NCBA sold us out....again

[loomixguy]

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.[/quote]

ZING!! :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

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!

What is good for the packer- is not always good for cattleman...Cheap fraudulently labeled imported beef was good for the packers- so the NCBA backed it-- but it about put many rancher/cattleman under....

You are right- we need each other- but our cattle tax should be used to support the entire "beef" industry- and definitely not research that the pork industry and packing industry are now using to knock beef and promote pork with these ads I'm hearing on the radio ... Packers don't care what they are killing as long as it puts shekel's in their pockets...

 

[mytwocents]

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

1.
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.
2.
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?

3.
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.
4.
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???
5.
Your "us against them" mentality is the kiss of death for the industry UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO MARKET YOUR OWN BEEF.
6.
Who has more understanding of beef quality and beef sales, someone who sells cattle or someone who sells the beef from those cattle?
7.
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?

8.
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???
9.
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.

10.
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?
11.
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.

12.
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.

13.
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.
14.
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.

15.
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.

16.
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.

17.
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?

18.
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~!

1.You say supply and demand has always and will always determine the price of cattle. Back in the late 80's, 90's we we're told by USDA that we in the U.S. didn't raise enough cattle to meet the demand, yet cattle prices were still so low. Why do you believe cattle prices were so low then, when demand was high?

2. Maybe you can explain all of the reasons for the low prices in the past and higher prices now. Since you believe that packer concentration, captive supplies and imports have never negatively affected the cattle prices paid to ranchers, can you elaborate on that?

3. Do you know how many are affiliated with groups that would outvote ranchers on issues that are a conflict of interest? Do you believe it possible for rancher members to out-vote something, leave a meeting and have the packers, etc. still remaining at the table taking a re-vote on anything?

4. They can sit at the table all they want and offer input, but they should not be allowed to vote on a dang thing!

5. The ranchers, feeders, packers, retailers all compete against each other for their share of money on the same commodity. We are not allies. Yes, some can work together on certain issues affecting us all, but there are lines that should not be crossed. As there are many issues that may be good for one, but not good for the other. Your "we're all in this together" mentality will be the kiss of death to the cattle rancher.

6. Most ranchers keep back a butcher steer or two every year to feed their families and have a pretty good idea of beef quality. It's common knowledge that cattle that we feed out and butcher ourselves tastes better than the store bought beef that the packers ruin- in order to turn a faster profit. So please don't insult our intelligence when it comes to beef quality because believe it or not, us little peon ranchers do know quality.

7. Like I've been trying to tell you.... we all have a mutual interest in the same commodity and are competing against each other for our share of money on the commodity. :wink:
The best thing that could happen to the "cattle ranchers" would be for us to be able to direct our beef checkoff dollars to whatever entity we choose that we believe would benefit us U.S. cattle ranchers the most. That would NOT be NCBA.

8. There you go again, defending those poor packers and not the ranchers…. I'm not familiar with this issue so don't know anything about the disparities. Was this during the time when IBP got all their infected e-coli meat recalled? Was this to protect their image to consumers? Not sure what you're talking about here, but can be pretty sure whatever they did it was not due to anyone else' best interests' but their own.

9. captive supply, to name but one

10. Why don't you ask consumers how important "perception" is to them and how it affects their beef purchasing decisions.

11. My devotion lies with United States cattle ranchers and I make no apologies for it. You can kiss other countries axxes all you like. As for me, I prefer to put my own country and the ranchers in my own country first.

12. They can sit at the same table all they want. They just should not be allowed voting rights in what was "supposed" to be a cattle ranchers' organization.

13. My point is that it's not as detrimental to them when some of them sell beef, pork and chicken. They have that diversity to work with.

14. Does your denial ever end? Just take a risk and break away from the herd… baaa..... :lol2:

15. This is where you may need to clarify things. "Industry" is a broad term. Some things that are good for the beef "industry" are not necessarily good for the "cattle rancher."

16. That is what I would like to know. I don't know how many and what their affiliation is of all who have voting seats on boards. That would take some time to find that out I think.

17. They can discuss beef safety, beef demand, etc. until the cows come home. I don't care. But they should not have the right to vote on anything within an organization that was "supposed" to be a cattle ranchers' organization.

