Mandatory country-of-origin labeling

[Tam]

Elementary Economics: "SH, that hamburger meat that used up the fat replaced domestic production for hamburger. To claim that using excess fat with the use of imports helps the domestic producers is ludicrous."

It is a cold hard fact that imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand add value to our surplus 50/50 trim. This is a price positive situation for U.S. producers. For you to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Once again, you reveal your complete ignorance of the facts of these issues. Don't you get tired of constantly being introduced to your own ignorance?


~SH~

Only if you are a packer. Most domestic producers are not packers.

I ask you what would the animal that the producers sell to the packers be worth if the Packers just tossed the 50/50 trim? Do you think just maybe the packer would have to pay less to the producers for the animal if he could not recover the cost on that portion of the animal by adding imported lean meat to it and sell it? Or is the packer to pay the same amount for the animal and take the lose out of his sometimes very small margin therefore making it so he looses money? How long do you think this could go on before the packer was forced to raise the price of the beef to the retailers and the retailer was forced to raise the price of beef in the meat counter which in turn could turn the consumers of beef onto a cheaper source of Protein. It has already been proven that for every item the packers can't recover the value of on, the less they can pay the producer. Alot of Producers want to believe that the packers were walking away with big bucks in Canada, but if you take into consideration that when the borders closed they lost, according to CBEF, at least $192 worth of sales per animal on things that no one eats in North America and then you look at the cost of disposal of the parts of the animals that were ban from any kind of cost recovery you will see that the profit some think they walked away with were a bit overstated. I'm not saying they didn't make money but this proved that if they loose in one market they have to make it up somewhere. By you thinking they should just toss the 50/50 is just another market they will loose and therefore so will the PRODUCER. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

It is a cold hard fact that imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand add value to our surplus 50/50 trim. This is a price positive situation for U.S. producers. For you to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Once again, you reveal your complete ignorance of the facts of these issues. Don't you get tired of constantly being introduced to your own ignorance?


~SH~

Only if you are a packer. Most domestic producers are not packers.

I ask you what would the animal that the producers sell to the packers be worth if the Packers just tossed the 50/50 trim? Do you think just maybe the packer would have to pay less to the producers for the animal if he could not recover the cost on that portion of the animal by adding imported lean meat to it and sell it? Or is the packer to pay the same amount for the animal and take the lose out of his sometimes very small margin therefore making it so he looses money? How long do you think this could go on before the packer was forced to raise the price of the beef to the retailers and the retailer was forced to raise the price of beef in the meat counter which in turn could turn the consumers of beef onto a cheaper source of Protein. It has already been proven that for every item the packers can't recover the value of on, the less they can pay the producer. Alot of Producers want to believe that the packers were walking away with big bucks in Canada, but if you take into consideration that when the borders closed they lost, according to CBEF, at least $192 worth of sales per animal on things that no one eats in North America and then you look at the cost of disposal of the parts of the animals that were ban from any kind of cost recovery you will see that the profit some think they walked away with were a bit overstated. I'm not saying they didn't make money but this proved that if they loose in one market they have to make it up somewhere. By you thinking they should just toss the 50/50 is just another market they will loose and therefore so will the PRODUCER. :roll:

The question is on Agman's desk. Let him answer.

 

[Tam]

Only if you are a packer. Most domestic producers are not packers.[/quote]
I ask you what would the animal that the producers sell to the packers be worth if the Packers just tossed the 50/50 trim? Do you think just maybe the packer would have to pay less to the producers for the animal if he could not recover the cost on that portion of the animal by adding imported lean meat to it and sell it? Or is the packer to pay the same amount for the animal and take the lose out of his sometimes very small margin therefore making it so he looses money? How long do you think this could go on before the packer was forced to raise the price of the beef to the retailers and the retailer was forced to raise the price of beef in the meat counter which in turn could turn the consumers of beef onto a cheaper source of Protein. It has already been proven that for every item the packers can't recover the value of on, the less they can pay the producer. Alot of Producers want to believe that the packers were walking away with big bucks in Canada, but if you take into consideration that when the borders closed they lost, according to CBEF, at least $192 worth of sales per animal on things that no one eats in North America and then you look at the cost of disposal of the parts of the animals that were ban from any kind of cost recovery you will see that the profit some think they walked away with were a bit overstated. I'm not saying they didn't make money but this proved that if they loose in one market they have to make it up somewhere. By you thinking they should just toss the 50/50 is just another market they will loose and therefore so will the PRODUCER. :roll:

The question is on Agman's desk. Let him answer.

