NCBA sold us out....again

[mytwocents]

Has anyone read the article by Leesa Zalesky called "Beef's Identity Crisis" in the June 13th issue of Western Ag Reporter? I think there's another similar article about it in the May 30th paper. You can also google
"renaming cuts of meats" to read many other articles out there on the subject of NCBA and the National Pork Board teaming up to rename cuts of meat. "The consumer study was done, says NCBA, to figure out how to demystify the meat case for consumers." To me it sounds like this waste of time, waste of money and show of treason by NCBA will only cause more confusion for consumers and cause a loss of market share for beef.

Why are we using our BEEF checkoff dollars to help promote pork? The re-naming of pork and beef cuts doesn't do anything to benefit beef in my opinion. Using our traditional, well-known beef cut names on pork such as: Porterhouse, Ribeye, New York is a disgrace to beef and will surely only bolster pork sales. And when consumers are buying more pork they are buying less beef. The National Pork Board says: "Because customers already know what to do with a porterhouse and a ribeye, consumers are much more likely to purchase a cut of meat if they know how to prepare it." The Pork Board also has their "Grill it like a steak" promotion going on. Perfect timing for consumers to purchase and grill a "ribeye" PORK steak, rather than the one and ONLY real ribeye BEEF steak.

Throughout the years NCBA has denied many issues detrimental to cattle prices/beef sales, and instead always claimed pork and chicken as being our main competition. So why in the heck would NCBA promote something like this? I'd like to know how much this cost us in checkoff dollars and implementation fees, and whatever other bogus over-inflated costs are added onto projects such as this? Who approved this? What individuals were on the boards that were aware of this and voted for this?

Can anyone explain how this could possibly benefit cattle ranchers who pay into the beef checkoff?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Any of the pork I have tasted lately is crap. Dry and tasteless. personally if someone tries a cut of pork and cooks it like a beef steak they will be going back to beef real quick.

 

[mytwocents]

Any of the pork I have tasted lately is crap. Dry and tasteless. personally if someone tries a cut of pork and cooks it like a beef steak they will be going back to beef real quick.

Not necessarily so. Taste is not the only factor when purchasing meat. Cost plays a major role for consumers and pork is cheaper than beef.

Where are all of you NCBA lovers? Isn't any one here going to defend this action of NCBA using our beef checkoff dollars against us? Or are you fresh out of excuses?

 

[leanin' H]

How you can think the beef checkoff has anything to do with the pork folks is beyond me? :? Both groups asked for permission to change a few names of thier individual products but the beef folks were completely seperate from the pork guys. The beef folks wanted permission to change the name of a boneless shoulder top steak to a flat iron steak. The pork folks want to change pork chops to ribeye and porterhouse to differenciate between different qualities of chops. But they were not working together from what i have read. They both had to apply to the USDA. That is all they have in common. You have a grudge against the NCBA and it shows. :?

 

[mytwocents]

How you can think the beef checkoff has anything to do with the pork folks is beyond me? :? Both groups asked for permission to change a few names of thier individual products but the beef folks were completely seperate from the pork guys. The beef folks wanted permission to change the name of a boneless shoulder top steak to a flat iron steak. The pork folks want to change pork chops to ribeye and porterhouse to differenciate between different qualities of chops. But they were not working together from what i have read. They both had to apply to the USDA. That is all they have in common. You have a grudge against the NCBA and it shows. :?

And from what I have read, this was a collaborative effort between the two groups to do this. The beef and pork checkoff programs partnered up. What did beef gain from this? What did pork gain from this? Who will this benefit? Who will this hurt?

Yes, you are correct. I do hold a grudge against NCBA and I will continue to do so until they start representing cattle ranchers' best interests above all others.

How much did this cost us? What is the estimated return on investment or in this case, loss of investment? Someone there had to have run the figures before starting this endeavor -one would think. So where can a beef checkoff paying cattle rancher find this info?

Again, I ask, how does this benefit beef?

 

[mrj]

Thanks leanin' H for your common sense reply.

It is so weak and chintzy of people to criticize on the basis of what they CHOOSE to believe instead of going to the source to get the facts.

One reason I've not posted on this subject is because I've not used my time to get the facts from the source.