18. It was our beef checkoff that teamed up with the pork checkoff to fund this study - so yes- this did "COST US" ranchers who pay into the beef checkoff. It is by no means being "arrogant" to demand that we who pay into the beef checkoff have the right to know where our money is going and what it costs us for such things as this. If you believe that this is none of our business, then that is arrogant on your part.

Back to the original topic.... Do you believe the re-naming of beef and pork cuts is beneficial to cattle ranchers?

 

[Anonymous]

1.You say supply and demand has always and will always determine the price of cattle. Back in the late 80's, 90's we we're told by USDA that we in the U.S. didn't raise enough cattle to meet the demand, yet cattle prices were still so low. Why do you believe cattle prices were so low then, when demand was high?

First off, "we don't raise enough cattle to meet the demand.." is a very vague and misleading statement. Why? DEMAND AT WHAT PRICE?? That's the issue. Heck, there is all kinds of demand for beef if you give it away.

Why do I believe cattle prices were so low then? Obviously BEEF demand at that time wasn't high enough to carry CATTLE prices to better levels with the supply of BEEF at that time relative to competing meats.

The "80's" and "90's" is a very long period of time without breaking it down further. The only way you can measure what is happening to the markets at any given time is to look at every factor that affects cattle markets rather than a single factor.

Here is a short list of factors that must be measured to have any understanding of what was affecting cattle prices at any given time.

1. Beef demand RELATIVE TO COMPETING MEATS. Beef demand has to measure both the supply of beef and the price ALL BEEF COMPONENTS are being sold at, not just the fact that it's being sold. Then you have to measure that against the supplies and prices of competing meats. If beef is too high for most consumers relative to the price of poultry and pork, more consumers will choose competing meats forcing BEEF prices lower.

Don't look past the purchases of the shoppers around you. They will tell you that they buy more pork and poultry when beef prices gets too high.

2. BEEF SUPPLIES not cattle supplies. Put another 30 pounds on carcass weights and see how quickly that will overshadow any reduction in cattle numbers.

For years I have listened to the blaming segment of the cattle industry talk about lower cattle numbers which is basically irrelevant in contrast to carcass weights from the calves produced by those cows. When cattle are fed longer, you end up with larger carcasses which puts more tonnage on the market which must clear the hurdle. How do you get excessive supplies of beef to clear the hurdle? Lower beef prices. Look no further than the "featured beef prices" at your local grocery store to see this fact in action. They sell it or they smell it. It's that simple.

3. Imported beef vs. exported beef and the value of each to the US consumer. We have historically exported more dollars worth of cattle, beef, and beef by products (ALL COMBINED) than we have imported. Not sure where those figures are currently.

4. Corn prices. Used to be for every $1 change in the price of a bushel of corn it affected calf fed prices by $20/cwt. If you are not tracking corn prices relative to calf prices, you are missing a big part of the equation at any given time.

5. Roughage costs and Interest rates.

6. Economy at any given time. Give consumers more money and they will buy more beef. Give them less money and they will buy cheaper poultry and pork. That's a fact.

The biggest player in cattle prices at any given time is the measure of beef supplies (NOT JUST CATTLE SUPPLIES WHICH DOES NOT CONSIDER CARCASS WEIGHTS) relative to beef demand relative to the demand for competing meats.

Never forget that "DEMAND" is a price/quantity relationship. Again, there is lots of demand for cheap product but that doesn't help cattle prices.

2. Maybe you can explain all of the reasons for the low prices in the past and higher prices now. Since you believe that packer concentration, captive supplies and imports have never negatively affected the cattle prices paid to ranchers, can you elaborate on that?

Let's be very clear on something. You didn't hear me say that packer concentration, captive supplies, and imports do not affect cattle prices to some degree at any given time. My point was simply this, those factors do not have as much impact as conspiracy theorists would like to believe or one or all of those factors would have had to change to allow markets to go higher.

As I have already explained, unless you track all of the above factors at any given time, you will not understand basic cattle market fundamentals.

3. Do you know how many are affiliated with groups that would outvote ranchers on issues that are a conflict of interest? Do you believe it possible for rancher members to out-vote something, leave a meeting and have the packers, etc. still remaining at the table taking a re-vote on anything?

Rather than walk down a road of "what ifs" with you, I am going to wait for you to give me a real life example of where a packer, sitting on an NCBA committee, has voted against ranchers on an issue.

Again, I want to know how many packer seats they hold too in order to see if your "perceptual concern" has any merit at all.