We used to call this passing the buck but it is not going to work, these questions are on your desk because you made an accusation that the producers don't beneifit from the imported lean trim. You even said that the Idea of using excess fat with the use of imports helps the domestic producers is ludicrous So prove you know what you think you do with facts not more opinions.

1: what would the animal that the producers sell to the packers be worth if the Packers just tossed the 50/50 trim?

2: Do you think just maybe the packer would have to pay less to the producers for the animal if he could not recover the cost on that portion of the animal by adding imported lean meat to it and sell it?

3:Or is the packer to pay the same amount for the animal and take the lose out of his sometimes very small margin therefore making it so he looses money?

4:How long do you think this could go on before the packer was forced to raise the price of the beef to the retailers and the retailer was forced to raise the price of beef in the meat counter which in turn could turn the consumers of beef onto a cheaper source of Protein?

 

[Econ101]

The question is on Agman's desk. Let him answer.

We used to call this passing the buck but it is not going to work, these questions are on your desk because you made an accusation that the producers don't beneifit from the imported lean trim. You even said that the Idea of using excess fat with the use of imports helps the domestic producers is ludicrous So prove you know what you think you do with facts not more opinions.

1: what would the animal that the producers sell to the packers be worth if the Packers just tossed the 50/50 trim?

2: Do you think just maybe the packer would have to pay less to the producers for the animal if he could not recover the cost on that portion of the animal by adding imported lean meat to it and sell it?

3:Or is the packer to pay the same amount for the animal and take the lose out of his sometimes very small margin therefore making it so he looses money?

4:How long do you think this could go on before the packer was forced to raise the price of the beef to the retailers and the retailer was forced to raise the price of beef in the meat counter which in turn could turn the consumers of beef onto a cheaper source of Protein?

Tam, these are all reasons why it might be the case and all of the selling points. My question to Agman was where the net gains to importing beef go. I already know the answer and I believe he does also. It is just another example of the packers using arguments that seem to be in the best interest of the industry because ostensibly it creates "efficiency" for the packers that is passed down to producers. The problem is that not all costs are calculated in their little sales pitch and it does matter what side benefits in the argument. Same thing with MBM in ruminant feed and the BSE issue. How many issues is it going to take for you to be a believer?

Let Agman answer the question.

 

[Murgen]

Let Agman answer the question.

I'd like to know the answer also. And I'd like to hear it from someone I trust!!!

Agman?, if the US was not importing leaner carcasses, what would be the $ value decrease/increase of the average American carcass?

Does importing leaner carcasses allow the packers to differientiate product a little more efficiently, so Econ101 can continue to purchase his "Choice" carcasses?

I would think that if Econ101 gets anymore of those "select" carcasses, he might discontinue to buy beef at all. That would definitely be bad for demand!

 

[Econ101]

Let Agman answer the question.

I'd like to know the answer also. And I'd like to hear it from someone I trust!!!

Agman?, if the US was not importing leaner carcasses, what would be the $ value decrease/increase of the average American carcass?

Does importing leaner carcasses allow the packers to differientiate product a little more efficiently, so Econ101 can continue to purchase his "Choice" carcasses?

I would think that if Econ101 gets anymore of those "select" carcasses, he might discontinue to buy beef at all. That would definitely be bad for demand!

