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

Meanwhile....NCBA advances pro-cattle/beef efforts

mrj

Well-known member
While others complain and point fingers, NCBA's Federation division continues to advance the cause for cattle production and beef through projects for the CBB.

While media stories unfavorable to raising cattle or eating beef SEEM to grow daily, checkoff funded analysis of media across the nation show that the overall favorability rating of such stories May - June, 2007 was 51% favorable, 31% neutral, and only 18% unfavorable to the cattle/beef industry. The total number of articles related to these subjects have, for the past year, been at the lower end of the scale for any time since Nov., 2000.

Re. the accusations that beef production is responsible for Global Warming, the good thing is these stories give an opportunity to present the facts about beef production.

EPA data shows that "production of food animals in the USA contributes less than 2.4% of total greenhouse gas emissions, while fossil fuel combustion accounts for about 80% of all US greenhouse emissions". NCBA finds and publicizes such information to counter less than factual news stories.

The Human Nutrition Research committee is working to re-evaluate protein recommendations. During the Protein Summit 2007 held last may in Charleston, SC leading scientists from all areas of dietary protein research worked together on three areas of discussion: The role of protein in optimal health; Assessment of protein quality; Minimum protein intakes versus optimal intake. A summary publication of the results of this summit is due soon. Such a publication, with major imput from key leaders in a given field of research, CAN HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON OTHER SCIENTISTS AND THOUGHT LEADERS.

A Nutrient Rich Foods Coalition launched a new consumer web site to guide people in choosing foods with more nutrients compared with calories. Beef has an enviable position in that relationship.

Because flavor is such an important factor in enjoyment of beef, several research projects have been useful in finding more and better ways of improving upon that flavor. Interesting to me, in view of previous threads and posts on this site, is that high energy grain diets have been shown to produce a more acceptable and intense flavor in beef than grass or forage fed beef. More than 40% of variation between grain and grass finished beef, un-aged and aged, is attributed to diet. This flavor variation MAY be due to the fact that forage-fed beef contains more linolenic acid and less oleic and linoleic acids when compared with concentrate-fed beef. Cattle diets containing fish byproducts, raw soybeans, or canola oil and meal can cause undesireable flavors in beef, which may be due to the increased unsaturated fatty acids which lead to increased oxidation during storage of beef. I believe it is valuable that research, old and new, is being studied in efforts to improve the desireable flavor of beef.

Research into consumer views of the cattle/beef industry show that almost 60% say they know little or nothing about the beef industry, 40% report favorable views, and only 10% report negative views. 48% said they have favorable views of beef producers. 89% say they are confident that beef is safe, and only 3% are not at all confident. 95% support raising cattle for food if animals are cared for and treated humanely. This study shows the importance of telling the beef production story because familiarity with the industry is strongly correlated with favorability and favorability is strongly correlated with trust.

A consumer survey conducted as a random telephone survey last June 10-21 to analyze consumer awareness of food recalls, concerns aout bacteria in food, and which foods concern them the most shows 77% said they have heard about food recalls in the previous three months; 40% were aware of a beef recall; 37% mentioned produce as one of the foods they recalled being recalled; 22% mentioned peanut butter and 21% mentioned pet food. E.coli was the bacteria of highest concern to consumers. Consumers were most concerned about chicken in regard to foodborne illness, but beef is second on the list of foods of concern. Consumers said the most believable and reassuring beef safety message they heard is "ground beef is safe if it is cooked to an internal temperature of 160 degrees F.".

This is only a small portion of the recent, current, or ongoing work of the Beef Checkoff. Get involved at national or state level. Nearly all cattle organizations have representation on the state Beef Council, and volunteers are welcome and needed.

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Because flavor is such an important factor in enjoyment of beef, several research projects have been useful in finding more and better ways of improving upon that flavor. Interesting to me, in view of previous threads and posts on this site, is that high energy grain diets have been shown to produce a more acceptable and intense flavor in beef than grass or forage fed beef. More than 40% of variation between grain and grass finished beef, un-aged and aged, is attributed to diet. This flavor variation MAY be due to the fact that forage-fed beef contains more linolenic acid and less oleic and linoleic acids when compared with concentrate-fed beef. Cattle diets containing fish byproducts, raw soybeans, or canola oil and meal can cause undesireable flavors in beef, which may be due to the increased unsaturated fatty acids which lead to increased oxidation during storage of beef. I believe it is valuable that research, old and new, is being studied in efforts to improve the desireable flavor of beef.

Does this paragraph indicate that NCBA has a favorable or unfavorable position on grassfed beef?

I would have thought cattle producers would have had a higher favorable view than 48%.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Mike, some of the "choir" on this site DO need facts about what the Beef Checkoff is being used for, as is frequently proven by their posts!

Why do you assume the general public doesn't see this information? This is some of the research the consumer education committee will use to help formulate information about beef which will get to consumers in various ways.

Robertmac, Why do you assume NCBA might not favor grassfed beef? NCBA clearly "favors" multiple choices for consumers who buy beef! It's fair to state that NCBA "favors" various niches to market beef , but wants fair, honest advertising that's based on positive, FACTUAL statements, verified by research, when sellers are marketing their grass-FINISHED beef to consumers. Virtually all cattle are 'grass-fed' for a major portion of their lives, aren't they?