4. They can sit at the table all they want and offer input, but they should not be allowed to vote on a dang thing!

Most organizations do not work that way. Unless you are going to screen members through some process if someone pays a membership they should have a voting right regardless what their views are. That's how it works.

If you think having someone show proof of owning stock cows is going to screen this, then you are going to have to police who can and who cannot buy stock cows. Good luck with that. LOL.

5. The ranchers, feeders, packers, retailers all compete against each other for their share of money on the same commodity. We are not allies. Yes, some can work together on certain issues affecting us all, but there are lines that should not be crossed. As there are many issues that may be good for one, but not good for the other. Your "we're all in this together" mentality will be the kiss of death to the cattle rancher.

Well, you can tell that ("we're all in this together mentality ....") to the members of US Premium that own the product from pasture to plate and see if it was the kiss of death for them. Not saying that is the way the industry should be, simply saying if you are the cattle producer as well as the packer, as USPB is, then you have nobody to blame but yourself for lower cattle prices. You raise the cattle, you feed the cattle, you process the cattle, and you sell the beef. The only person left to blame besides yourself is the consumer.

The Retailer, the packer, and the feeder all operate on margins within the "BEEF INDUSTRY". The money originates with the consumer and it ends at the rancher. We cattlemen get what is left.

Beef prices are based on what consumers will pay, fat cattle prices are based on what beef is selling for, feeder cattle prices are based on what fat cattle are selling for. WE GET WHAT'S LEFT.

That's how it is. Retailers sell beef products, packers sell boxed beef, feeders sell fat cattle, and you sell calves. If you think these other segments are getting too much money, then you need to put your money where your mouth is and start feeding calves, processing fat cattle, and selling beef. Otherwise, you can complain all you want but you will not change the factors that affect cattle prices.

6. Most ranchers keep back a butcher steer or two every year to feed their families and have a pretty good idea of beef quality. It's common knowledge that cattle that we feed out and butcher ourselves tastes better than the store bought beef that the packers ruin- in order to turn a faster profit. So please don't insult our intelligence when it comes to beef quality because believe it or not, us little peon ranchers do know quality.

Let's be honest, if you haven't sold beef to consumers in a retail outlet, then you really don't know how beef prices compete with poultry and pork through different stages of consumer demand relative to the supplies of these products. If you did, YOU WOULD MENTION COMPETING MEATS.

Don't insult my intelligence by assuming you know as much about beef quality and beef sales as someone who makes a living by it which would be as arrogant as a Kroger beef sales person thinking he knows as much about raising and feeding cattle as you do.

In recent years beef demand has improved due to "wet aging" of beef in vacuum sealed packages yet I know very few people that process beef and seal it in vacuum sealed packages and let it age 14 days in their refrigerator before consuming it. It's common practice for many high end restraunts.

7. Like I've been trying to tell you.... we all have a mutual interest in the same commodity and are competing against each other for our share of money on the commodity.
The best thing that could happen to the "cattle ranchers" would be for us to be able to direct our beef checkoff dollars to whatever entity we choose that we believe would benefit us U.S. cattle ranchers the most. That would NOT be NCBA.

Oh, I suppose we would be better served with frivolous lawsuits like those leveled by the R-CALFers that served nothing more than making money for law firms as opposed to increasing beef demand.

There will not be one more dime for cattle if it does not come from the consumer. If you are not focused on increasing beef demand as the best avenue to higher cattle prices, then you are totally misled in your priorities.

You can sue the other segments of the industry all you want but you will not get another dime for your cattle unless the consumer buys your product at a price that reflects favorably on the price of cattle ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL (feed costs, etc.).

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

Response: 9. captive supply, to name but one

Here's another of my favorite topics. Do you realize that most guys that bench about captive supplies can't even agree on a definition of captive supplies providing that they are not just repeating something they heard.

Captive supplies are those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. That is GIPSA's definition of captive supply.

Those who whine about captive supply would like to include cattle that are sold through grid and formula pricing mechanisms within their definition of captive supply.

With that in mind, who are you to tell me that I should not be able to forward contract my fat cattle to a packer or sell my fat cattle on a grid pricing system because you think those cattle are being used to manipulate the markets. That mentality stinks of "socialism" where everyone should have to sell cattle the same way and receive the same price. If not, then you sell your cattle as you see fit and let others do the same.