Hey, select is good. You know that. The same cut on a choice angus is not as tasty as from a longhorn but it depends on the cut as to whether it goes on the grill or gets cooked in the crock pot. You can fry up the backstrap on most anything, but you better cook a deer or elk roast a little different. I did pan fry the beaver, however, and it came out great--until the old Basque knew what it was.

He chose his words more carefully from then on because around me he knew he might just eat them.

Got an answer, yet, Agman?

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary Economics,

Quit diverting the issue to Agman.

Your contention here is clearly that the packer is the only one who benefits from adding value to 50/50 trim by blending cheap lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand to it.

Where is your proof that none of this value is passed on to the consumer?

Why are you trying to Sandhusker this by wanting Agman to provide the data instead of backing your allegation that none of this value is passed on to the producer?

Back your position for once in your life. Tam is exactly right here and you just dodged another bullet to go on making more baseless allegations.

Using your empty logic, packers wouldn't have to pass any value on to the producer because there was apparently no competition between the packing companies. Using that same empty logic, CATTLE PRICES WOULD NEVER MOVE BUT GUESS WHAT???? CATTLE PRICES MOVE! Obviously to anyone with any common sense, the value of the carcass is being passed on to the producer or cattle prices would never move.

The obvious is simply too obvious for a packer blaming conspiracy theorist like you. Anyone tapping your phone today? LOL! Oh, golly gee, it was just the telephone company. Another conspiracy shot down in flames.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Elementary Economics,

Quit diverting the issue to Agman.

Your contention here is clearly that the packer is the only one who benefits from adding value to 50/50 trim by blending cheap lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand to it.

Where is your proof that none of this value is passed on to the consumer?

Why are you trying to Sandhusker this by wanting Agman to provide the data instead of backing your allegation that none of this value is passed on to the producer?

Back your position for once in your life. Tam is exactly right here and you just dodged another bullet to go on making more baseless allegations.

Using your empty logic, packers wouldn't have to pass any value on to the producer because there was apparently no competition between the packing companies. Using that same empty logic, CATTLE PRICES WOULD NEVER MOVE BUT GUESS WHAT???? CATTLE PRICES MOVE! Obviously to anyone with any common sense, the value of the carcass is being passed on to the producer or cattle prices would never move.

The obvious is simply too obvious for a packer blaming conspiracy theorist like you. Anyone tapping your phone today? LOL! Oh, golly gee, it was just the telephone company. Another conspiracy shot down in flames.


~SH~

The consumer surplus and the producer surplus are two different things, SH. I am sorry you don't understand that. Agman must. He dosn't need you to answer for him, does he?

Do you throw the fat out when you cook bacon? Sometimes I put it on my dog's food. Is that efficiency?

 

[Anonymous]

MORE DIVERSION!

IMAGINE THAT?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

MORE DIVERSION!

IMAGINE THAT?


~SH~

SH, I will give you a chance to answer the question. Agman can say if he agrees with your answer. Do the benefits of importing meat from Australia go to then U.S. producer, the packer or the consumer? If a combination, what is the net effect on each? Show us how much you know economics and the cattle industry, SH. Do you want to lay some money on it?

 

[Tam]

MORE DIVERSION!

IMAGINE THAT?


~SH~

SH, I will give you a chance to answer the question. Agman can say if he agrees with your answer. Do the benefits of importing meat from Australia go to then U.S. producer, the packer or the consumer? If a combination, what is the net effect on each? Show us how much you know economics and the cattle industry, SH. Do you want to lay some money on it?

Before it was let Agman answer now it is SH how about you answer your questions for once. You are the one making the accusation but where is your proof? We want it from you not Agman or SH. YOU MADE THE ACCUSATION SO BACK IT UP. Do the benefits of importing meat from Australia go to the U.S. producer, the packer or the consumer? If a combination, what is the net effect on each? If you have the answers bring them if you don't then how will you know if Agman and SH are right?

 

[HAY MAKER]

MORE DIVERSION!

IMAGINE THAT?


