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

Quick, Quick, SH, Save Consumers From Themselves

Econ101

Well-known member
Natural cattle may turn profit

SDSU Extension has worksheet available for farmers, ranchers;



By Scott Waltman

American News Writer

Aberdeen News

November 27, 2006



With the popularity of natural beef on the rise, farmers and ranchers have a new tool to help them determine whether they can make a profit on the animals that are not injected with growth enhancers.



The South Dakota State University Cooperative Extension has created a natural cattle spreadsheet.



Tyler Melroe, an Extension educator in Marshall County, helped create the spreadsheet. He said the natural and organic portion of the cattle market is small, but fast growing.



"There's a huge trend from a consumer standpoint to demand the natural product," Melroe said.



Simply put, natural cattle are not given ionophores and antibiotics that help them put on weight faster. The idea is catching on, Melroe said, even though animals that are given growth modifiers are perfectly safe.



The spreadsheet is already filled in with estimated or default data from an SDSU test, although the numbers can be changed and individualized by ag producers. Some of the traits it looks at are the weight of feeder calves, the cost per 100 pounds, the average daily gain and the cost of rations. Those and other inputs are listed on the spreadsheet.



If farmers and ranchers are going to raise natural cattle, it's important they figure out whether they can make a profit on them, Melroe said.



The diet cost of natural cattle is more expensive than for conventional feeder cattle, Melroe said. That's why cattle producers have to make sure they can contract for a premium price. The good news, he said, is that cattle buyers are often willing to pay a premium because demand is high.



For a short time in spring, natural cattle were bringing a premium of $20 per 100 pounds, Melroe. But, he said, other times, the market has had too many natural cattle.



Melroe said that it's recommended that if cattle get sick, they not be a part of a natural program. Sick beef cattle that are given antibiotics to better heal are not considered natural cattle, he said.



There isn't a count of the number of natural cattle raised in South Dakota, Melroe said. But, he said, nationwide, the total is a little higher than 1 percent.



aberdeennews.com
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH must be busy running his gopher line. I've read enough of his posts that I feel I'm quaified to answer for him. Here goes; :wink:

DECEPTION! I will never go along with deceiving consumers into thinking they're getting a safer product with "natural" than with non-natural!

How do you know consumers want natural beef? Do you have a signed agreement? The fact that consumers are accepting non-natural beef now shows that they don't want natural.

I fully support a ban on natural beef. If we allow one packer to provide it, all of them will have to. The extra costs associated with natural will be passed to the producer.

Packers can't segregate the 300 packages of natural beef from the packages on non-natural beef.

What does the precident of allowing natural beef say about the rest of the beef that is not natural?

There is absolutely no reason to have natural beef!

Did I miss anything? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
SH must be busy running his gopher line. I've read enough of his posts that I feel I'm quaified to answer for him. Here goes; :wink:

Did I miss anything? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, you were too pleasant, with not nearly enough nastiness, obsenities and name-calling. :? :???: :wink: :)
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Sandhusker said:
SH must be busy running his gopher line. I've read enough of his posts that I feel I'm quaified to answer for him. Here goes; :wink:

Did I miss anything? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, you were too pleasant, with not nearly enough nastiness, obsenities and name-calling. :? :???: :wink: :)

You're right. I can't beleive I left out his signature words and phrases. Please insert the following as you feel led;

Lying King! Par for the R-CULT deceptive course! Talk is cheap, and no cheaper than from you! NEXT! ILLUSION! Blamers! Liars! Braaaaaaak, Scotty wants a cracker! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As always, those who can't bring anything to the table can always talk about the shape of the table.

It's reassuring to know that what I post is so solid that you blamers have nothing to debate or discuss other than the manner in which I post. Par for the "factually void" blamer's course.

What point do you think you have this time LYING KING???

It's you that thinks we need the government to save consumers from themselves with UNENFORCEABLE, UNJUSTIFIED "M"COOL, not me.

I don't have a problem with anyone producing organic or hormone free beef if someone is willing to pay enough more for it to make it cost effective.

Why don't you show everyone how brilliant you are by explaining how I think we need to save consumers from themselves. Let's hear you back your title here. Then we'll talk about your lemming support of "M"COOL?

Watch the diversion............

You're title is just one more example of how you are left with no options other than to lie about my views which are based on facts as upposed to your views which are supported only with your "NEED TO BWAME".


Soapweed,

Sounds to me like you have enough problems of your own that you don't need to be preaching about the manner in which I post. I understand how you feel a need to fit in though.

Before you give me another boring lecture, let me remind you that I don't give a damn what you think of me or the manner in which I post. Seriously!

I hate liars and deceivers and that attitude will continue to be reflected in my posts. If you don't like it, don't read it. Very simple!

Conman, Sandbag, and OT are just what they are. They can't support their views with facts so the only solace they find is in giving eachother moral support in discussing anything but the issues.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sounds like ~Stuper Hero~ must have suffered another severe rejection from his prairie dog family.......
 

Econ101

Well-known member
SH, it could be enforced if the people who are responsible for the enforcing actually wanted to enforce it.