Let's say I need 20 bulls and I pay more than I should have for the first 10 bulls so I am not willing to pay as much for the last 10 bulls. Using "captive supply" logic, that would be considered a PRICE FIX or market manipulation because it's the same damn thing. If packers fill their needs through one pricing mechanism, they will need less cattle through another. The only way to solve that problem is to force everyone to receive the same price for their cattle through the same pricing mechanism and sing the praises of communist china.

10. Why don't you ask consumers how important "perception" is to them and how it affects their beef purchasing decisions.

Perception does not win out over facts. If it did, we would still have a ban on Canadian cattle under 30 months. Facts will win the day, not perception.

You are not guilty until proven innocent, you are innocent until proven guilty. Something you should have learned if you contributed to R-CALF's losing lawsuits.

11. My devotion lies with United States cattle ranchers and I make no apologies for it. You can kiss other countries axxes all you like. As for me, I prefer to put my own country and the ranchers in my own country first.

Even if it means lying about the safety of Canadian beef than creating a double standard for the US when BSE is discovered here? Not me Charlie, I will stand on truth and facts at any cost to myself and my industry.

Besides, if you understood world markets you would realize that Canadian beef will not disappear off the world market. If it doesn't come to the US, it will end up replacing our export markets. Something you need to think hard about.

12. They can sit at the same table all they want. They just should not be allowed voting rights in what was "supposed" to be a cattle ranchers' organization.

If they are dues paying members, they should have the same right to vote as anyone else.

When you can start pointing out real life examples of where there is direct conflicts of interest rather than "perceptual" ones, then we can start talking about selective membership.

13. My point is that it's not as detrimental to them when some of them sell beef, pork and chicken. They have that diversity to work with.

My point is that no business is going to let one segment of their industry suffer at the hands of another (beef vs. poultry and pork).

14. Does your denial ever end? Just take a risk and break away from the herd… baaa..... Laugh

You deal in perception, I deal in facts. That's the difference. Another difference between us is what we believe affects cattle prices and to what degree.

15. This is where you may need to clarify things. "Industry" is a broad term. Some things that are good for the beef "industry" are not necessarily good for the "cattle rancher."

The "CATTLE INDUSTRY" is part of the "BEEF INDUSTRY" whether you like it or not. The price of your cattle will be determined by the price of beef relative to competing meats. You will not squeeze another dime out from within the industry because the feeding, processing, and retail sectors are about as efficient as they can be which is why they are concentrated.

16. That is what I would like to know. I don't know how many and what their affiliation is of all who have voting seats on boards. That would take some time to find that out I think.

I'll take that as an admission to you not knowing what you are talking about. Your concerns are "PERCEPTUAL" based which is not surprising considering your devotion to other conspiracy theories such as the affects of "captive supply".

17. They can discuss beef safety, beef demand, etc. until the cows come home. I don't care. But they should not have the right to vote on anything within an organization that was "supposed" to be a cattle ranchers' organization.

Then you need a process to screen membership. Cattle ownership? Try again, anyone can own cattle.

18. It was our beef checkoff that teamed up with the pork checkoff to fund this study - so yes- this did "COST US" ranchers who pay into the beef checkoff. It is by no means being "arrogant" to demand that we who pay into the beef checkoff have the right to know where our money is going and what it costs us for such things as this. If you believe that this is none of our business, then that is arrogant on your part.

Don't start putting words in my mouth. Those who pay have every right to know what they are paying into and the benefits. I also wish there was a way to keep conspiracy theorists from benefitting from the beef checkoff against their will.

Back to the original topic.... Do you believe the re-naming of beef and pork cuts is beneficial to cattle ranchers?

I wouldn't make an opinion on that issue without being privy to the entire discussion on it just as I wouldn't make an opinion of guilt or innocence in a court case without hearing all the evidence presented to the jury.

 

[Faster horses]

~SH~ you have a lot of patience. I commend you for your time spent
trying to get through to those who resist what you so ably point out.
Thanks!

 

[3 M L & C]

Does anyone honestly think that changing the name of a few pork cuts is going to make that much difference? We raised hogs on our place from 1969 (well before my time) until 2004. So needless to same I have eaten a lot of pork as we always had plenty in the freezer. Having said that I enjoy eating beef much more. We can afford beef so that's what we eat. We do have pork once in a while but not going to switch over because of a name change. And I dought to many others will either. If people can afford a beef steak they are going to buy it over a pork of the same name. I mean my two oldest kids are 7 and 3 and they get way more excited when they see mom getting out a beef steak than when its a porkchop. So even they can figure it out. It's not like consumers have never seen a pork "porterhouse" in the meat case before. While I agree it didn't help the beef industry I don't think it hurt much either.

