Let's stir it up some...

[Ben Roberts]

I said the cost of business is less than Robertmacs.

Didn't know you were clairvoyant!!!! :shock: :wink:
What are my cost?



Seems to me cattlemen miss something on this quality issue...what is the price premium for ground beef from a prime carcass? roast?

The loin where most of the quality premium is derived, is only about 25% of the carcass.

The point being that ground beef is the single largest product we produce...we increase demand for it and we increase $$$ in the entire beef complex. Yet our promotional segment sits back and lets our single largest consumer, the fast food industry, get slammed every day for selling an unhealthy product. This is a direct reflection on ground beef, our single largest product...the beef industry...and producers!

I believe that ground beef is one of, if not the most healthy food humans can eat. If you do the research, you will learn that our bodies need animal fats to be healthy. Atkins proved that animal fats (meats) don't make people fat...in fact a high meat diet (and low carb) causes weight lose. We have to change public perception to the fact that all beef is a high nutritious, healthy food.

We will always have the high choice/prime steak markets (and we can and need to expand those markets), but we have to sell the rest of the animal. 25% of a carcass can't carry the rest and keep us profitable. We also need exports to sell cuts that are under valued in our market...such as liver, tongue, trip,...ect.

Quality has to mean more to consumers than just a prime steak!

RobertMac, your post was great, it didn't take you long to figure it out, after you started selling beef instead of cattle. And just think, the packers have been at it since 1860.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Red Robin]

Red Robin, my first trip to Australia was in 1995, at that time Australian cattle were about 70% grass fat 30% grain fed dry lot cattle, mostly of Hereford breeding. Over the years I watched as the packers discounted the grass fat and the Hereford influenced cattle and at the same time paid premiums for feed-lot cattle of black influence, (keep in mind here, the packers were only paying a premium for these cattle in the same amount, of the discount from the others) until now Australia has around 70% grain fed black hided cattle and 30% grass fat cattle.

The same thing happened in this country with the Shorthorn cattle when the Hereford cattle became the most prevalent, likewise from Hereford to Angus and from straight bred cattle to crossbred cattle.

I have the results of a BREED COMPARISON TEST conducted at Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.'s research feedlot at Denision, Iowa where IBP was trying to figure out what was the best breed for the packing industry in 1972. After reading this comparison test, you can put a time line, on what caused the loss of popularly of the Exotic breeds. You can also see the results of this test today, by driving by any feedlot in the USA or Canada.

Anyone wanting a copy of this test, e-mail me, and I will be happy to send you a copy.

So my answer to you Red Robin, is yes, I am insuinating that packer bred cattle is of large enough scale to effect the overall quality of not only American beef, but beef around the world.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

We certainly have a different definition of breeding cattle.

 

[RobertMac]

RR, I find it very ironic you quote Stonewall Jackson. :roll:

Packers certainly influence the breeding of cattle...look at every 'off-colored' breed association, they are breeding to put a black hide on their "purebreds(???)"...as if a black hide will magically change the meat under that hide.

The packers decided that calf-feds were the route to producing more prime/choice carcasses. The race was on to produce larger weaned calves to cash in. Now the cow/calf industry is stuck with a larger, hard doing cow base that genetically require more inputs [$$$$] to maintain and get production out of.

So Ben is right, cattle are bred for the packers...not for the cow/calf producer. The reason Kit Pharo's cattle are popular is that some producers are realizing their genetic value to their bottom line. AND THEIR CALVES GRADE GOOD!!!

Maybe we should start that thread on quality and consistency?

 

[Econ101]

This reminds me of the argument I had with Agman some time ago. Heifers became more valuable in cents per lb. than steers because the consumer wanted smaller cuts of meat, not the monstrosities that the cattle the packers were asking for from cattlemen. For packers, bigger cattle means less expense in processing than smaller cattle. The consumers said no with their purchasing habits.

It is kind of funny that in order to placate packer desires, the NCBA helped packers cut meats in a more consumer friendly way. This was, in fact, the cattlemen subsidizing packer desires for more "efficient ways". This was funded with checkoff money.

If the NCBA sees part of their goal to subsidize packers with cattleman's dollar when they don't do what the market (consumers) want, they are not working for cattlemen any more, they are working for the efficiency of packers.

Packers should have paid for these things themselves. After all, they were requesting the bigger cattle that fit their needs, not what consumers wanted. They were requesting these bigger cattle through price signals to the market.

