need to get the carcass data from Gerald? Why not just call the plant that Gerald sells to and ask them for their carcass target specs?
You diverted this question AGAIN!
Please answer the question.
Rod: "Do they have carcass specs from 15 years ago? No they don't. Many of the plants that were around 15 years ago have been bought out. Engage brain for a moment."
So if you can't get carcass specs from 15 years ago, how could you possibly know that ...........
Rod: "Carcass targets have moved from 550 lbs to 750 lbs in the last 15 years. Who sets those targets? Packers. How is that NOT leading us to heavier carcasses?"
or:
Rod: "Carcass weights have been on the rise steadily for the last 15 years, keeping pace with the packer targets. 15 years ago, carcass target was what, 550 lbs?"
Rod, what becomes painfully obvious here is that you are shooting from the hip and don't know what you are talking about. That's why your stories keep changing. Don't try this "taken out of context" bullsh*t with me either, I used your exact quotes so you can't spin out of it.
Rod: "You wanted proof that targets have been on the rise for the last 15 years, and I plan to give that to you."
Still waiting.............
Rod: "Of course your plan that it be Tyson or Cargill is just a way to weasel out of it, because you very well know that Tyson wasn't involved in the beef trade 15 years ago, and neither was Cargill (at least that I recall. I may be wrong on the Cargill one). So you'll get a cross-section of plants within Saskatchewan and Alberta."
Again, you contradict yourself. In order for you to make your claim about carcass targets 15 years ago, and your claim that packers are responsible for larger carcasses, you would have to know what ibp and Excel's grids were 15 years ago or was your comments specific to just the smaller packing plants in Canada? If your comments were specific to just the smaller packing plants in Canada, that would not be a fair representation of your claim regarding packing plants in general.
You've painted yourself into a corner with statements you couldn't back Rod.
Rod: "And as many chefs will tell you, cutting INTO a cut to make it smaller ruins the cut. The packers simply do it to save processing. Why don't you ask a few real chefs and few other indepedents who are selling custom cuts. Why is that the majority of those guys all shoot for 650 lb carcass weights?"
If the majority of those guys are shooting for 650 lb. carcass weights then that is what they would pay the most for. If that is what they would pay the most for, the carcass specs would support that. THEY DON'T!
SH (previous): "It takes less time to make the call than it does to post to tell us how you don't have time to make the call."
Rod (in response): "Gerald has a family to feed. I won't bother him until he's done his seeding. He knows what I want, and he won't forget."
I wasn't talking about a phone call to Gerald, I was talking about a phone call to the packing plants to see what the the carcass specs were 15 years ago and what they are currently to back your claims.
You are wrong, and gathering the data would prove you wrong so you'll continue to divert the issue.
In the name of "fairness", I am going to remind you of what you previously stated so there is no surprises:
Rod: "Cattle producers started using the bigger framed animals in order to get to the larger carcasses."
Rod: "Just to verify, I called the neighbor whose been feeding out animals for over 40 years. The plant he shipped to was XL Foods, and the year was 1990. 550 lbs was the target, 500 was the low weight cutoff (oh oh, he DOES know what that is) and 625 was high end. Interesting how the packer allowed more room for the higher weights, huh? When hes got the time this week, he's going to dig into his old records and find out when the targets increased as there have been at least three increases in the last 15 years that he can recall. He'll also verify the above information, as he was going by memory."
Keep in mind that XL Foods, ONE PACKER, is not representative of carcass targets and ranges IN CANADA, let alone carcass targets and ranges IN GENERAL.
Rod: "I'll verify it, but even at 550 lbs at the low end cutoff, its a far cry away from the current 700 lb cutoff."
Rod: "Apparently your grids are considerably different than ours , because Gerald took hits at 800 lbs this year, and four years ago when I shipped to Moose Jaw, I took hits on 650 weight carcasses. Don't argue the Canadian market when you apparently don't know anything about it. I'll also call down to Moose Jaw and get their grid tomorrow."
What did you find out when you called to Moose Jaw?
In summary,
First XL wanted a 550 lb. carcass, then you took a hit for a 650 lb. carcass 4 years ago, then Gerald took hits for 800 lbs this year and the current cutoff is 700 lbs. That's supposed to be your proof that the packers are encouraging larger carcasses????
Rod, do you really want to continue this debate?
Even if your statements were specific to Canadian carcass specs, WHICH YOU DID NOT SPECIFY but I'll give you that, you still can't back your claim.
Are you ready to admit that you couldn't back your initial claim and you contradicted yourself in your effort to cover your tracks?
Probably not huh? LOL!
~SH~