 

[Anonymous]

Does anyone honestly think that changing the name of a few pork cuts is going to make that much difference? We raised hogs on our place from 1969 (well before my time) until 2004. So needless to same I have eaten a lot of pork as we always had plenty in the freezer. Having said that I enjoy eating beef much more. We can afford beef so that's what we eat. We do have pork once in a while but not going to switch over because of a name change. And I dought to many others will either. If people can afford a beef steak they are going to buy it over a pork of the same name. It's not like they have never seen a pork "porterhouse" in the meat case before. While I agree it didn't help the beef industry I don't think it hurt much either.

Why did we use our beef "tax" checkoff funds then for something that didn't help us? That is the main crux of the argument- that instead of helping fund the pork industry make a pork ribeye cut name - that money could have been well better spent advertising beef ribeyes somewhere....

The ads I hear now are targeting directly against beef- and promoting pork-- saying that when you think of ribeye, remember there are now 2 types of ribeye and to choose the pork one...

 

[3 M L & C]

Does anyone honestly think that changing the name of a few pork cuts is going to make that much difference? We raised hogs on our place from 1969 (well before my time) until 2004. So needless to same I have eaten a lot of pork as we always had plenty in the freezer. Having said that I enjoy eating beef much more. We can afford beef so that's what we eat. We do have pork once in a while but not going to switch over because of a name change. And I dought to many others will either. If people can afford a beef steak they are going to buy it over a pork of the same name. It's not like they have never seen a pork "porterhouse" in the meat case before. While I agree it didn't help the beef industry I don't think it hurt much either.

Why did we use our beef "tax" checkoff funds then for something that didn't help us? That is the main crux of the argument- that instead of helping fund the pork industry make a pork ribeye cut name - that money could have been well better spent advertising beef ribeyes somewhere....

The ads I hear now are targeting directly against beef- and promoting pork-- saying that when you think of ribeye, remember there are now 2 types of ribeye and to choose the pork one...

Has pork never advertised ever until now? Most people are visual shoppers. A name change isn't going to change the look of something. They might hear the ads but hearing and then buying are different. Do you think people are going to think this new pork cut just appeared and suddenly even though it looks like a pork chop its going to taste like beef? :roll:

 

[leanin' H]

Does anyone honestly think that changing the name of a few pork cuts is going to make that much difference? We raised hogs on our place from 1969 (well before my time) until 2004. So needless to same I have eaten a lot of pork as we always had plenty in the freezer. Having said that I enjoy eating beef much more. We can afford beef so that's what we eat. We do have pork once in a while but not going to switch over because of a name change. And I dought to many others will either. If people can afford a beef steak they are going to buy it over a pork of the same name. It's not like they have never seen a pork "porterhouse" in the meat case before. While I agree it didn't help the beef industry I don't think it hurt much either.

Why did we use our beef "tax" checkoff funds then for something that didn't help us? That is the main crux of the argument- that instead of helping fund the pork industry make a pork ribeye cut name - that money could have been well better spent advertising beef ribeyes somewhere....

The ads I hear now are targeting directly against beef- and promoting pork-- saying that when you think of ribeye, remember there are now 2 types of ribeye and to choose the pork one...

Its only your opinion that this is a waste of our checkoff dollars. The folks who work for us and have marketing degrees and experience with these matters, feel like it is a good thing. I say this respectfully, but it seems to me that those against the NCBA wouldnt be happy regardless. You have already made up your minds that they dont know what they are doing and nothing will convince you otherwise. I feel exactly the same way............about rcalf.

 

[Faster horses]

Does anyone honestly think that changing the name of a few pork cuts is going to make that much difference? We raised hogs on our place from 1969 (well before my time) until 2004. So needless to same I have eaten a lot of pork as we always had plenty in the freezer. Having said that I enjoy eating beef much more. We can afford beef so that's what we eat. We do have pork once in a while but not going to switch over because of a name change. And I dought to many others will either. If people can afford a beef steak they are going to buy it over a pork of the same name. It's not like they have never seen a pork "porterhouse" in the meat case before. While I agree it didn't help the beef industry I don't think it hurt much either.

