Is it true? NCBA

[mwj]

Just incase you can't or won't answer ,here is the ANSWER;

In southern Brazil in the state municipality of Itaipulandia, Domingas Trevisan uses feedlot "finishing" instead of the more common practice of finishing cattle on grass. His farm is common in that they actually finish cattle in a feedlot setting. This finishing ration is a mixture of Milo, soybean meal and corn silage. Cattle also only spend one month feeding on grass directly after they are weaned before going into confinement for 12-13 months. Trevisan does not state the meat content or quality of his practice, but does say he receives a "significant premium" for the grain-fed cattle Hilton Beef.

Does he feed enough of these high quality cattle to make an impact on our export sales?????????? My guess is that you can find SOME high quality grain fed cattle in about any country you look at. One feeder is probably not going to skew the mkt. mix very much.

 

[Mike]

Just incase you can't or won't answer ,here is the ANSWER;

In southern Brazil in the state municipality of Itaipulandia, Domingas Trevisan uses feedlot "finishing" instead of the more common practice of finishing cattle on grass. His farm is common in that they actually finish cattle in a feedlot setting. This finishing ration is a mixture of Milo, soybean meal and corn silage. Cattle also only spend one month feeding on grass directly after they are weaned before going into confinement for 12-13 months. Trevisan does not state the meat content or quality of his practice, but does say he receives a "significant premium" for the grain-fed cattle Hilton Beef.

Does he feed enough of these high quality cattle to make an impact on our export sales?????????? My guess is that you can find SOME high quality grain fed cattle in about any country you look at. One feeder is probably not going to skew the mkt. mix very much.

I have heard through the grapevine that Paul Engler (Cactus) has set up shop in Brazil AND Argentina. You can bet there will be a heckuva lot of cattle being fed there if it is true.

This was written in 2002:

Southern exposure
Paul Engler moved cattle feeding south when he began operations in the Texas Panhandle during the 1960s. Two years ago he took the concept even further south, opening a feeding facility in Argentina.

Argentina has a ready supply of good-quality feeder cattle and feed ingredients, all at lower prices than in the United States, Mr. Engler explains. Most of their agricultural production, 70 percent, currently is exported. Most of the beef available to Argentinean consumers is grass-fed, and Cactus saw potential for building domestic demand for fed beef.

"We conducted a feasibility study before building a feedyard in Argentina and saw good potential to produce good quality beef at a low cost." That part turned out to be true. "We still have access to cheap feeder cattle and feed, and demand is improving." Large, modern supermarket chains are moving into cities in Argentina, and they want consistent supplies of beef with consistently good quality. Grass-fed beef cannot fit their needs because of seasonal supplies and inconsistent quality.

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, when it comes to beef safety and big packer profits, who do you think will win? We already know the answer to that. The USDA uses "science based" so selectively that they are not credible anymore. What do you think will happen when Engler wants to import those cattle to the U.S. from Brazil because other markets have softened? Do you think the foot and mouth disease policy will be science based? Cafta is just an open door policy.

MRJ, stop telling me how little I know about this industry while showing your ignorance of it. You are the one that is inhaling packer smoke, not I.

 

[mrj]

mj...We understand that in order to GAIN some access to lucrative world markets, we will have to GIVE some access to our markets, especially for the very lean beef that we need to make our fatty trim more valuable.

So, yes, if fair trade deals can be achieved, I believe NCBA members would accept trade with Brazil IF the FMD problem was not a factor.

We have a free trade deal with Australia and New Zealand where we import lean trim for our fatty trim. Brazil's cow herd is over 150 million head, how much more lean beef do we need?

Why should they be the only countries we import it from? Do you think we owe them something?

MRJ

 

[mrj]

Boys, why do you act like a bunch of cads, berating me because I may, or may not know as much as you about the beef industries in and of foreign countries? First, what I say is not always ALL that I know about subjects on this forum.

Most importantly, I have never claimed to know ALL there is to know about ALL aspects of either the US or the international beef industry. I do know more than many people do about both of those, however. AND none of you is infallible in what you CLAIM to know.

BTW, Tommy, I did forget to tell you what you probably really know but don't want to admit.....NCBA members do not "desire" to import beef, but believe it is inevitable and maybe even needed at times for various reasons, including to facilitate trade.

Econ, NO ONE blusters and blows more than you do on this site.......you are the champion! However, you fail to understand that there is, or will be tourism in those CAFTA countries, and that there ARE some wealthy citizens in all of them, and that both may choose US beef.

Regarding your "deep thinking" question, I have not seen it. Unlike you, I do not spend hours per day on this site. I'm on hit and miss among other things I do and don't have time to read every utterance of yours.

BTW, where is your "proof" that "USDA uses science based so selectively...."? It couldn't be nearly as selective as your use of truth.