Since it is OK with the complainers on this subject to base comments on what one 'knows', I do KNOW, because I've participated for many years in the meetings, that NCBA does what the members tell them to do. NCBA is governed by policy set by members for the coming year at each annual meeting.

Is it NCBA, or is it the CBB (which manages the Beef Checkoff) you are so angry with?

NCBA Policy/Dues division does not make the decisions as to what actions the CBB takes. NCBA Federation division DOES carry out contractual work under the authority of the CBB.

Re. this change of names of some cuts of beef and pork: based on news stories I've read about it, the cuts are named for the parts of the animal they come from. Whether they were worked out together or separately makes little difference, IMO, other than as giving consumers more information they may better understand. And as an advertising tool.

I believe we all know that times are tough for consumers, especially those who are in lower income brackets, are working, and paying taxes. Some of them are going to have a hard time buying ANY beef.

Both the policy/dues, and the Federation division of NCBA believe working with consumers to show them the nutrition benefits of beef, and how to find the most affordable cuts are going to help sell more of our beef.

Not knowing specifics of why you don't like NCBA, it's hard for me to understand why.

Among other policies, I appreciate a group of rancher members willing to work to end the Death Tax, and succeeding recently in making it less onerous. s

It seems like cutting off ones nose to spite your face to be attacking the group continually.

mrj
mrj

 

[leanin' H]

Just to show i am not completely biased, i submit another thought on this subject. I think the lady author raises a few interesting questions and i agree with some of what she says.

http://beefmagazine.com/blog/new-beef-pork-names-don-t-do-us-any-special-favors

 

[Mike]

The NCBA should have fought use of "Beef" names for pork cuts.

 

[Anonymous]

The NCBA should have fought use of "Beef" names for pork cuts.

I agree- but since the NCBA is now and always has been controlled by the Packing Industry- the money going to them has long supported the packers- and their ability to better support all meat products- whichever is in the best interest of the Corporate Packers/AMI and often not in the interest of the beef industry/cow-calf man ....

 

[mytwocents]

Thanks leanin' H for your common sense reply.

1. It is so weak and chintzy of people to criticize on the basis of what they CHOOSE to believe instead of going to the source to get the facts.

One reason I've not posted on this subject is because I've not used my time to get the facts from the source.

2. Since it is OK with the complainers on this subject to base comments on what one 'knows', I do KNOW, because I've participated for many years in the meetings, that NCBA does what the members tell them to do. NCBA is governed by policy set by members for the coming year at each annual meeting.

Is it NCBA, or is it the CBB (which manages the Beef Checkoff) you are so angry with?

NCBA Policy/Dues division does not make the decisions as to what actions the CBB takes. NCBA Federation division DOES carry out contractual work under the authority of the CBB.

Re. this change of names of some cuts of beef and pork: based on news stories I've read about it, the cuts are named for the parts of the animal they come from. Whether they were worked out together or separately makes little difference, IMO, other than as giving consumers more information they may better understand. And as an advertising tool.

I believe we all know that times are tough for consumers, especially those who are in lower income brackets, are working, and paying taxes. Some of them are going to have a hard time buying ANY beef.

Both the policy/dues, and the Federation division of NCBA believe working with consumers to show them the nutrition benefits of beef, and how to find the most affordable cuts are going to help sell more of our beef.

3. Not knowing specifics of why you don't like NCBA, it's hard for me to understand why.

4. Among other policies, I appreciate a group of rancher members willing to work to end the Death Tax, and succeeding recently in making it less onerous. s

It seems like cutting off ones nose to spite your face to be attacking the group continually.

mrj
mrj

1. Weak and chintzy? :lol2:
Where is the "source" mrj? NCBA? :roll:

2. You say NCBA does what the members tell them to do. Ok.
According to: http://www.beefusa.org/ there are a few different types and levels of memberships to NCBA.

a. Individual members– average Joe rancher
b. Product Council Members- (Cargill, JBS, Tyson, National Beef Packing, McDonalds, etc.)
c. Allied Industry Members- (Bayer, Merck, Beef Magazine, Monsanto, Dupont, Pioneer, US Premium Beef, etc.)
d. Livestock Marketing Council
e. Young Producer Member

The cost of membership to NCBA for the average rancher costs anywhere from $100 to $750, depending on how many head they own. What does a rancher get out of it? They get: some discounts up to $3500 off New Holland equip., up to $1000 off John Deere equip., discounts on Stetson & Roper boots and apparel, 15% off Cabella's gift cards, Caterpillar equip. savings, National Cattlemen subscription and one vote.