Why did we use our beef "tax" checkoff funds then for something that didn't help us? That is the main crux of the argument- that instead of helping fund the pork industry make a pork ribeye cut name - that money could have been well better spent advertising beef ribeyes somewhere....

The ads I hear now are targeting directly against beef- and promoting pork-- saying that when you think of ribeye, remember there are now 2 types of ribeye and to choose the pork one...

Its only your opinion that this is a waste of our checkoff dollars. The folks who work for us and have marketing degrees and experience with these matters, feel like it is a good thing. I say this respectfully, but it seems to me that those against the NCBA wouldnt be happy regardless. You have already made up your minds that they dont know what they are doing and nothing will convince you otherwise. I feel exactly the same way............about rcalf.

:agree:

 

[mytwocents]

SH,
Sorry, haven't gotten back to ya sooner - been busy haying. I haven't got the time right now to go back and forth with you in a never-ending post. I'll admit that you raise some good points, but you also make some that I don't agree with. You are loyal to NCBA and will argue tooth and nail to defend them. I am loyal to no organization. None. I look at the issues. I see what group does what and where they stand on issues, then I think about how their decisions affect me. Bottom line. If the cons outweigh the pros - they are not an ally. I believe NCBA has become the biggest enemy of the cattle rancher. They are detrimental to my way of life and you'll never convince me otherwise.

I previously asked if you believe the re-naming of beef and pork cuts are beneficial to cattle ranchers. You wrote that you don't have an opinion on it yet. Please let me know when you do.

 

[leanin' H]

SH,
Sorry, haven't gotten back to ya sooner - been busy haying. I haven't got the time right now to go back and forth with you in a never-ending post. I'll admit that you raise some good points, but you also make some that I don't agree with. You are loyal to NCBA and will argue tooth and nail to defend them. I am loyal to no organization. None. I look at the issues. I see what group does what and where they stand on issues, then I think about how their decisions affect me. Bottom line. If the cons outweigh the pros - they are not an ally. I believe NCBA has become the biggest enemy of the cattle rancher. They are detrimental to my way of life and you'll never convince me otherwise.
I previously asked if you believe the re-naming of beef and pork cuts are beneficial to cattle ranchers. You wrote that you don't have an opinion on it yet. Please let me know when you do.

A bigger enemy than PETA? The hsus? The vegan movement? You really think the NCBA is your biggest enemy? :shock:

 

[mytwocents]

SH,
Sorry, haven't gotten back to ya sooner - been busy haying. I haven't got the time right now to go back and forth with you in a never-ending post. I'll admit that you raise some good points, but you also make some that I don't agree with. You are loyal to NCBA and will argue tooth and nail to defend them. I am loyal to no organization. None. I look at the issues. I see what group does what and where they stand on issues, then I think about how their decisions affect me. Bottom line. If the cons outweigh the pros - they are not an ally. I believe NCBA has become the biggest enemy of the cattle rancher. They are detrimental to my way of life and you'll never convince me otherwise.
I previously asked if you believe the re-naming of beef and pork cuts are beneficial to cattle ranchers. You wrote that you don't have an opinion on it yet. Please let me know when you do.

A bigger enemy than PETA? The hsus? The vegan movement? You really think the NCBA is your biggest enemy? :shock:

I stand corrected: NCBA is amongst the enemies, right up there beside PETA, HSUS, Vegans, Liberals, etc.... :lol:

 

[Faster horses]

SH,
Sorry, haven't gotten back to ya sooner - been busy haying. I haven't got the time right now to go back and forth with you in a never-ending post. I'll admit that you raise some good points, but you also make some that I don't agree with. You are loyal to NCBA and will argue tooth and nail to defend them. I am loyal to no organization. None. I look at the issues. I see what group does what and where they stand on issues, then I think about how their decisions affect me. Bottom line. If the cons outweigh the pros - they are not an ally. I believe NCBA has become the biggest enemy of the cattle rancher. They are detrimental to my way of life and you'll never convince me otherwise.
I previously asked if you believe the re-naming of beef and pork cuts are beneficial to cattle ranchers. You wrote that you don't have an opinion on it yet. Please let me know when you do.