Porker, I had not heard of Hilton beef. Interesting.

Mike, I have heard of Englers' involvement in the 'far south', but in no detail. Sounds interesting. I wouldn't want the risk of doing business there, but to each his own. Doesn't sound like he is counting on the US as his market at this point in time, does it?

Engler and others finding opportunity in other nations should point us at least as much to the government induced barriers to our profitability via extreme environmental requirements, high taxes, and more, as to fearing imports, IMO. Government and speculators buying our land is making it very difficult, maybe even impossible, for us to be low cost producers in this country.

Sandhusker, what are you citing as indication, let alone proof, that "producers don't make a dime off imported lean meat that replaces chucks"? FYI, cattle producer members of NCBA hold 60+% of the seats on the board, so really do have as much control as we need to be very well represented in setting policy and determining the stand on issues. I've heard that in comparison to some newer organizations our system of multiple opportunities for cattle producers to bring ideas from the local to the state to the national committees and multiple means of getting them to the floor for a vote if the committee fails to pass them, NCBA is VERY inclusive, organized, efficient, and EFFECTIVE. Eat your heart out!

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, we are just asking you to think a little bit before posting instead of getting out the NCBA/packer stamp.

I thought it was real funny when you posted that you thought that flounder and reader were too personally involved with BSE to not be biased and then you gave your personal example of cancer. Sometimes people personally affected are the best advocates. In your case with the beef industry, you are the exception.

You are a hoot, MRJ.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Does NCBA realize that US producers (the folks they claim to represent) don't make a dime off imported lean that replaces US chucks?"

A hundred times we have gone over the fact that imported lean trimmings add value to our surplus 50/50 trim and still you are too ignorant to believe it.


Sandbag I know how much you would like to be left alone to spread your garbage but readers deserve better than to be subjected to your relentless bullsh*t.



~SH~

 

[PORKER]

Brazil's cow herd is over 150 million head, how much more lean beef do we need?
Correction;205 million according to Brazilia Agrico

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Does NCBA realize that US producers (the folks they claim to represent) don't make a dime off imported lean that replaces US chucks?"

A hundred times we have gone over the fact that imported lean trimmings add value to our surplus 50/50 trim and still you are too ignorant to believe it.


Sandbag I know how much you would like to be left alone to spread your garbage but readers deserve better than to be subjected to your relentless bullsh*t.



~SH~

Those imported lean trimmings (that US producers do not make a dime on) replace US chucks (that US producers do make a dime on). Stop towing the AMI line and try to sell your product for once.

 

[Econ101]

Packer products are not necessarily U.S. cattleman's cattle. Some people are just too slow to know that or too quick to pick up the rubber stamp.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: ["Those imported lean trimmings (that US producers do not make a dime on) replace US chucks (that US producers do make a dime on). Stop towing the AMI line and try to sell your product for once."

What kind of a flaming idiot would grind up the chuck and reduce it's value to $.99 per pound???

US producers do make more money due to imported lean trimmings. Instead of taking the 50/50 trim from the carcasses and reducing it to the value of fat, which is only worth about $.08 per pound, we add imported lean trimmings to it WHILE WE ADD FAR MORE VALUE TO THE CHUCK THAN THE VALUE OF 70/30 GROUND BEEF (50/50 trim combined with imported lean trimmings).

To do as you suggest would require devaluing the chucks and rounds.

What kind of fool would do that? WAIT, I KNOW, YOU WOULD!

You are wrong to suggest that U.S. producers don't make a dime on imported lean trimmings. Packer pay producers for the value of the carcass. The carcass has more value when packers can blend imported lean trimmings to the 50/50 trim rather than devaluing the chucks and rounds to supply this product.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Why not increase the demand for chucks? (the chucks from OUR cattle)

Once again, you can only see one side of the equation - the side of the packers that you have sworn to uphold. You don't want to "devalue" our chucks, but you replace them with imported product that puts no value in producer's pockets. That really makes a lot of sense. Where do producers win?

 

[ocm]

Sandbag: ["Those imported lean trimmings (that US producers do not make a dime on) replace US chucks (that US producers do make a dime on). Stop towing the AMI line and try to sell your product for once."

What kind of a flaming idiot would grind up the chuck and reduce it's value to $.99 per pound???

US producers do make more money due to imported lean trimmings. Instead of taking the 50/50 trim from the carcasses and reducing it to the value of fat, which is only worth about $.08 per pound, we add imported lean trimmings to it WHILE WE ADD FAR MORE VALUE TO THE CHUCK THAN THE VALUE OF 70/30 GROUND BEEF (50/50 trim combined with imported lean trimmings).

To do as you suggest would require devaluing the chucks and rounds.