The cost of membership to NCBA for a Product Council Member costs anywhere from $5000 to $25000. What do they get out of it?
• Access to NCBA senior-level executives on supply chain matters from policy,
research, marketing, communications and issues management.
• Provide crisis management support and training.
• Fight for your interests in national legislation and federal regulatory programs.
• Track industry news and provide detailed and summarized talking points for you
and your team.
• Provide educational resources and seminars designed to keep you and your
employees informed on industry issues.
• Access to our quarterly CEO Roundtable Event. This invitation-only event brings
together the chief executives from the top retail, wholesale/manufacturing,
foodservice, packer, and processor companies to network, learn and address the
major industry challenges and opportunities.
• Weekly CattleFax electronic updates with the latest cattle and beef supply trends
and market information.
• Weekly Wholesale Price Chart reflecting a national average of reported beef
sub-primal cuts from the current week, previous week and year-ago pricing data.
• Badge and directory recognition at NCBA events.


• Voting seat on the NCBA Board of Directors (2 seats if applicable)

• Voting seat on the NCBA Committee of your choice.


• One day training seminar on beef production, trends or a beef related topic for
your company.
• Complimentary advertising for your company on the BeefUSA.org website
along with other leading beef trade publications.
• Two complimentary tickets to NCBA Winter Convention. NCBA
'member' discount on registration at winter and summer conferences
for additional company attendees.
• Ten complimentary issues of the 'National Cattlemen Magazine' published
four times per year.
• Discounted television advertising on RFD TV during weekly
broadcasts of Cattlemen To Cattlemen.

http://www.beefusa.org/productcouncil.aspx
http://www.beefusa.org/CMDocs/BeefUSA/Member/Product-Council-Membership-Application.pdf

It appears to me that NCBA has more interaction with Product Council Members and Allied Industry Members than with rancher members. NCBA claims to the Product Council members (packers, retailers, etc) that the NCBA will:
• Fight for your interests in national legislation and federal regulatory programs.

So tell me, how can NCBA fight for a packers best interests' and a cattle ranchers' best interests at the same time? They can't. It's a conflict of interest. So who are they really representing? Average Joe ranchers who pay $100 membership and each have one vote or Big Businesses who pay $25000 memberships and each have up to 3 votes and seats on boards and committees?

3. Any organization that allows members (big business) to "buy into" voting seats on boards is not an organization that I want to have any part of. So there you have it mrj, just one of many reasons I dislike NCBA.

4. I also agree with abolishing the death tax, but just because an organization does a few good things that doesn't make up for the bad things. They obviously have to have a few good ideas going on to fight for, in order to keep folks like you believing in them.

Now, back to my previous question: How much did this renaming meat cuts cost us? What is the estimated return on investment? or loss? Where can a beef checkoff paying cattle rancher find this info? Can you go to your sources mrj? or tell us where we can find this info? And, again, I ask, how does this benefit beef?

 

[mytwocents]

The NCBA should have fought use of "Beef" names for pork cuts.

:agree:

 

[mytwocents]

Just to show i am not completely biased, i submit another thought on this subject. I think the lady author raises a few interesting questions and i agree with some of what she says.

http://beefmagazine.com/blog/new-beef-pork-names-don-t-do-us-any-special-favors

Good article. Thanks.

 

[mrj]

Obviously, my 'weak and chintzy' comment is 100% my opinion, which still stands, though I now understand your anger with NCBA, though I believe your reason, your belief that meat packers cannot and will not work in the best interest of ranchers, may be flawed.

We have been members of NCBA and predecessor groups for generations, and have personally been active in the state affiliates and at the national level since the 1950's. It hasn't always been smooth, but we are quite proud of and pleased with the way that organization serves cattle ranchers.

We were active in developing the ideas that working with these allied industries serves cattlemen well. The prizes, and little benefits from those industries is ok, but the real benefit is that they do listen to us, we benefit from opportunities to learn about their products, needs, and where they see food production going in the future.