You are right that with the current crowd at the USDA it will be another law on the books that is just ignored.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT: "Sounds like ~Stuper Hero~ must have suffered another severe rejection from his prairie dog family......."

Once again, Ranchers.net viewers are given a window into the depth of the whiskey drinker's intelligence.


Conman: "SH, it could be enforced if the people who are responsible for the enforcing actually wanted to enforce it."

Another empty statement!

Explain how USDA can enforce the "ANGUS BEEF" designation?

Perhaps you can start with CAB qualifications that only require a black hide and the upper 2/3 of choice grade.

Perhaps I can help you with your understanding of that Lying King, it means that any black simmental, black chi, black maine, black gelbveih, and black saler can qualify for CAB if they are in the upper 2/3 grade for marbling.

WHAT DOES CAB QUALIFICATIONS HAVE TO DO WITH USDA ENFORCEMENT???

Not a damn thing!

Why don't you blame USDA for the problems in Iraq, that would be just as intelligent.


Conman: "You are right that with the current crowd at the USDA it will be another law on the books that is just ignored."

That's not what I said you damn liar!

I said "M"COOL, without a mandated ID system, will not be enforceable. You can't blame USDA for their inability to enforce a law that ignorant packer blamers made unenforceable.


Again, what is the point of your title? Explain to the viewers how I want the government to save consumers from themselves. You made the statement, now back it for once with at least an explanation.

Watch the diversion again..............


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "It's reassuring to know that what I post is so solid that you blamers have nothing to debate or discuss other than the manner in which I post. Par for the "factually void" blamer's course."

You don't get it. You're a joke here, SH. You've relegated yourself to "for amusement purposes only". You could change that if you wanted to.

SH, "I don't have a problem with anyone producing organic or hormone free beef if someone is willing to pay enough more for it to make it cost effective."

An example of your comedian status; You're fine with selling hormone free, knowing that consumers buy it thinking it is safer than regular beef, but you call selling BSE tested beef deception when consumers buy it for the very same reason.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
OT: "Sounds like ~Stuper Hero~ must have suffered another severe rejection from his prairie dog family......."

Once again, Ranchers.net viewers are given a window into the depth of the whiskey drinker's intelligence.


Conman: "SH, it could be enforced if the people who are responsible for the enforcing actually wanted to enforce it."

Another empty statement!

Explain how USDA can enforce the "ANGUS BEEF" designation?

Perhaps you can start with CAB qualifications that only require a black hide and the upper 2/3 of choice grade.

Perhaps I can help you with your understanding of that Lying King, it means that any black simmental, black chi, black maine, black gelbveih, and black saler can qualify for CAB if they are in the upper 2/3 grade for marbling.

WHAT DOES CAB QUALIFICATIONS HAVE TO DO WITH USDA ENFORCEMENT???

Not a damn thing!

Why don't you blame USDA for the problems in Iraq, that would be just as intelligent.


Conman: "You are right that with the current crowd at the USDA it will be another law on the books that is just ignored."

That's not what I said you damn liar!

I said "M"COOL, without a mandated ID system, will not be enforceable. You can't blame USDA for their inability to enforce a law that ignorant packer blamers made unenforceable.


Again, what is the point of your title? Explain to the viewers how I want the government to save consumers from themselves. You made the statement, now back it for once with at least an explanation.

Watch the diversion again..............


~SH~

WHAT DOES CAB QUALIFICATIONS HAVE TO DO WITH USDA ENFORCEMENT???

Truth in labeling.

I said "M"COOL, without a mandated ID system, will not be enforceable. You can't blame USDA for their inability to enforce a law that ignorant packer blamers made unenforceable.

The packer's influence on the legislation is what will make it unenforceable if that is how the bill finally comes out. They have done it before, they will definitely try it again.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Jim Riemann, President CAB LLC to USDA listening session:

"I encourage USDAs Labeling and Consumer Protection Staff to withdraw all current label approvals and withhold approval of all label applications that identify product as DNA verified Angus........................"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "You don't get it. You're a joke here, SH. You've relegated yourself to "for amusement purposes only". You could change that if you wanted to."

Hahaha! Listen to you! You have never corrected a single thing I have stated yet on beef or cattle issues with opposing facts.

I'm only a joke to you and your mindless packer blaming, USDA blaming, NCBA blaming, import blaming, R-CULT following support group because that's all you got.


Sandbag: "An example of your comedian status; You're fine with selling hormone free, knowing that consumers buy it thinking it is safer than regular beef, but you call selling BSE tested beef deception when consumers buy it for the very same reason."

This is a perfect example of your factually void positions. Hormone free beef could very well be safer than regular beef IF SOME PRODUCERS FAIL TO ADHERE TO PROPER WITHDRAWL TIMES.

In contrast, how does that compare with bse testing cattle under 24 months of age WITH A TEST THAT WILL NOT REVEAL BSE PRIONS IN CATTLE UNDER 24 MONTHS OF AGE???

There is no comparison!

A perfect example of how empty your positions are with your typical "APPLES" (hormone free beef) to "ORANGES" (fraudulent bse testing) comparisons.