~SH~

SH, I will give you a chance to answer the question. Agman can say if he agrees with your answer. Do the benefits of importing meat from Australia go to then U.S. producer, the packer or the consumer? If a combination, what is the net effect on each? Show us how much you know economics and the cattle industry, SH. Do you want to lay some money on it?

Before it was let Agman answer now it is SH how about you answer your questions for once. You are the one making the accusation but where is your proof? We want it from you not Agman or SH. YOU MADE THE ACCUSATION SO BACK IT UP. Do the benefits of importing meat from Australia go to the U.S. producer, the packer or the consumer? If a combination, what is the net effect on each? If you have the answers bring them if you don't then how will you know if Agman and SH are right?

Miss Tam,you are so blinded with hate for R CALF,you wont even let some one make a point,be patient you might learn some thing ......good luck

 

[mrj]

Elementary Economics,

Quit diverting the issue to Agman.

Your contention here is clearly that the packer is the only one who benefits from adding value to 50/50 trim by blending cheap lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand to it.

Where is your proof that none of this value is passed on to the consumer?

Why are you trying to Sandhusker this by wanting Agman to provide the data instead of backing your allegation that none of this value is passed on to the producer?

Back your position for once in your life. Tam is exactly right here and you just dodged another bullet to go on making more baseless allegations.

Using your empty logic, packers wouldn't have to pass any value on to the producer because there was apparently no competition between the packing companies. Using that same empty logic, CATTLE PRICES WOULD NEVER MOVE BUT GUESS WHAT???? CATTLE PRICES MOVE! Obviously to anyone with any common sense, the value of the carcass is being passed on to the producer or cattle prices would never move.

The obvious is simply too obvious for a packer blaming conspiracy theorist like you. Anyone tapping your phone today? LOL! Oh, golly gee, it was just the telephone company. Another conspiracy shot down in flames.


~SH~

The consumer surplus and the producer surplus are two different things, SH. I am sorry you don't understand that. Agman must. He dosn't need you to answer for him, does he?

Do you throw the fat out when you cook bacon? Sometimes I put it on my dog's food. Is that efficiency?

Carefully saving the bacon fat (a pretty rare commodity for most of us) for adding flavor to braised eggs, fried foods, and corn bread and such is probably a more efficient use of it. The dog/cat can have the less flavorful fats, IMO.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Elementary Economics,

Quit diverting the issue to Agman.

Your contention here is clearly that the packer is the only one who benefits from adding value to 50/50 trim by blending cheap lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand to it.

Where is your proof that none of this value is passed on to the consumer?

Why are you trying to Sandhusker this by wanting Agman to provide the data instead of backing your allegation that none of this value is passed on to the producer?

Back your position for once in your life. Tam is exactly right here and you just dodged another bullet to go on making more baseless allegations.

Using your empty logic, packers wouldn't have to pass any value on to the producer because there was apparently no competition between the packing companies. Using that same empty logic, CATTLE PRICES WOULD NEVER MOVE BUT GUESS WHAT???? CATTLE PRICES MOVE! Obviously to anyone with any common sense, the value of the carcass is being passed on to the producer or cattle prices would never move.

The obvious is simply too obvious for a packer blaming conspiracy theorist like you. Anyone tapping your phone today? LOL! Oh, golly gee, it was just the telephone company. Another conspiracy shot down in flames.


~SH~

The consumer surplus and the producer surplus are two different things, SH. I am sorry you don't understand that. Agman must. He dosn't need you to answer for him, does he?

Do you throw the fat out when you cook bacon? Sometimes I put it on my dog's food. Is that efficiency?

Carefully saving the bacon fat (a pretty rare commodity for most of us) for adding flavor to braised eggs, fried foods, and corn bread and such is probably a more efficient use of it. The dog/cat can have the less flavorful fats, IMO.

MRJ

MRJ, Maybe you can be a new market for the 50/50 trim. How much do you want?

 

[Tam]

SH, I will give you a chance to answer the question. Agman can say if he agrees with your answer. Do the benefits of importing meat from Australia go to then U.S. producer, the packer or the consumer? If a combination, what is the net effect on each? Show us how much you know economics and the cattle industry, SH. Do you want to lay some money on it?