Isn't it a good thing to learn as much as one can from those we buy products from and those we sell our products to? It really does go both ways at those conventions.

I don't know of one legislative issue which we have partnered with them on has been of any harm to us, and question how much benefit they may be to those companies, more than the other way around.

I really can't find it in my mind to automatically disdain "big business". In fact, my family really appreciates our 'green' tractors, ancient though they are. We even do a little business with Cabella's, but doubt it is any more than we did before they joined NCBA.

I'm sure there are ranchers who don't like the dues structure we have in NCBA. I wish it could be less, but it is certainly fair, with costs higher for those owning more cattle.

Of course, there are issues of differences between cattle producer groups, so maybe that is part of your 'beef' with NCBA, but I support those issues and appreciate any help we can get with them. I seriously doubt there are any cattle organizations which run ONLY on producer dues.

Do you have any knowledge, that those 'outside' directors have outvoted the ranchers on the boards of NCBA?

Yes, there are MANY more issues than the Death Tax, that's just one most important for family ranches, in our experience. Excessive government regulation, exposure of farm/ranch families to extremists by EPA, confiscatory taxation......on and on. You can likely find links to the issues where you got the information you posted here re. the structure for the allied industries.

mrj

 

[mytwocents]

1. Obviously, my 'weak and chintzy' comment is 100% my opinion, which still stands, though I now understand your anger with NCBA, though I believe your reason, your belief that meat packers cannot and will not work in the best interest of ranchers, may be flawed.

2. We have been members of NCBA and predecessor groups for generations, and have personally been active in the state affiliates and at the national level since the 1950's. It hasn't always been smooth, but we are quite proud of and pleased with the way that organization serves cattle ranchers.

3. We were active in developing the ideas that working with these allied industries serves cattlemen well. The prizes, and little benefits from those industries is ok, but the real benefit is that they do listen to us, we benefit from opportunities to learn about their products, needs, and where they see food production going in the future.

4. Isn't it a good thing to learn as much as one can from those we buy products from and those we sell our products to? It really does go both ways at those conventions.

5. I don't know of one legislative issue which we have partnered with them on has been of any harm to us, and question how much benefit they may be to those companies, more than the other way around.

6. I really can't find it in my mind to automatically disdain "big business". In fact, my family really appreciates our 'green' tractors, ancient though they are. We even do a little business with Cabella's, but doubt it is any more than we did before they joined NCBA.

7. I'm sure there are ranchers who don't like the dues structure we have in NCBA. I wish it could be less, but it is certainly fair, with costs higher for those owning more cattle.

8. Of course, there are issues of differences between cattle producer groups, so maybe that is part of your 'beef' with NCBA, but I support those issues and appreciate any help we can get with them. I seriously doubt there are any cattle organizations which run ONLY on producer dues.

9. Do you have any knowledge, that those 'outside' directors have outvoted the ranchers on the boards of NCBA?

10. Yes, there are MANY more issues than the Death Tax, that's just one most important for family ranches, in our experience. Excessive government regulation, exposure of farm/ranch families to extremists by EPA, confiscatory taxation......on and on. You can likely find links to the issues where you got the information you posted here re. the structure for the allied industries.

mrj

1. Ranchers want to sell cattle as high as possible. Packers want to buy cattle as low as possible. And you don't think that it's a conflict of interest to allow packers voting seats on boards and committees of NCBA? Since you think my belief is flawed, please explain to me then of how packers work in the best interests of cattle ranchers? (Here's just a couple of things they've done to damage us and scare consumers away from beef: irradiated beef, pink slime, etc.) Then we ranchers rush in to do damage control and salvage our reputations of raising good quality, healthy cattle/beef. Packers consistently damage our beefs reputation when trying to find shortcuts in their processing in order to increase their profits. But when demand for beef is down, no worries for them since they can push their pork and/or chicken and still profit, since many packers process more than just beef.

2. In the 50+ years that you've been involved with NCBA what are some changes that you have seen, both negative and positive with NCBA? Were you involved on a national level in your earlier years or the latter years? I have no doubt things are run more in the ranchers best interests on some state levels, but it's the national level that I question.

