R-CALF paints harsh picture for resident cattle producers

[Tam]

By the way if you think "your almost only export market" is a true statement you are listening to R-CALF to must again we have told you many times we have over 50 markets open and I think it is probably over 60 by now. You are a far cry for our only market. :roll:

 

[mrj]

MRJ, " Don't forget those consumers choosing the organic products probably are choosing them as much for the higher quality than for the preceived "safety" of knowing where it comes from and how it was raised......which they CANNOT learn from the COOL label."

MRJ, marketers know that perception is huge in marketing your product. Pay attention to advertisements - they are generally selling an image - a perception moreso than the product. COOL would give US producers a huge angle on a marketable perception.

Sandhusker, how do you think that consumer is going to feel when that "perception" of high quality US beef is not fulfilled? Obviously not all beef is of highest quality........and consumers have been told for so long that it is, that I believe they are going to be darn angry when they see that "Product of USA" label on a package that doesn't meet their standards for quality. And don't bother to slam me for admitting that there is some USA beef that doesn't measure up. Surely we all know some people in this country who are NOT doing the necessary things to produce high quality beef. That is precisely why I believe labeling MUST be market driven, not government mandated. Government must assure safety, but quality is a negotiable item and those producing it should be paid for going the extra mile to provide it.

BTW, Sandhusker, I've "paid attention to advertising" beef. Certainly from the time the first beef checkoff advertising of beef was only a dream.....and look at the successes of that advertising as demonstrated in the vast numbers of people who know and recognize the "Beef It's What's For Dinner" ads and logo's!

Mike, when you say "COOL offered a near persect solution...." you forget that COOL, as written, PREVENTS identification of the US ranch of origin, so while what you propose sounds great, it it impossible under that law. Just another example of the fraud perpetrated on rancher and consumer alike by COOL!

MRJ

 

[Tommy]

mj...Sandhusker, how do you think that consumer is going to feel when that "perception" of high quality US beef is not fulfilled? Obviously not all beef is of highest quality........and consumers have been told for so long that it is, that I believe they are going to be darn angry when they see that "Product of USA" label on a package that doesn't meet their standards for quality.


What are they feeling now about perception mj? At least with COOL in stores, they could differenciate what country the bad steak came from. If it came from the USA, producers would be able to find out what the consumer preference was and could change to meet what consumers want. Like it is now, it is all lumped together and no one knows.

 

[mrj]

mj...Sandhusker, how do you think that consumer is going to feel when that "perception" of high quality US beef is not fulfilled? Obviously not all beef is of highest quality........and consumers have been told for so long that it is, that I believe they are going to be darn angry when they see that "Product of USA" label on a package that doesn't meet their standards for quality.


What are they feeling now about perception mj? At least with COOL in stores, they could differenciate what country the bad steak came from. If it came from the USA, producers would be able to find out what the consumer preference was and could change to meet what consumers want. Like it is now, it is all lumped together and no one knows.

Tommy, are you very sure they could make that differentiation? I've been told that best beef from both Canada and the USA goes into the "white tablecloth" trade and the up-scale export markets. I do not know if that holds true today. Does anyone have the FACTS on that situation? How difficult is it for retailers or for restaurants in the mid-west, for instance, to get high quality beef to sell......high Choice or better? And can they find out if it is product of USA, or of Canada?

MRJ

MRJ

 

[Murgen]

What are they feeling now about perception mj? At least with COOL in stores, they could differenciate what country the bad steak came from. If it came from the USA, producers would be able to find out what the consumer preference was and could change to meet what consumers want. Like it is now, it is all lumped together and no one knows

Differenciating between country is different than Differenciating product. Branded beef products differenciate product, contracts allow for Branded beef products.

If the industry restricted Captive supplies, sold on cash markets, and had COOL, all you would have is product sold and packaged on "average", without packers being able to create efficiencies. Are the packers going to pass along those savings from efficiencies, not always. But they do when it comes to captive supplies somewhat, in the form of contracts etc.

If you have an "average" product labelled "US", what product will take the backlash for being inconsistent? While other countries are shipping to the US, differenciated product.

You may hold the consumer who is loyal to a US produced product for awhile, but demand will slip, and they will look to another product for their best "value"

 

[Tam]

mj...Sandhusker, how do you think that consumer is going to feel when that "perception" of high quality US beef is not fulfilled? Obviously not all beef is of highest quality........and consumers have been told for so long that it is, that I believe they are going to be darn angry when they see that "Product of USA" label on a package that doesn't meet their standards for quality.