Before it was let Agman answer now it is SH how about you answer your questions for once. You are the one making the accusation but where is your proof? We want it from you not Agman or SH. YOU MADE THE ACCUSATION SO BACK IT UP. Do the benefits of importing meat from Australia go to the U.S. producer, the packer or the consumer? If a combination, what is the net effect on each? If you have the answers bring them if you don't then how will you know if Agman and SH are right?

Miss Tam,you are so blinded with hate for R CALF,you wont even let some one make a point,be patient you might learn some thing ......good luck

R-CALF has nothing to do with this unless Econ is going for the job of R-CALF's economist to which I would say he will fit right in as he too knows how to make false accusations with nothing to back them up. If he is making a point I wish he would get around to bringing some proof but his record in that is a bit shy. And about being patient I'm still waiting for him to back his accusation about the Packers causing BSE but I think we can give up on that false accusation as he thinks he made his point with out bringing proof. How long will this go before he thinks he has made his point and moves on to the next false accusation. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary Economics and Sandman are cut from the same cloth. Neither has a clue of what they are talking about. Both want to create an "ILLUSION" that they do know what they are talking about. Neither backs their positions with supporting facts. Both want others to prove every claim they make.

Elementary Econ, either back your position that producers do not benefit from the value of imported lean trimmings or prove that you cannot.

I'm sick of your diversionary games.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Elementary Economics and Sandman are cut from the same cloth. Neither has a clue of what they are talking about. Both want to create an "ILLUSION" that they do know what they are talking about. Neither backs their positions with supporting facts. Both want others to prove every claim they make.

Elementary Econ, either back your position that producers do not benefit from the value of imported lean trimmings or prove that you cannot.

I'm sick of your diversionary games.


~SH~

SH, does that extra ground meat compete with or take the place of domestic production? If it does, how does it help the domestic producers? Your arguments are about as intelligent as the 11th circuit appellate decision that Agman touts. That trim would have made good dog food, no doubt.

 

[Anonymous]

Still waiting for your proof that imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand that are blended with our 50/50 trim does not benefit U.S. producers.

Quit diverting and back your position Elementary Econ.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Elementary Economics,

Quit diverting the issue to Agman.

Your contention here is clearly that the packer is the only one who benefits from adding value to 50/50 trim by blending cheap lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand to it.

Where is your proof that none of this value is passed on to the consumer?

Why are you trying to Sandhusker this by wanting Agman to provide the data instead of backing your allegation that none of this value is passed on to the producer?

Back your position for once in your life. Tam is exactly right here and you just dodged another bullet to go on making more baseless allegations.

Using your empty logic, packers wouldn't have to pass any value on to the producer because there was apparently no competition between the packing companies. Using that same empty logic, CATTLE PRICES WOULD NEVER MOVE BUT GUESS WHAT???? CATTLE PRICES MOVE! Obviously to anyone with any common sense, the value of the carcass is being passed on to the producer or cattle prices would never move.

The obvious is simply too obvious for a packer blaming conspiracy theorist like you. Anyone tapping your phone today? LOL! Oh, golly gee, it was just the telephone company. Another conspiracy shot down in flames.


~SH~

The consumer surplus and the producer surplus are two different things, SH. I am sorry you don't understand that. Agman must. He dosn't need you to answer for him, does he?

Do you throw the fat out when you cook bacon? Sometimes I put it on my dog's food. Is that efficiency?

Carefully saving the bacon fat (a pretty rare commodity for most of us) for adding flavor to braised eggs, fried foods, and corn bread and such is probably a more efficient use of it. The dog/cat can have the less flavorful fats, IMO.

MRJ

MRJ, Do you want me to save the bacon fat I get next time and mail it to you?

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary,

Quit diverting and provide the proof that imported lean trimmings adding value to our surplus 50/50 trim does not return any profit to the producer.

For once in your life, back your claim.

Watch this............


~SH~