3. I'm not as concerned with allied industries, as I am with product council member groups. (packers, retailers, etc.)

4. You must be focused on allied industry members, and completely ignoring product council members.

5. Since you're so loyal to NCBA I doubt that you would recognize or admit any issues as being harmful to us.

6. I think we all do business with big businesses. Again, I'm not talking about allied industries here.

7. It's not about dues being too high for ranchers. It's about how the rancher can't compete with the Product Council members that can pay $25,000.00 to become members of NCBA and their membership gets each of them up to 3 voting seats on boards and committees versus the rancher getting one vote with no guarantee of a seat on any board or committee. It's an unfair advantage with Product Council members having more of a say in NCBA than a rancher does. Thus my belief that NCBA represents them – not us.

8. What other cattle organizations allow packers to buy seats on their boards? I know of none, other than NCBA.

9. Tell me where one can get that info. I'm not a member so have no access to the members' only info. Does NCBA take minutes at ALL meetings and do they have that info. available to ALL members? Do they list all who attended and how each one voted and also list what their affiliation is? If they don't, they should. Since you're a member you should be able to find this out and get back to us.

10. Again, missing the point. Not talking about the structure for allied industries....

Now, back to the main topic: How much did renaming meat cuts cost us? What is the estimated return on investment? or loss? How will renaming meat cuts help cattle ranchers? (We already know how renaming pork cuts with beef names will help sell more pork.) Where can a beef checkoff paying cattle rancher find this info?

 

[Anonymous]

Ranchers want to sell cattle as high as possible. Packers want to buy cattle as low as possible.

Doesn't matter how high ranchers want to sell cattle or how low packers want to buy cattle. The price of cattle will be determined by the supply of cattle/beef relative to the demand for beef which competes with cheaper pork and poultry. Supply and demand for beef has always and will always determine the price of cattle regardless how many market manipulation conspiracy theories you can come up with during fluctuating markets. Even the most novice market analyst can track boxed beef prices relative to cattle prices and see the correlation.

FACT: In recent years we have seen some of the highest cattle prices ever recorded WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF PACKER CONCENTRATION, CAPTIVE SUPPLIES, AND IMPORTS as you conspiracy theorists blamed for lower cattle markets. Have you ever stopped to think about that? If those are the factors that negatively impacted cattle prices, as so many of you believe, which of those factors have changed to allow cattle prices to go higher? You can't answer that can you? I can! The fact is none of those factors have changed.

To anyone with their eyes open it shows how wrong R-CALF and Co. are/were in their baseless theories but conspiracy theorists continue to search for scapegoats to blame for what they don't understand.

And you don't think that it's a conflict of interest to allow packers voting seats on boards and committees of NCBA?

Absolutely not! WHY? Because the numbers of voting seats they have are so low as to be considered irrelevant so they are not going to outvote producers on issues that might be considered a conflict of interest.

So where is the value in having them seated at the table? Simple. So they can provide input into issues of mutual concern such as beef demand, beef safety, beef sales, competitive meat concerns such as water tolerance, bacterial tolerances, etc. etc.

In case you have forgotten, the price of cattle is based on the price of beef. Packers operate on a margin. They pay for cattle what the price of beef will sustain. Based on that simple fact, why would you not want to discuss issues of concern that affect the price and demand for beef WHEN IT DETERMINES THE PRICE OF CATTLE???

Your "us against them" mentality is the kiss of death for the industry UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO MARKET YOUR OWN BEEF.

Who has more understanding of beef quality and beef sales, someone who sells cattle or someone who sells the beef from those cattle?

To me, the best thing that could happen to the cattle/beef industry is further separation between progressive producers who understand the beef industry from blamers who think the two do not have mutual interests.

Since you think my belief is flawed, please explain to me then of how packers work in the best interests of cattle ranchers?

Many years ago it was IBP that stood up against the disparities between pathogen and water levels between beef and poultry. Now tell me who has more to gain from eliminating those disparities?? Packers who operate on a margin or livestock producers who get paid for their cattle based on the price of beef???

Why don't you explain to me how packers work against producers.

(Here's just a couple of things they've done to damage us and scare consumers away from beef: irradiated beef, pink slime, etc.) Then we ranchers rush in to do damage control and salvage our reputations of raising good quality, healthy cattle/beef.