What kind of fool would do that? WAIT, I KNOW, YOU WOULD!

You are wrong to suggest that U.S. producers don't make a dime on imported lean trimmings. Packer pay producers for the value of the carcass. The carcass has more value when packers can blend imported lean trimmings to the 50/50 trim rather than devaluing the chucks and rounds to supply this product.


~SH~

Do my cull cows add value to that 50/50 trim? I think the answer is yes. Does the 50/50 trim add value to my cows? Yes, especially if foreign lean beef is hard to come by.

By importing lean beef we are reducing the value of our cull cows. Right?

You ar arguing like you think fat cattle are the only thing the US market has to sell.

 

[mrj]

MRJ, we are just asking you to think a little bit before posting instead of getting out the NCBA/packer stamp.

I thought it was real funny when you posted that you thought that flounder and reader were too personally involved with BSE to not be biased and then you gave your personal example of cancer. Sometimes people personally affected are the best advocates. In your case with the beef industry, you are the exception.

You are a hoot, MRJ.

Because you do not like what I think, know, and understand differently than you who hate NCBA most certainly does not make me the one who is wrong!

My point in using my own example was to SHOW that I, too, am biased where that illness is concerned because I'm too closely involved with it, just as they are re. TSE's. Sorry you failed to understand that.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, we are just asking you to think a little bit before posting instead of getting out the NCBA/packer stamp.

I thought it was real funny when you posted that you thought that flounder and reader were too personally involved with BSE to not be biased and then you gave your personal example of cancer. Sometimes people personally affected are the best advocates. In your case with the beef industry, you are the exception.

You are a hoot, MRJ.

Because you do not like what I think, know, and understand differently than you who hate NCBA most certainly does not make me the one who is wrong!

My point in using my own example was to SHOW that I, too, am biased where that illness is concerned because I'm too closely involved with it, just as they are re. TSE's. Sorry you failed to understand that.

MRJ

My point was that those biases are not necessarily bad. They may come from deep within because of life experiences and that the motivation to do something about it may not be bad at all. In your case, your life experiences could really allow you to be more empathetic than the average person on cancer. That is not a bad thing.

MRJ, I am sorry if I ranted on you too much lately. I truely understand the above paragraph. We can argue and not condemn the other too much and I may have gone overboard. I actually like that you take different positions, as long as you are honest about them and have real reasons. These arguments help me understand the situation better even though I probe a little much sometimes.

 

[mrj]

Econ, thank you for your your nice, flowery words, though they ring quite hollow.

It troubles me to see someone who berates, deceives and attempts to manipulate people to serve their own little mind games and makes demands of others which they do not meet themselves. That makes it difficult to carry on a serious discussion of issues, IMO.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Econ, thank you for your your nice, flowery words, though they ring quite hollow.

It troubles me to see someone who berates, deceives and attempts to manipulate people to serve their own little mind games and makes demands of others which they do not meet themselves. That makes it difficult to carry on a serious discussion of issues, IMO.

MRJ

MRJ, you have not won me over on any argument yet that I have not conceded on this board. I just apologized for the way I argued or disagreed.

You can take that any way you want.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "Do my cull cows add value to that 50/50 trim? I think the answer is yes."

The answer is SOME DO! Other cull cows supply "LEANER" hamburger for many fast food sources. One of the primary sources of cull cows for hamburger is dairy cull cows.

OCM: "Does the 50/50 trim add value to my cows? Yes, especially if foreign lean beef is hard to come by."

No, SOME OF your cull cows add value to the 50/50 trim. The supply of 50/50 trim exceeds the supply of cull cows that are available for grinding.

OCM: "By importing lean beef we are reducing the value of our cull cows. Right?"

Wrong! The supply of available cull cows DOES NOT MEET THE DEMAND. Remember, the demand is for CHEAP LEAN GROUND BEEF not retail priced lean ground beef. McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, Hardees, Taco Johns, Dominos Pizza, etc. etc. are not going to raise the prices of their hamburgers, tacos, and pizzas. Before they do that, they will feature other protein sources.

The demand for "CHEAP" lean ground beef exceeds the supply.

U.S. producers make more money when they add value to the chuck and round and source "CHEAP" imported lean trimmings to add value to all our surplus 50/50 trim from all those overfat english cattle.

OCM: "You are arguing like you think fat cattle are the only thing the US market has to sell."

Hardly! You are arguing like you fail to understand how we are better off adding as much value to our chucks, rounds, and cull cows as we can and source "CHEAP" imported lean trimmings to add value to our virtually worthless 50/50 trim.


This is a classic example of how backwards Bill Bullard's thinking is when he say's "we don't produce enough beef to satisfy our own domestic market now". That's true BUT AT WHAT PRICE BILL????? We will never meet the demand IF WE KEEP LOWERING THE PRICE!!!!!!!!!!