As long as cattlemen produce for the packer, and not necessarily the consumer, they will lose their link to the real market. Funny how checkoff dollars were used to help correct big packer's mistakes. This is one of the reasons I say that checkoff dollars should come out at the packer's gate, not the auction gate. By and large, checkoff money is being used to satisfy packer goals, not cattlemen's goals.

It is obvious that people like Ben and RM have a successful business model for the cattlemen. Their model puts more money into the cattleman's pocket. How much of the checkoff dollars have been spent satisfying packer needs instead of producer needs? How much checkoff funds have been spent promoting grass fed beef?

With enough market concentration and the system we now have set up, packers will continue with these antics. Why? Because there is not enough competition and they can get away with it. The leaders of the NCBA have a goal of "working with" packers even though at times it is not in their best interest nor in the best interest of consumers.

 

[Jason]

Breeds try to copy the original blacks,but packers pay for carcass quality, not just the black hide.

Check out the realprices for source verifyed Angus cattle and generic blacks. The generic cattle tend to get a small premium but only about half of true Angus cattle.

Can anyone say CAB has been a negative for beef demand?

How can the largest and most profitable branded beef program in the world be negative?

That being said, CAB animals still produce ground beef. The flavor aspect is there but the message isn't eat high fat. 90/10 CAB is tastyand not too much fat.

An animal that yields prime starts at 9% imf. Don't tell me it is necessary to con the public into eating 70/30 to support beef.

 

[Ben Roberts]

This reminds me of the argument I had with Agman some time ago. Heifers became more valuable in cents per lb. than steers because the consumer wanted smaller cuts of meat, not the monstrosities that the cattle the packers were asking for from cattlemen. For packers, bigger cattle means less expense in processing than smaller cattle. The consumers said no with their purchasing habits.

It is kind of funny that in order to placate packer desires, the NCBA helped packers cut meats in a more consumer friendly way. This was, in fact, the cattlemen subsidizing packer desires for more "efficient ways". This was funded with checkoff money.

If the NCBA sees part of their goal to subsidize packers with cattleman's dollar when they don't do what the market (consumers) want, they are not working for cattlemen any more, they are working for the efficiency of packers.

Packers should have paid for these things themselves. After all, they were requesting the bigger cattle that fit their needs, not what consumers wanted. They were requesting these bigger cattle through price signals to the market.

As long as cattlemen produce for the packer, and not necessarily the consumer, they will lose their link to the real market. Funny how checkoff dollars were used to help correct big packer's mistakes. This is one of the reasons I say that checkoff dollars should come out at the packer's gate, not the auction gate. By and large, checkoff money is being used to satisfy packer goals, not cattlemen's goals.

It is obvious that people like Ben and RM have a successful business model for the cattlemen. Their model puts more money into the cattleman's pocket. How much of the checkoff dollars have been spent satisfying packer needs instead of producer needs? How much checkoff funds have been spent promoting grass fed beef?

With enough market concentration and the system we now have set up, packers will continue with these antics. Why? Because there is not enough competition and they can get away with it. The leaders of the NCBA have a goal of "working with" packers even though at times it is not in their best interest nor in the best interest of consumers.

Red Robin And Maple Leaf Angus ____________ Does this post sound like a NOAA weather report to you.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Ben Roberts]

Breeds try to copy the original blacks,but packers pay for carcass quality, not just the black hide.

Check out the realprices for source verifyed Angus cattle and generic blacks. The generic cattle tend to get a small premium but only about half of true Angus cattle.

Can anyone say CAB has been a negative for beef demand?

How can the largest and most profitable branded beef program in the world be negative?

That being said, CAB animals still produce ground beef. The flavor aspect is there but the message isn't eat high fat. 90/10 CAB is tastyand not too much fat.

An animal that yields prime starts at 9% imf. Don't tell me it is necessary to con the public into eating 70/30 to support beef.

Hello Jason good to see you on here,

CAB has been a very successful, and has been a important marketing tool for Angus breeders, packers, retail grocery, food service and restaurants. The issue that I have with CAB is, it's a deceptive program. The wording, Certified Angus Beef and the CAB logo, lead consumers into believing that they are buying Angus beef, when in most cases they are not. The same is true with CHB.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Ben Roberts]

Red Robin, my first trip to Australia was in 1995, at that time Australian cattle were about 70% grass fat 30% grain fed dry lot cattle, mostly of Hereford breeding. Over the years I watched as the packers discounted the grass fat and the Hereford influenced cattle and at the same time paid premiums for feed-lot cattle of black influence, (keep in mind here, the packers were only paying a premium for these cattle in the same amount, of the discount from the others) until now Australia has around 70% grain fed black hided cattle and 30% grass fat cattle.