Explain to me how either irradiated beef or pink slime is anything more than a PERCEPTUAL problem. There is a "perceptual problem" with ralgro, synovex, and other growth implants when the science says it's safe. Do you go with the science or the perception?

Never mind, your belief that Canadian beef is unsafe due to their vigilant effort to find BSE tells me where your devotion lies.

Packers consistently damage our beefs reputation when trying to find shortcuts in their processing in order to increase their profits.

And with that mindset you think it's better to work against eachother than be seated at the same table to work on solutions for issues of mutual concern such as beef safety?? Ahh...ok?

But when demand for beef is down, no worries for them since they can push their pork and/or chicken and still profit, since many packers process more than just beef.

Ridiculous. As if Tyson would allow for poor profit margins in one sector of their business to enhance another when they have to compete with other packing companies to obtain cattle. Gosh, I bet investors would just throw their money at those companies. Good grief.

Do your conspiracy theories ever end? Do you wake up in the morning checking for scope reflections on the distant hills?

5. Since you're so loyal to NCBA I doubt that you would recognize or admit any issues as being harmful to us.

Since you are so anti NCBA I doubt that you can offer actual proof of where packers and producers sitting at the same table working on concerns of mutual interest has been damaging to our industry.

7. It's not about dues being too high for ranchers. It's about how the rancher can't compete with the Product Council members that can pay $25,000.00 to become members of NCBA and their membership gets each of them up to 3 voting seats on boards and committees versus the rancher getting one vote with no guarantee of a seat on any board or committee. It's an unfair advantage with Product Council members having more of a say in NCBA than a rancher does. Thus my belief that NCBA represents them – not us.

For the sake of argument, let's just assume that cattle producers and packers are at odds on issues and vote against each other. Not that I buy into your "black helicopter" mindset but just for the sake of argument.

Tell me, how many seats do packers control vs. cattle producers (cow/calf, feeders, backgrounders, etc.)?

Isn't that the real issue here? Voting power? Is it easier to "PERCEIVE" that there is a problem as opposed to proving it?

8. What other cattle organizations allow packers to buy seats on their boards? I know of none, other than NCBA.

Once again, give me an actual example of how this has been detrimental to livestock producers as opposed to discussions of beef safety and beef demand issues that are mutually beneficial. If you don't think packers and producers discussing food safety issues at the same table doesn't benefit the entire industry then you are a fool. Plain and simple. If that offends you, your conspiracy mindset offends me because it is so self defeating.

Now, back to the main topic: How much did renaming meat cuts cost us?

Why would you automatically assume that it would "COST US"??? Do you honestly think you know more about beef sales than those who actually sell beef?

If so, that's pretty arrogant.


~SH~!

 

[Mike]

BEEF Magazine -Around Memorial Day weekend, new meat labels were released for pork and beef cuts. The names are in place with the hopes of boosting sales by making meat shopping easier for consumers. More than 350 names have been created. The updated labels will be found at grocery stores and will feature three lines including the new name, the description of that cut and the best cooking methods. Sounds good, right? I have some doubts.

Like kabobs being prepped for an Independence Day grill-out, I've been marinating on these new names every since they first came out. Part of me thought that perhaps I feared the change. People sometimes struggle with change, so I figured that was my problem.

But the more I study the list, the more I'm convinced that the new names might offer more information for consumers, but they aren't that advantageous to the beef industry.

Allow me to explain. The beef names that have become part of our "brand," such as ribeye and porterhouse, now can be applied to pork cuts as well. So, if a consumer walks up to the butcher at the meat case and says, "I would like a ribeye." The meat man might reply, "Beef or pork?"

Call me crazy, but the beef industry has worked hard to create the love affair that Americans have with a big, juicy ribeye. Now, thanks to these new names, that love also will be applied to pork cuts. My apologies to my hog-producer friends. You've got delicious bacon and baby-back ribs, but your ribeye does not equal my ribeye.


Think this is a stretch? Consider this Facebook post on the "Pork, Be Inspired," page.

"It's already the best value for your dollar at the meat case, so make pork the star of your plate! Porterhouse Pork Chops are 60% less expensive than Porterhouse Beef Steaks."