Typical of the depth of R-CULT's understanding of these issues.

Price is the other half of the supply and demand equation.

I always have to laugh about R-CALF's "supply and supply" logic because they always fail to mention "PRICE" and how "PRICE" factors into "DEMAND".


It's this simple OCM. You have 1000 pounds of 50/50 trim valued at $.08 per pound. Now you can source 1000 pounds of imported lean trimmings for $1.00 per pound or you can grind up 1000 pounds of chucks and rounds that are valued at $1.75 per pound.

WHICH IS GOING TO MAKE YOU MORE MONEY????

WHICH IS GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO PAY MORE FOR THE 50/50 TRIM????

Just once I would like for one of you R-CALF/OCMers to come to a logical conclusion.

Sandbag: "Why not increase the demand for chucks? (the chucks from OUR cattle)

Once again, you can only see one side of the equation - the side of the packers that you have sworn to uphold. You don't want to "devalue" our chucks, but you replace them with imported product that puts no value in producer's pockets. That really makes a lot of sense. Where do producers win?"

Hahaha! You are the one who can't see the other side of the equation because your thought process is too shallow. Like a typical liberal.

YOU DON'T INCREASE THE DEMAND FOR CHUCKS BY REDUCING THEIR VALUE!!!!!!!

You'd be better off to sell the chucks for $1.75 and send the 50/50 to ALPO than to grind the chucks to blend with the 50/50 trim!

THE BEST OPTION IS TO BLEND IMPORTED LEAN TRIMMINGS WITH THE 50/50 TRIM TO MAKE IT WORTH $.60 PER POUND (to sell at $.80 - $.90 per pound) AND SELL THE CHUCKS FOR $1.75 PER POUND????

SEE HOW RIDICULOUS YOUR BACKWARDS IMPORT BLAMING LOGIC IS???? Of course you don't!

Pray tell, how did you ever get hired to lend people money??? That is a scary thought. All I can say is that I am so glad my lenders aren't blamers like you Sandbag.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
Sandbag: "Why not increase the demand for chucks? (the chucks from OUR cattle)

Once again, you can only see one side of the equation - the side of the packers that you have sworn to uphold. You don't want to "devalue" our chucks, but you replace them with imported product that puts no value in producer's pockets. That really makes a lot of sense. Where do producers win?"


SH, "Hahaha! You are the one who can't see the other side of the equation because your thought process is too shallow. Like a typical liberal.
YOU DON'T INCREASE THE DEMAND FOR CHUCKS BY REDUCING THEIR VALUE!!!!!!!"

Are you telling us that putting items "on sale" is not reducing their value and increasing demand? Anyway, that is not my arguement, just another show that you type before you think.

SH, "You'd be better off to sell the chucks for $1.75 and send the 50/50 to ALPO than to grind the chucks to blend with the 50/50 trim! THE BEST OPTION IS TO BLEND IMPORTED LEAN TRIMMINGS WITH THE 50/50 TRIM TO MAKE IT WORTH $.60 PER POUND (to sell at $.80 - $.90 per pound) AND SELL THE CHUCKS FOR $1.75 PER POUND????"

How is replacing product that comes from my cattle doing me any good? SH, the people on this board don't sell trim, we don't sell burger, we don't sell chucks, we don't do any blending. We have no relations with Alpo. We sell cattle. You can't make the distinction that seperates packers and producers. All your arguements are for the welfare of the packer, not the producer.

Doesn't increasing demand for your product increase it's value? What does REPLACING chucks from our cattle with import do to the demand for them?

 

[mrj]

No one has mentioned the fact that there are different qualities of cull cows.

Some people are either buying good young to mid-age culls, or using their own, feeding corn to them for a short time, and after slaughter, at least some of the meat is being used as good steaks, roasts, etc. While I don't know exact specifics of how that beef is used, or what is done with the chuck and round, I do know that when marinated with the right stuff, the prime rib roast and the t-bone steaks are wonderful. That may be the beef we are told is what we get when we order a steak meal that is under $18.00 to $20.00 in at least some parts of the USA. That obviously would cut into the amount of domestic "lean" beef available for mixing with the fatty trim from our choice and prime cattle. Also, there would be a LOT of fat on those fattened carcasses.

The leaner, older culls in the USA well may carry quite a lot of fat, at certain times of the year, for sure. Considering the various uses for such beef besides hamburger (hotdogs, luncheon meats, etc.) it is easy to see there could be a shortage of very lean, high quality beef in the USA, if one stops to really think through the possibilities.

BTW, I'm not claiming to know all there is to know on this subject, but I am capable of thought, as well as having opportunity to hear many people in various areas of the country discussing this issue and learning from them.

MRJ