A bigger enemy than PETA? The hsus? The vegan movement? You really think the NCBA is your biggest enemy? :shock:

I stand corrected: NCBA is amongst the enemies, right up there beside PETA, HSUS, Vegans, Liberals, etc.... :lol:

I think H got you on that one. You are a very mixed up person if you really believe what you just posted.

 

[mytwocents]

[/quote]I think H got you on that one. You are a very mixed up person if you really believe what you just posted.[/quote]

When only 3% of ranchers in the U.S. are members of NCBA and the other 97% of cattle ranchers choose not to be. Tell me again…. who's mixed up?
You few folks here might be the majority speaking out on this little blog, but in "the real world" you fall into the misguided minority. But hey, don't feel too bad, I've heard ignorance is bliss. :wink:

 

[Faster horses]

I think H got you on that one. You are a very mixed up person if you really believe what you just posted.[/quote]

When only 3% of ranchers in the U.S. are members of NCBA and the other 97% of cattle ranchers choose not to be. Tell me again…. who's mixed up?
You few folks here might be the majority speaking out on this little blog, but in "the real world" you fall into the misguided minority. But hey, don't feel too bad, I've heard ignorance is bliss. :wink:[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back at 'cha. :wink:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[mytwocents]

Does anyone honestly think that changing the name of a few pork cuts is going to make that much difference? We raised hogs on our place from 1969 (well before my time) until 2004. So needless to same I have eaten a lot of pork as we always had plenty in the freezer. Having said that I enjoy eating beef much more. We can afford beef so that's what we eat. We do have pork once in a while but not going to switch over because of a name change. And I dought to many others will either. If people can afford a beef steak they are going to buy it over a pork of the same name. It's not like they have never seen a pork "porterhouse" in the meat case before. While I agree it didn't help the beef industry I don't think it hurt much either.

Why did we use our beef "tax" checkoff funds then for something that didn't help us? That is the main crux of the argument- that instead of helping fund the pork industry make a pork ribeye cut name - that money could have been well better spent advertising beef ribeyes somewhere....

The ads I hear now are targeting directly against beef- and promoting pork-- saying that when you think of ribeye, remember there are now 2 types of ribeye and to choose the pork one...

Its only your opinion that this is a waste of our checkoff dollars. The folks who work for us and have marketing degrees and experience with these matters, feel like it is a good thing. I say this respectfully, but it seems to me that those against the NCBA wouldnt be happy regardless. You have already made up your minds that they dont know what they are doing and nothing will convince you otherwise. I feel exactly the same way............about rcalf.

I beg to differ. It's not only his opinion. It's the opinion of many. A marketing degree and experience does not equal "COMMON SENSE" !

From what I understand, the reason for the re-naming of beef and pork cuts was to help the consumer differentiate between cuts of meats - so that they could make better informed decisions on what to purchase and how to prepare the meat. From the many comments on-line regarding this issue; the consumers are speaking out against this. Here are some comments I've found from consumers:

"It'll be confusing for the customer and it will be frustrating for the meat department,"

"I don't know about you, but I wasn't confused by the names on packages of pork or beef. 2 years of consumer research!? Did it take that long to find some people who were confused!"

This is among the most stupid things I've seen or heard in a decade. Wow."

A sign of the world gone nuts....

I was just at a fine dining restaurant that appears to be using the new pork names already. My wife was totally confused about the term "pork porterhouse". So was I because I had no idea that the names were changing (and see no real purpose in it either), but immediately knew what was going to be served... and exactly what I expected was served. I, on the other hand, had the duck... and was quite happy that it is still called "duck breast" and not "duck brisket" or something stupid like that.

It's bad enough people misappropriate and twist the meaning of standard names for their own purpose, now we have to get used to a whole new nomenclature.

What exactly is the meat industry trying to communicate? You look at a package of pork chops. You either like it or not. If you do you put it in your grocery cart. If not you look at another package. Where is the problem?

The biggest problem with these changes is that they will immediately make thousands of cookbooks obsolete.

I wonder how much the prices will go up because of this new name gimmick

Nothing better to do with your time and our money? Give me a break! That will raise prices in restaurants all over the world because now that you brain children have renamed meat, all new menu's will need to be printed along with having to buy all new cookbooks. DUMB

Good grief!!!! Don't we have more important things to deal with??

What a waste of time and money---now kids can say they want a leg instead of a butt--who dreams this crap up?

Complete BS.