Sure, there's truth to this statement. Pork does have the budget-friendly edge right now if you're comparing similar cuts, but I find it ridiculous that the pork chop is now a porterhouse. What happens when a consumer grills a porterhouse pork chop, and overcooks it, so it becomes a dry, white slab of meat? Does that consumer then lump all porterhouses together and decide he or she doesn't like the cut?

Not only do we now have to worry about folks having a positive beef-eating experience every time, but now we have to worry about residual effects from someone eating a pork ribeye or porterhouse and not liking what they've bought!

Perhaps I'm getting a little worked up over nothing. My sincere hope is that the consumer is now able to make more educated decisions at the meat case. Frankly, I think we did the pork industry a big favor by extending our trusted, recognizable beef brand to pork cuts. But I digress. I will still enjoy pork chops this summer, but don't expect me to call it a ribeye.

 

[leanin' H]

Checkoff Responds To Negative Feedback On New Beef Cut Names
Jul. 9, 2013 by Amanda Radke in BEEF Daily
RSS
EMAILinShare.Comments 12 .Weighing the pros and cons of the new pork and beef retail names.
..Related Media
70+ Photos Honor The Hardworking Cowboys On The Ranch
65 Photos That Celebrate Cowgirls & Cattlewomen80+ Photos Of Our Favorite Calves & CowboysOn June 27, I wrote about my concerns regarding the new pork and beef cut names that will soon be appearing on meat labels. My frustration mostly stems from the pork industry's new ads that compare its pork porterhouse to our beef porterhouse, and how the pork version is much cheaper than the beef version. While I don't think this will be the demise of domestic beef demand, I certainly stand by my statement that the beef checkoff program spent years teaming up with pork only to potentially give away its "equity" in beef names like the ribeye.

It seems that at least some readers shared my concern.

Figure50 wrote, "No pork or feathered fowl contains a ribeye or a porterhouse. This is blasphemy to the beef industry."

Anonymous wrote, "All the equity the beef industry had in names like T-bone, rib eye, porterhouse, we just gave to our competition."

Another chimed in with, "This is very disheartening to see our beef checkoff dollars used for this outcome."

In addition to the responses to my blog, I received a handful of phone calls from different industry folks who either wanted to discuss this topic further and/or tell the other side of the story. I decided I should follow up with a blog post featuring comments from the Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), which is a major checkoff contractor, regarding the potential benefits of the new cuts and how they might play a role in beef demand.

First, I talked to Jimmy Maxey, CBB secretary/treasurer, who responded to some of the negative feedback.

Maxey says, "A pork ribeye does not equal my beef ribeye. A pork chop by any other name is still a pork chop. A beef ribeye by any other name is still a ribeye. I think we can be confident in our own product. If pork tries to be something it's not, it will hurt them in the long run. I'm confident in our product. We've got to give the consumer enough credit. They know the difference between pork and beef, and I really think they prefer our product. I know our product is more pricey than pork and chicken. I think they prefer the price, but not necessarily the taste."

Maxey explained to me that teaming up with the pork checkoff allowed the research to be done to help give retailers what they're seeking -- a uniform, easy-to-understand labeling system that simplifies the meat-buying process.

"The biggest benefit is beef was probably the most confusing at the meat case. When folks are shopping for chicken, there are really only a few cuts -- thighs, wings and breast. We used the checkoff dollars jointly to do this research, but it was separate how we both use the results of the study. We have a lot of good information from this research."

I also spoke with Trevor Amen, NCBA director of market intelligence.

Amen says, "The rules that are currently in place were developed in the 1970s. The rules included listing the cut name, species, primal and sub-primal. This got very lengthy and resulted in duplicate terms. The consumer just wants to know what the cut is and how to prepare it, so they can have a positive beef-eating experience.

"The checkoff has helped develop new cuts like the flat iron. The flat iron, based on the old naming system, is actually labeled the, 'beef shoulder top blade steak boneless flat iron.' The top sirloin steak was labeled, 'beef loin top sirloin steak boneless.' On the meat label, it would wrap onto two lines. This isn't a good way to communicate with the consumer what the cut is or how to prepare it," he says.

He continues: "Consumers really wanted a simple name to know what the cut was. That's what we referred to as the common name, and to provide a unique identification on the cut, you have to provide all the unique characteristics on the second line. The third line lists the best ways to prepare the cut. This new labeling system will help consumers expand their meat cut knowledge and the number of cuts they are willing to try. The average consumer has 3-4 cuts that they are really comfortable with."