The same thing happened in this country with the Shorthorn cattle when the Hereford cattle became the most prevalent, likewise from Hereford to Angus and from straight bred cattle to crossbred cattle.

I have the results of a BREED COMPARISON TEST conducted at Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.'s research feedlot at Denision, Iowa where IBP was trying to figure out what was the best breed for the packing industry in 1972. After reading this comparison test, you can put a time line, on what caused the loss of popularly of the Exotic breeds. You can also see the results of this test today, by driving by any feedlot in the USA or Canada.

Anyone wanting a copy of this test, e-mail me, and I will be happy to send you a copy.

So my answer to you Red Robin, is yes, I am insuinating that packer bred cattle is of large enough scale to effect the overall quality of not only American beef, but beef around the world.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

We certainly have a different definition of breeding cattle.

Red Robin, I know what you are saying, I can remember when Armour & Co. had a breeding program just north of Stephenville, Texas on the Diamond C Ranch. They had from eight hundred to one thousand head of purebred Angus cattle there for many years, and sold bulls to commerical cattlemen. They also had a purebred Hereford herd in Kansas City, Missouri much earlier.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Jason]

Do some more research Ben. CAB was founded in 1978 when the only black cattle were Angus.

The other breeds playing copy the color has been entertaining, but they cannot hit the mark in terms of carcass quality.

Because some choose to cheat and make their cattle black to try to get in the door on CAB doesn't mean CAB is deceptive.

CAB is now actively looking for source verifyed Angus sired calves by selling tags to buyers of Angus bulls, ie those good grey calves that are 50% Angus 50% Charolais. They deserve to get the CAB premiums if they qualify but until now were excluded based on color.

The program has never been promoted as you are buying 100% purebred Angus beef. It is Angus beef, at least 50%. To promote 100% Angus beef would discourage all crossbreeding, something the AAA has never done.

CHB is similar but has not been able to catch the same customer appeal as CAB no matter what some taste tests say. The real proof has always been and will always be what does the consumer pay for and continue to pay for.

If someone could market old cow shoe leather as a branded product and make a profit, I would say good for them. It all helps the beef industry move beef.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Do some more research Ben. CAB was founded in 1978 when the only black cattle were Angus.

The other breeds playing copy the color has been entertaining, but they cannot hit the mark in terms of carcass quality.

Because some choose to cheat and make their cattle black to try to get in the door on CAB doesn't mean CAB is deceptive.

CAB is now actively looking for source verifyed Angus sired calves by selling tags to buyers of Angus bulls, ie those good grey calves that are 50% Angus 50% Charolais. They deserve to get the CAB premiums if they qualify but until now were excluded based on color.

The program has never been promoted as you are buying 100% purebred Angus beef. It is Angus beef, at least 50%. To promote 100% Angus beef would discourage all crossbreeding, something the AAA has never done.

CHB is similar but has not been able to catch the same customer appeal as CAB no matter what some taste tests say. The real proof has always been and will always be what does the consumer pay for and continue to pay for.

If someone could market old cow shoe leather as a branded product and make a profit, I would say good for them. It all helps the beef industry move beef.

Jason, the use of other breeds in Angus, started long before 1978, one year the Angus had a frame score of 5 or 6, the very next year, they were 9s and 10s, they were called Italian Angus around the show barns in Denver, Kansas City, Houston, Fort Worth and San Francisco to name a few. In 1974

Like I said Jason, the wording Certifed Angus Beef and the CAB logo, are taken by the consumer as being Angus (just ask). Both logos, CAB shows an all black animal, CHB shows a whiteface animal, when many of the same cattle can go CAB or CHB.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Mike]

It is Angus beef, at least 50%.

Another lie Jason.

Boy, you are getting good at telling them now. :lol:

To promote 100% Angus beef would discourage all crossbreeding, something the AAA has never done.

They are doing it as we speak. ANOTHER lie! You just don't know when to quit do you? :lol:

Wonder why the Angus Association fought the USDA so hard to not allow the DNA test that confirms at least 50% Angus genetics?

 

[Jason]

That's why the association traces crossbred cows for Angus bull buyers so the EPD's can be more accurate.

Some Angus breeders promote all cattle being 100% Angus. The Association merely provides a service to track data and pedigrees. Individual breeders set their own agendas.

Angus cows were big Ben. Then they were bred down for the showring of the 40's but some breeders kept the bigger cows around.