Tell me again, what a joke I am Little Sandcheska! You are the joke in thinking that your apples to oranges "ILLUSIONS" can become fact just because that's what you WANT TO BELIEVE!

I have seen cattle slaughtered before where withdrawl times on antibiotics had not been adhered to. In that case, hormone free beef could very well be safer. You can't make that argument with bse tested beef from cattle under 2 months of age when the test that was used would not even reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age.

AS ALWAYS, YOU GOT NOTHING HERE, AGAIN!


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Truth in labeling."

DIVERSION!

Again, WHAT DOES CAB QUALIFICATIONS HAVE TO DO WITH USDA ENFORCEMENT????

CAB ALLOWS OTHER BREEDS so how can you blame USDA for that???

Like I said, you might as well blame USDA for the war in Iraq since that's just as stupid as blaming USDA for CAB qualifications.


Conman: "The packer's influence on the legislation is what will make it unenforceable if that is how the bill finally comes out. They have done it before, they will definitely try it again."

THE PACKERS DID NOT PROHIBIT "M"ID, "M"COOL PROPONENTS WHO DIDN'T WANT TO BE BURDENED WITH TRACEBACK DID.

You can't blame packer influence on a packer blamer's law.


Next empty statement..........


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Again, WHAT DOES CAB QUALIFICATIONS HAVE TO DO WITH USDA ENFORCEMENT????

Same answer, truth in labeling. It would be the same with organic or hormone free, in case you want to put your thinking cap on.

"The packer's influence on the legislation is what will make it unenforceable if that is how the bill finally comes out. They have done it before, they will definitely try it again."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "This is a perfect example of your factually void positions. Hormone free beef could very well be safer than regular beef IF SOME PRODUCERS FAIL TO ADHERE TO PROPER WITHDRAWL TIMES"

"Hormone Free" means no hormones, SH. There is no withdrawal time because there is NO HORMONE SHOTS.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lying King: "Same answer, truth in labeling. It would be the same with organic or hormone free, in case you want to put your thinking cap on."

Listen closely because you're not getting it again revealing your total ignorance for cattle/beef industry issues. CAB (CERTIFIED ANGUS BEEF) qualifications do not require cattle to be Angus, they only require cattle to have a black hide and be in the upper 2/3 of the marbling grade. You can't blame USDA for not enforcing the "angus designation" when CAB doesn't even require the cattle to be angus.

Can you comprehend that? No? Surprise, surprise!


Lying King: "The packer's influence on the legislation is what will make it unenforceable if that is how the bill finally comes out. They have done it before, they will definitely try it again."

The packers didn't have a damn thing to do with making "M"COOL unenforceable. Packer blamers that prohibited "M"ID from "M"COOL are what made "M"COOL unenforceable. If you weren't so damn stupid you'd know that.


Sandcheska: "Hormone Free" means no hormones, SH. There is no withdrawal time because there is NO HORMONE SHOTS."

First, I was talking about "regular beef" in regards to withdrawl times OH MASTER OF ILLUSION.

Second, hormones are normally given to cattle as implants, not as shots you idiot. Antibiotics are given as shots.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Quote:
Sandcheska: "Hormone Free" means no hormones, SH. There is no withdrawal time because there is NO HORMONE SHOTS."


SH, "First, I was talking about "regular beef" in regards to withdrawl times OH MASTER OF ILLUSION. Second, hormones are normally given to cattle as implants, not as shots you idiot. Antibiotics are given as shots."

I realize how hormones are given - I've done it. Point is, hormones and antibiotics are different things. "Hormone Free" doesn't mean "Anti-biotic Free" - thus your withdrawal time arguement doesn't apply - you're grasping at straws. The topic is hormone free verses non-hormone fee - antibiotics are a different topic. Quit trying to confuse the topic.

The facts are that people buy hormone free because they think it is safer - same as BSE tested beef. If one is deception, both of them are.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Point is, hormones and antibiotics are different things."

You have always combined "hormone free" and "organic" in the same worthless argument and now you want to split them because the "organic" dog obviously won't hunt? Hahaha!

I don't care either way Little Sandcheska! Neither dog will hunt!


Sandbag: "The facts are that people buy hormone free because they think it is safer - same as BSE tested beef. If one is deception, both of them are."

You are the one confusing the argument.

The argument is, ARE CONSUMERS GETTING WHAT THEY THINK THEY ARE GETTING????

In the case of "hormone free", that beef has to be hormone free.

In the case of "bse tested", consumers think that means bse free but that is not the case when cattle under 24 months of age are tested with a test that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age.

You keep clinging to this desperate attempt to justify Creekstone's consumer fraud plan and this dog simply won't hunt unless you want to try to make the stupid argument that consumers know "bse tested" does not mean "bse free".

This argument is still as empty as the last time you tried it and the time before that and the time before that............

There is no comparison between "hormone free" and "bse tested".

Hormone free is hormone free. Bse tested is not bse free. Apples to Oranges.

Keep making a fool of yourself with your empty comparison.


~SH~
 
Top