John Lundeen, NCBA executive director of market research adds, "Beef owns the space for family time and crave-ability. It always will. It's always been the higher price per pound. The quality, the memorable experiences -- you pay for that. Consumers continue to pay for that. Demand remains strong, and we will continue to remind consumers how much they love beef."

Additional information from NCBA further explained the research findings. Note that the study began in 2010 and the information has just been released in 2013.

The top findings from the study include:

· Today's consumers are confused when it comes to purchasing fresh meat.

· Shoppers lack an understanding of how to select and prepare the variety of meat cuts available in the case.

· Consumers don't know how to prepare cuts of meat outside of the ones they regularly purchase. Thus, they stick to cuts of meat they know.

· Consumers say that current nomenclature uses long and unappealing industry terms, and there is a lack of consistency across all channels.

· They focus on the part of the name that's familiar to them and use that to help inform their purchase. Most have no idea what the sub-primal or primal terms mean.

· Shoppers' confusion isn't specific to just one demographic or generation - Boomers and Matures need just as much education as Millennials and GenXers.

The solution decided upon by the joint beef and pork checkoff programs was:

· An aligned perspective regarding on-pack labeling best practices and a revised Uniform Retail Meat Identity Standards (URMIS) nomenclature that has been consumer-tested and reviewed by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Industry-wide Cooperative Meat Identification Standards Committee.

Based on the findings of the 18-month-long consumer research, a two-pronged approach was developed that includes simplifying cut names and including basic use and preparation information on-pack.

While this all looks pretty good on paper, the proof is in the application. Time will tell how it all turns out for the beef industry. Is it the beef checkoff's fault that the pork checkoff is using the new uniform names to its advantage? Certainly not, but I think the beef industry needs to protect its hard-earned turf.

I still stand by my original position that these new names aren't doing us any special favors. However, I will grant that simplifying the beef cut names will definitely help our consumers understand our product better, as well as help them make more informed decisions at the meat case. At the end of the day, I still think beef has the edge -- not because of the new names -- but because of our superior product.

http://beefmagazine.com/blog/checkoff-responds-negative-feedback-new-beef-cut-names

 

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote, "All the equity the beef industry had in names like T-bone, rib eye, porterhouse, we just gave to our competition."
-----
I still stand by my original position that these new names aren't doing us any special favors. However, I will grant that simplifying the beef cut names will definitely help our consumers understand our product better, as well as help them make more informed decisions at the meat case. At the end of the day, I still think beef has the edge -- not because of the new names -- but because of our superior product.

I've been listening to these latest advertisements about the cheaper costing ribeyes- pork--- etc.. etc and agree 100%.... The pork folks are using the new labeling to shove it down our throats (or stick it up another orifice)...

But it does not surprise me as for the past almost 30 years I have had the view that the NCBA (with their control of the Beef Checkoff) does not represent cattle folks- especially cow/calf folks- but represents more- and uses the Checkoff dollar to more put dollars in the Packers pockets-- even if it means selling out US producers for foreign beef/meat....

A long term friend of mine who was a former NCBA President (now deceased) did not ever challenge that opinion when brought up by me or the multitude of locals that saw it that way...

 

[leanin' H]

How can you seperate the packers from the rest of the industry? Without packers, your product and mine, never reaches the consumer. Without the cow/calf operation, what do the packers pack? :???: Our entire industry is based on getting product infront of folks at dinner time. It's the chicken and the egg story all over again. It doesnt make sense to me to complain about an important cog in the machine that puts money in our pockets. Are the packer perfect? Nope and neither are 99% of cow/calf operators, except for outfit of course. :wink: Bottom line is......WE ALL NEED EACH OTHER AND HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER. PERIOD!

 

[Whitewing]

Could all this talk about labels be overblown? Afterall, the average person when hearing the butcher refer to a pork ribeye would likely say, "wait a minute, a ribeye is a cut of beef, not pork. Now that you mention it, give me a ribeye, a beef ribeye".

So the guy who walked into the butchershop to buy a porkchop leaves with a ribeye.

It's sort of like OT claiming to be a libertarian. He's as much of a libertarian as a porkchop is a ribeye and everyone knows it.