More time and money wasted on nonsense.

Pork cuts do have terrible naming conventions, but I think they'd be best to avoid confusion with the names used for beef.

It's the prices not the names. Seriously, we are not that stupid. Every week I go shopping and walk away from not only the meat section but the deli as well. $8.79 for Salami... Really???? I'm just more creative in the kitchen more side dishes less meat.

Unfortunately you will still confuse the consumer with "naming" cuts of beef/pork. Companies need to inform their meat associates with proper cuts, keep it simple stupid "KISS" is very prevalent in today's society. Early 70's in New Jersey had a law passed by a congress woman that had a truth in labeling any piece of beef/pork that was presented for the consumer. Fancy names can be added, but that still will not help sell product. Top Blade steak is an example now being labeled as a "Flat Iron Steak". Having worked in the retail meat industry for 43 yrs. many changes have come along with not great results/success for the buying consumer.

While the name changes are supposed to help consumers better understand what they're eating, some think the new monikers sound more like a meat "identity crisis."

I just saw this on Fox and Friends. I thought the same thing, they think we are confused? Or just have decided we aren't too bright, so they will help us out.......

What a waste of time and money! After they get done with all the relabeling we can ALL be confused.

This is EXTREMELY bad news!!!!! It's just a stunt to justify higher pricing! They've openly admitted it...... "Merchandise it Like Beef… The new pork names can help you position pork more like beef in your meat case and be rewarded with better margins. Because consumers are typically willing to pay more for higher-end cuts, you can charge more for the Ribeye Chop and New York Chop than you could before the name change. Seize the opportunity to trade consumers up while capturing more of their protein dollar." Sources: Power of the Name | www.porkretail.org and AMC Pork Names | www.porkretail.org Same old stuff, but at a higher price. NOT good!!!!!!!

Instead of new names, I, for one, would rather see lower prices.

Like these changes are NOT confusing? Stupid is as stupid does. More reason to stick to chicken and fish.

GOOD GRIEF. So the industry is worried that people don't know what a "butler steak" is, but they'll happily take a pork shoulder cut, which is already named a "butt" and doesn't come from the pig's rear end, and rename it a Boston Steak? BECAUSE THAT CLEARS UP WHERE THE CUT COMES FROM ON THE ANIMAL AND REALLY MAKES IT EASIER TO FIGURE OUT. People are going to do what they've always done: buy meat based on price, or the cuts they know are good. It's meat. Look at the diagram behind the meat counter, or ask the stinking butcher. Good grief

What about those millions of recipes out there that use the old names? Doesn't sound like it's going to eliminate any confusion at all - just add a lot more. We may find a lot more vegetarians in the future, in part due to this fiasco.

How do words like Porterhouse, New York and Boston help us know what part of the animal the meat comes from? By removing terms like loin and shoulder they are doing the exact opposite. Which means they are lying when they say "...aims to reduce consumer confusion with labels that easily identify the cut of meat and what part of the animal it comes from." The best label would include a diagram of the animal showing where the cut came from but uh-oh that would remind people they're eating an animal. Obviously the industry is trying to un-remind people of that fact.

This is going to confuse a lot of people into going vegetarian.

I would rather know where the animal came from rather than what part of the body. Too much of our meat is coming from non US sources... Some supermarkets don't do their own butchering any more.. The meat comes in pre-packaged... that is bothersome.. Many countries don't have the same health rules and inspections that we do....

I think these statements from consumers speak for themselves.

 

[leanin' H]

You have already made up your minds that they dont know what they are doing and nothing will convince you otherwise. I feel exactly the same way............about rcalf.

 

[mytwocents]

You have already made up your minds that they dont know what they are doing and nothing will convince you otherwise. I feel exactly the same way............about rcalf.

R-CALF ??? What does r-calf have to do with the subject in this post? R-Calf did not waste our checkoff dollars by collaborating with the pork checkoff to re-name cuts of meat and allow our beef names to be used on pork. NCBA did.

 

[Mike]

You have already made up your minds that they dont know what they are doing and nothing will convince you otherwise. I feel exactly the same way............about rcalf.

R-CALF ??? What does r-calf have to do with the subject in this post? R-Calf did not waste our checkoff dollars by collaborating with the pork checkoff to re-name cuts of meat and allow our beef names to be used on pork. NCBA did.

Ouch! That must've stung........................