What are they feeling now about perception mj? At least with COOL in stores, they could differenciate what country the bad steak came from. If it came from the USA, producers would be able to find out what the consumer preference was and could change to meet what consumers want. Like it is now, it is all lumped together and no one knows.

At least with COOL in stores, they could differenciate what country the bad steak came from

Tommy if you go to a fancy restaurant and order an expensive steak and You get sick, is it not just as much your right to know where that steak came from as the one you bought at the grocery store and grilled yourself? And don't you think it is the right of the owner of the fancy restaurant to know where that meat came from so he doesn't make the mistake of ordering it again? Why is it so much more important that consumers of beef in a grocery store know What country their beef comes from when as we have been told so many time 95% of it is from the US, than it is for customers at a restaurant to know, when most of it is imported from a number of countries? And if all the beef in the grocery store is marked Product of the USA couldn't that also leave the perception that all restaurant and fast food chain food is also USA because it is not labeled otherwise.

If it came from the USA, producers would be able to find out what the consumer preference was and could change to meet what consumers want.

In the case of you getting sick wouldn't it be better to know where in the US it came from? So that producer would have to change his practices not all those that raise good beef. Do you think it is going to be eazy to get that producer to change his habits when you give him an deniability factor. If you can't prove it was him is he going to change his ways NO. By putting a COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABEL on with out M"ID" you as a producer are taking on the reputation of every other producer good or bad in the US. Think about the last bad steak you had do you want US consumer to think your beef is the same just because it has Product of USA label on it. :???:

 

[Mike]

MRJ wrote:

Mike, when you say "COOL offered a near persect solution...." you forget that COOL, as written, PREVENTS identification of the US ranch of origin, so while what you propose sounds great, it it impossible under that law. Just another example of the fraud perpetrated on rancher and consumer alike by COOL!

MRJ

COOL as written, does NOT prevent ID from ranch of origin!

It only prevents the guvment from mandating any particular system of ID.

The industry could have come up with one that all agreed on and made it work.

 

[Tommy]

Tam...Tommy if you go to a fancy restaurant and order an expensive steak and You get sick, is it not just as much your right to know where that steak came from as the one you bought at the grocery store and grilled yourself? And don't you think it is the right of the owner of the fancy restaurant to know where that meat came from so he doesn't make the mistake of ordering it again? Why is it so much more important that consumers of beef in a grocery store know What country their beef comes from when as we have been told so many time 95% of it is from the US, than it is for customers at a restaurant to know, when most of it is imported from a number of countries? And if all the beef in the grocery store is marked Product of the USA couldn't that also leave the perception that all restaurant and fast food chain food is also USA because it is not labeled otherwise.


I agree with you Tam, but the NCBA and others got the food service exemption put in when they saw that the COOL law was going to pass. Getting it in stores is a first step in my opinion. When consumers see it in stores, I believe they will ask for it in food service as well.

 

[Murgen]

I agree with you Tam, but the NCBA and others got the food service exemption put in when they saw that the COOL law was going to pass. Getting it in stores is a first step in my opinion. When consumers see it in stores, I believe they will ask for it in food service as well

Provide the consistent product and then it will be requested. (then you would be getting closer to "brand loyality) It's hard to audit quality control without Ranch/animal verification. Label a product that is most likely 95% eligible, it even becomes tougher to satisfy differenceiated consumer desires.

All you will do is increase costs to the industry, without providing an added benefit. Unless you are adding a perceived benefit to the "cattle" producers. But I'm sure the "beef' producers, relying on selling to the consumer and not just their customer, will eventually realize a larger loyality from both their customer and consumer.

 

[RobertMac]

Miss Tam, the exemption was put into the COOL law to get enough votes to get a bill passed...it's called incremental politics. SH won't admit to it because it blows his "food service" argument and as you seem to be an SH clone(using all his same red herrings), I don't expect you to admit to it either. Most all laws are viewed as flawed by someone...packers certainly think the PSA is flawed!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: And that same COOL law is working for fish with no problems...is the problem with beef or the beef packers?????

