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

Perspective, reasons you should buy regular goods

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker, apparently the REAL fact is that NCBA infuriates you by existing! Do you really believe, surely knowing who many of the top cattle producer members are, that the majority of them are duped into setting policy as they do?

I've never claimed to know all there is to know about trade and negotiations. I am capable of reading and using common sense to evaluate news stories about trade negotiations.

You often imply that you know what is in the minds of people and corporations. What special gifts do you have which enable you do that???

You can NOT know if "Asia" would take all the cattle we want to sell them, or not!

No one knows what the real reasons for their refusal to take more of our beef are.

Logic says if their people did not want US beef, it would rot on the shelves......has that happened?

Do they, or do they not, eat the beef from their own cattle testing positive for BSE?

Science says it is safe. Do we KNOW what they do with their large number of positive tested cattle?

It is one thing to "give the consumer what they want" in the USA, and quite another to do so when the trade barriers between nations are the first consideration.

mrj
 
mrj said:
Sandhusker, apparently the REAL fact is that NCBA infuriates you by existing! Do you really believe, surely knowing who many of the top cattle producer members are, that the majority of them are duped into setting policy as they do?

I've never claimed to know all there is to know about trade and negotiations. I am capable of reading and using common sense to evaluate news stories about trade negotiations.

You often imply that you know what is in the minds of people and corporations. What special gifts do you have which enable you do that???

You can NOT know if "Asia" would take all the cattle we want to sell them, or not!

No one knows what the real reasons for their refusal to take more of our beef are.

Logic says if their people did not want US beef, it would rot on the shelves......has that happened?

Do they, or do they not, eat the beef from their own cattle testing positive for BSE?

Science says it is safe. Do we KNOW what they do with their large number of positive tested cattle?

It is one thing to "give the consumer what they want" in the USA, and quite another to do so when the trade barriers between nations are the first consideration.

mrj

:roll:
 
Sandhusker said:
mrj said:
Sandhusker, apparently the REAL fact is that NCBA infuriates you by existing! Do you really believe, surely knowing who many of the top cattle producer members are, that the majority of them are duped into setting policy as they do?

I've never claimed to know all there is to know about trade and negotiations. I am capable of reading and using common sense to evaluate news stories about trade negotiations.

You often imply that you know what is in the minds of people and corporations. What special gifts do you have which enable you do that???

You can NOT know if "Asia" would take all the cattle we want to sell them, or not!

No one knows what the real reasons for their refusal to take more of our beef are.

Logic says if their people did not want US beef, it would rot on the shelves......has that happened?

Do they, or do they not, eat the beef from their own cattle testing positive for BSE?

Science says it is safe. Do we KNOW what they do with their large number of positive tested cattle?

It is one thing to "give the consumer what they want" in the USA, and quite another to do so when the trade barriers between nations are the first consideration.

mrj

:roll:

:roll: :roll:
 
My main point: Is it possible for US citizens, companies, or cattle producers to sell beef to either Korean or Japanese customers for consumption within those nations without permission of both governments, that is, a trade agreement of some sort?

mrj
 
mrj said:
My main point: Is it possible for US citizens, companies, or cattle producers to sell beef to either Korean or Japanese customers for consumption within those nations without permission of both governments, that is, a trade agreement of some sort?

mrj

Yes, MRJ, there has to be agreement by the government. MY point is that OUR government was the ones holding up the deal, for BS reasons, and it cost us and is still costing us a lot of money - and NCBA supported it. $5 Billion and counting, MRJ.
 
MRJ, you berate both of us for criticizing NCBA, but you offer no proof to contradict our criticism. No one can objectively look at the last 25-30 years of the beef industry and conclude there has been positive growth and performance, particularly for the cattle producers. The thing that must happen for the industry to prosper is to get more people to eat more beef...increased market share. NCBA has supported the large corporation and the sell of beef as a commodity product. That hasn't worked out very well...we will never compete with pork and poultry on a price basis. For the price of beef to be reduced at retail, cattle producers will have to accept less for their cattle. That is the undisputable conflict between the 'cattle industry' and the 'beef industry'. I'm on both sides of the issue, so I understand it well. The only way for producers to improve their position long term is to get on both sides...the cattle industry and the beef industry.

I also believe that beef is the single most health beneficial food that consumers can eat! We have to promote it that way.
 
RobertMac, do you confuse NCBA's position of "promoting" producer decisions regarding how and where we sell our cattle as "supporting the large corporation and the [sale] of beef as a commodity product"???

NCBA has for many years offered speakers, informative workshops, and various other opportunities encouraging producers who are interested, to market cattle via alliances, their own branded beef business, or in whatever way we may find to increase our bottom line.

It seems doubtful you would accept any "proof", since you don't get, or refuse to believe, that this concept of NCBA members' multiple, member driven decision making re. marketing is NOT "support of large corporations"!