"Cattle producers" getting a 48% favorable view by consumers answering the survey, compared with the 40% favorable for "the beef industry", and the 10% unfavorable for 'the beef industry', is quite impressive to me! It would be nice to have everyone love us, but that isn't likely given all the publicity the PETA, Eco-Extremists, and anti-business people can afford.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "It's fair to state that NCBA "favors" various niches to market beef..."

No, it's not. NCBA backed USDA's refusal to allow US packers to go after the niche market of BSE tested beef - even when NCBA's own economist estimated it cost EVERYBODY $175/head. You make all these big claims about what NCBA stands for, but reality shows a much different outfit. You don't seem to realize that most of us here read the papers.
 

mrj

Well-known member
SAndhusker, you interpret what you read to fit your agenda of cutting down NCBA because our 29,000 members do not see policy issues the same way you do.

Isn't testing actually a regulatory/animal health issue, not a matter of supporting or not supporting a particular a niche market?

Why should a cattle organization "support" any specific niche market? Better they should promote the idea that producers have the right to market our cattle however we choose.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
Why should a cattle organization "support" any specific niche market? Better they should promote the idea that producers have the right to market our cattle however we choose.

mrj

Sandhusker/Kaiser-- there ain't a 2 X 4 built that can make a dent in a brick wall- or Maxines head.... :wink: :lol: :lol:

I'm starting to think she really doesn't get it... :roll: :(
 

Mike

Well-known member
Isn't testing actually a regulatory/animal health issue, not a matter of supporting or not supporting a particular a niche market?

Oh really? Is "animal health" the reason Japan refused to import our boxed beef for over 3 years and has limitations on what we can send now?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
SAndhusker, you interpret what you read to fit your agenda of cutting down NCBA because our 29,000 members do not see policy issues the same way you do.

Isn't testing actually a regulatory/animal health issue, not a matter of supporting or not supporting a particular a niche market?

Why should a cattle organization "support" any specific niche market? Better they should promote the idea that producers have the right to market our cattle however we choose.

mrj

Here's what I read; "USDA should continue to deny a request by one Kansas meatpacker that wants to test all its cattle for mad cow disease, says the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)." Now, how am I misinterpreting?


Cattlemen should support a niche because that increases demand for beef and, in turn, cattle (Cattle are what cattlemen raise, MRJ).

You think cattlemen should be able to market as they choose, but you defend your organization supporting the USDA blocking Creekstone and other from doing just that. Why can't you see that?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj, I don't need you telling me what you think NCBA's policies are to "promote the idea that producers have the right to market our cattle however we choose." Show me the programs/policy that supports grassfed, organic, or BSE testing!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Porker, while I'm not sure of your slant on the comment about an animal with a black hide, what has that to do with anything? NCBA members have cattle across the spectrum of colors. And NCBA has members involved in many niche markets and is supportive of all of them.

I'm not sure that 'black hide' popularity has much to do with the quality of the beef under that hide. It may be little more than a fad driven by the fact that black cattle seem to be easier to raise after Herefords, fairly or unfairly, got the reputation for too much cancer eye, sunburned udders, horns, etc. Solid black calves do APPEAR more uniform in size and conformation in a group than mixed colors, or even solid reds, do they not? Maybe due to deeper colors receding in the eye of the beholder???

As people saw the need for more English breed blood in order to produce better quality beef, black, or Angus, was most available and seemed easier cattle to use, IMO.

I never said NCBA has, nor do I believe it necessary, to have a "program" or "policy" to support grassfed, organic, or any other niche market. NCBA has provided speakers promoting them at conventions, however. There are many Beef Checkoff projects which have been useful to niche marketers, I believe. The advertisements for beef are beneficial to ALL beef producers.

OT, take off your blinders. You support a so called "Competition Title" which LIMITS producers' ability to sell their cattle. All to support R-CALFs sugar daddy, the LMA. You legislate away some ways of selling our cattle, and the right of some people to own cattle, how long is it going to be before the ONLY way we can sell cattle is through an auction market....."what are you going to give me for them, boys?"??? Most troubling to me is that you can NOW sell your cattle however you choose, yet you want laws to prevent others from doing the same thing...selling their cattle they way they want to!

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Maxine-- the main reason I support a ban on Packer ownership is because of whats happening bigtime in our area-- Out of state Corporates using land as an investment- buying up all the ranchs while playing all the tax, conservation, subsidy,etc games to the hilt-- and stocking the ranchs with Packer owned cattle-- which is helping to speed up the death of the rural communities...Instead of 20-30 families making a good living off the land- you have one or two Corporate landowners which make a deal with a ranch management corporation to run their Packer owned cattle-- who then own the cattle from pasture to plate...

Instead of these 20-30 families contributing family and economic benefits to the community- you end up with one or two and several low paid hired hands- many of which are itinerant...

And Maxine-- its happening big time in our part of the country...You'd be surprised of the number or names of some of those big ranch family names that are very little more than ranch managers anymore.... :(
 
Top