I can show you cows raised in Western Canada that weighed 1800+ in the early 70's. They weren't crossed with anything to get big. All the big outfits from the States came here to buy cattle to get the size back. Some took it a bit far, others never sold off their smaller cows.

Angus has probably the most diverse genepool all within a single breed. The AAA has one of the most open and honest genetic defect reporting protocol of all breeds. Any animal identified as a carrier of a genetic defect is openly reported and serious defects result in the animal being delisted as a registered animal.

Consumers could care less if an animal is 50% Angus or 100% or even 2% as long as they get what they have come to expect from CAB. The breed doesn't matter the quality and taste do. If they were to get a 100% Angus steak and it wasn't as good as one that qualifyed for CAB they would favor the branded CAB product over the breed.

 

[andybob]

Jason, of all the Angus marketing systems, I like the British one the best. Their guarentee is that all beef sold as 'Angus' is sired by a pedigree Angus bull, the tracebility of the British livestock industry ensures that no fraud can be committed. This system is fair both to the consumer and to the Angus association members who have promoted their breed for generations and deserve the rewards of bull and semen sales. When my grandfather produced 'Scotch beef' all the barley fed Angus, his and all the other breeders, were like peas in a pod, large bodied, and short legged, and there Scottish herds were from the origional Angus genotypes, the modern Angus has certainly undergone a drastic change since then! To claim the Angus is the only black breed is a little presumptious the Drakensberger, for example, was breeding homogenous black before the first Angus set foot in South Africa. My breed is not black, in fact black is cosidered undesireable, and any black hair automatically disqualifies a calf from registration, and cancells both parents, having said that, the beef quality of the Tuli is equivalent to that of the Angus, and is consistent.
This is the reason why most Tuli breeders in the U.S.A. are Angus breeders, the two breeds compliment each other in the southern environments, and the heterosis expressed in the cross is optimal due to the unique character of the Tuli, having been isolated in the severe African 'lowveld' area for 2000 years; www.tuli.co.za/ the photo album on this link will give an indication of the phenotype, and there are links to research done in the U.S.A. on the beef quality etc, for your interest.

 

[RobertMac]

Angus has probably the most diverse genepool all within a single breed.

What exactly defines a breed if not a narrow gene pool and specific phenotype?

What is the qualification rate for CAB?

The fact is... if an animal is 51% black hided and has the carcass specs, it makes CAB...regardless of percent Angus.

 

[Mike]

What is the qualification rate for CAB?

About 10-13% in qualifying cattle. :lol:

I have been told by a feedlot that his "Angus Source" calves hit the mark slightly lower and they are traced to a known angus sire. :shock:

Depends on who you ask. :shock:

 

[Sandhusker]

I know one of my steers went into the CAB program, and it was a Maine x Simmy - not a drop of Angus in it. I wonder if the folks who bought the steaks from that animal had any idea that the "Angus" beef they paid extra for wasn't Angus. If SH want's to talk deception....

 

[Jason]

Jealousy rears its ugly head.

CAB is the largest branded program on the planet.

Acceptance rates of "Black" cattle has been 17% but source verifyed has been as high as 80%. That alone tells you how the breeds compare.

Maines and Simmys got black how? Yep Angus crosses. So a black Maine Simmy steer might have been more Angus than Maine or Simmy. For that steer to be entered in a CAB program is deception of the owner not the association.

The new tags are a step in the direction of weeding out the cheaters, but the branded specs assure a consistant product for consumers.

Angus being the only black breed in the 70's was a reference to North America not the entire world.

Keep telling yourselves CAB and other branded programs are not the way to increase consumption because packers are involved. Any new venture needs a target. Any new venture that becomes profitable will have cheaters.

Trading the current system for a less efficient one that will have to learn the same lessons in marketing and consumer satisfaction makes no sence.

I will rather keep doing what I know makes for better beef, and watch market signals to stay in business as I have for the past several years.

 

[Sandhusker]

Hey, I'm glad CAB was started. It was a good idea and it does benefit all of us. I'm in favor of about anything that gives customers another option and with that option another reason to buy US beef. Auto makers long ago learned that options sell cars. I'm just pointing out that there are a few things that could be, and should be, shored up.

 

[Sandhusker]

Jason, "If someone could market old cow shoe leather as a branded product and make a profit, I would say good for them. It all helps the beef industry move beef."

That was one of the reasons most of us are in favor of allowing BSE tested beef.

 

[PORKER]

The new tags are a step in the direction of weeding out the cheaters, but the branded specs assure a consistant product for consumers.

You don't need new tags, you just need a real traceback database running in real time ! Jason