NCBA members' have long understood that the "cattle industry" and the "beef industry" ARE connected. NCBA is NOT the group some of whose leaders have said "we raise cattle, not beef", after all!

Apparently you deny the improvements in the cattle/beef business have been of any benefit to cattle producers. I do not accept that premise.

You deny that there is validity in the CBB/Federation of State Beef Councils requirement that health claims for beef cannot be advertised and capitalized on outside the accepted and recognized, research validated information that IS used to promote beef, it seems.

While it might be nice to make claims that people can eat as much beef as they want with no regard to fat content, and that it will improve health of EVERYONE to do so, what happens when someone who has genetic or other personal health problems that are made worse by that practice??? Erring on the side of caution and verifiable PROOF of health claims seems the right thing to do, IMO.

mrj

mrj
 
I thought that you said NCBA had done a lot of research on CLA mrj. Here is one little article for you and those in the know at NCBA to ruminate on.




While the promise of CLA continues to grow, a key challenge lies not in science but in the narrow public perception regarding ruminant fats, says nutritionist and author Helen Bishop MacDonald.

"Since CLA became known to the scientific and health community my concern has been that even if CLA were absolutely proven to prevent cancer, which it may very well, we would have a difficult time getting health professionals and consumers on board," says MacDonald. This is because of the mindset about ruminant fats, which she says can be summed up in two words: "They're bad!"

But the battle of perception need not be lost, says MacDonald, who offered insight into the ruminant fats debate in a keynote presentation at the CLA Summit 2007. There's a growing body of evidence that ruminant fats have been unfairly maligned and in fact are often health promoting. CLA is a leading example of a good fat found naturally in dairy and beef products that has been linked to considerable potential for human health benefits.

That's why a key benefit of CLA research is its role in providing knowledge to help rehabilitate the image of animal fats, she says. "CLA can play a major role in reshaping the negative image of animal fats. It's a great example that many of these fats are not harmful but in fact are healthful."

Exploding the myths
Among the myths that have persisted around ruminant fats is the notion that these fats cause heart disease, notes MacDonald. But close examination of the research reveals substantial evidence to the contrary. She cited numerous studies supporting her conviction that animal fats don't cause heart disease and more typically either have no negative effect or are associated with health promotion.

"We need to pay attention to the fact that we may have been barking up the wrong tree by targeting animal fats," says MacDonald.

In fact, the targeting of animal fats may very well be a "red herring" that has distracted attention from much more likely causes of health concern, she says. One major concern is man made hydrogenated fats, which contain trans fats. Another concern is excess intake of linoleic acid.

It's important not to confuse linoleic acid with conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), since these are two different fatty acids. Linoleic acid is a type of omega-6 fatty acid that is an essential fatty acid beneficial to human health. However, emerging studies indicate that when linoleic acid is consumed at very high levels this can upset the desired healthy ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. The greatest source of linoleic acid in the human diet is vegetable oils.

"In the early 1900s if your great, great grandmother was going to make a cake, she didn't use vegetable oils; she used butter," says MacDonald. "If she were going to make a pie she used lard. Our intake of trans fats and linoleic acid has gone up considerably since that time."

A natural advantage
Ruminant fats contain trans fats but a growing body of research indicates these natural forms are not harmful and may be beneficial, she says. The real culprits are man-made trans fats, which have been shown to raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol.

Regarding disruption to the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, studies have indicated this imbalance may enhance carcinogen induced mammary and pancreatic cancer in rodents and may also enhance colon cancer in rodents. One study noted that linoleic acid is the only fatty acid to exhibit an unequivocal cancer enhancing effect.

"About sixty years ago the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 was about two to one. Today the ratio is 25 to 1 and we've seen cancer rates increase."

By comparison, research exonerating animal fats continues to grow, says MacDonald. Among the most recent research are studies indicating that ruminant fats, including saturated and trans fats, have no adverse affect on lipid profile and may have a beneficial effect on the size of low-density lipoproteins (LDL "bad" cholesterol).

"LDL particle size is now getting to be one of the big issues in research on heart disease. This is one example of more and more findings that show animal fats have gotten a bad rap."
 
MRJ, "RobertMac, do you confuse NCBA's position of "promoting" producer decisions regarding how and where we sell our cattle as "supporting the large corporation and the [sale] of beef as a commodity product"??? '

There's some folks in Japan that will buy US beef it it has been tested. There's a US packer who is willing to buy my cattle, do the testing, and then get the beef to the Japanese who want it. Nobody is hurt, we dont' affect anybody else, and everybody gets what they want. The big packers don't want me to be able to do the deal - NCBA agrees. Now you tell me that NCBA hasn't put a large corporation's wishes above a producer's?

The USDA did what the big packers wanted them to do, it has cost US producers $5 Billion and counting - and which side is NCBA on?
 

Latest posts

Top