For the most part, Canadian producers work for Tyson and Cargill(and most producers don't seem to support Randy and his group that are trying to develop a Canadian beef industry). All your ID information means nothing to the consumer because it doesn't get to the consumer. It is Tyson and Cargill that are deleting that information...they don't want the USA consumer to know that some of the beef they sell comes from Canada. If all your beef is truly of high quality, then they are really giving Canadian producers the shaft. Get off your R-CALF hatred and blame, and concentrate on your real problems. As I have said before, I have no problem with Canadians selling beef in the USA...just have it labeled as Canadian beef to the consumer!!!!

 

[Econ101]

Most of the risk getting bad beef is in the processing stage. Why are we only talking about COOL here? We need a regulatory agency that has the nuts to enforce standards, not one who just likes to sweep under the rug. COOL would help consumer differentiate between how well a country's regulators do their jobs. It is just another check and balance to industry power over regulators. It should not hurt ANY producer country that does its job well.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with you Robert.

Tyson and Cargill should sell "source verified Maple Leaf Beef" so the success of that product could kick R-CULT's isolationist trade barrier right in the teeth. I think that would be bitter sweet for the Canadian producer after dealing with R-CULT's lies about the safety of their product.

R-CULT really needs to be introduced to their ignorance in assuming that conumsers are only loyal to U.S. products.

RM: "Miss Tam, the exemption was put into the COOL law to get enough votes to get a bill passed...it's called incremental politics. SH won't admit to it because it blows his "food service" argument and as you seem to be an SH clone(using all his same red herrings), I don't expect you to admit to it either."

Admit to what?

That you R-CULT clones want a flawed, unenforceable law that segregates 5% of our total beef consumption as a novelty item, to the benefit of that novelty item, at the expense of labeling all beef WHEN CONSUMERS AREN'T EVEN ASKING FOR IT and if they were they would have source verified branded beef products as an alternative.

"PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE ME FROM MYSELF. I DON'T BELIEVE ENOUGH IN MYSELF AND THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE CONSUMERS WITH WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR SO WE NEED FLAWED, UNENFORCEABLE "M"COOL TO PROVIDE WHAT THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR"

You government mandate dependants are so pathetic.


Robert,

You haven't corrected me on this issue with facts to the contrary yet.

"M"COOL is an absolute joke!


You want to talk about the ultimate hypocrisy? Everything R-CULT does creates further concentration in this industry. Fighting to keep the Canadian border closed further concentrated the packing industry in the U.S. and Canada. THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT! "M"COOL will accomplish the same thing.

Smaller less efficient plants could not compete with larger more efficient plants when cattle supplies were reduced in the U.S. due in part to a lack of Canadian cattle.

Smaller less efficient packing plants will not be able to afford the technology required to make "M"COOL enforceable. Small packers testified to this very issue during "M"COOL listening sessions but none of the R-CULTers were paying attention.

R-CULT is like a bad cancer to this industry.


~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

Most of the risk getting bad beef is in the processing stage. Why are we only talking about COOL here? We need a regulatory agency that has the nuts to enforce standards, not one who just likes to sweep under the rug. COOL would help consumer differentiate between how well a country's regulators do their jobs. It is just another check and balance to industry power over regulators. It should not hurt ANY producer country that does its job well.

Stress is the underlying culprit of most bad beef.

 

[RobertMac]

.SH, you missed this one...or should I say AVOIDED...

RM: "And that same COOL law is working for fish with no problems...is the problem with beef or the beef packers????? "

And some states...like the state of Mississippi...have COOL laws NOW THAT ARE WORKING!!!!!!

Let's all say it together....RED HERRING :lol: :lol: :lol:

Here's a couple of questions for you...

Why are Tyson and Cargill not labeling Canadian beef as such, if it is so good????? Would be a big profit center for them!!!!! :? :???:

Do you think the PSA is a flawed law?????

Unlike you, SH, I'm in the free enterprise system working to provide what my customers are asking for and I believe in myself enough that I have never worked for someone else since I graduated from college in 1977. Go try to blow your R-CALF hatred smoke up someone else's butt, Mr. Federal Government worker!!!!!

I apologize...I just called you a bad name!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Robert Mac: "Go try to blow your R-CALF hatred smoke up someone else's butt, Mr. Federal Government worker!!!!!"

First off, I don't work for the Federal Goverment you moron, I work for the Department of Game, Fish, and Parks because I like trapping and hunting problem predators as much as I like cattle production.

You want to lecture on "RED HERRINGS" after tossing that one out? LOL!

You blamers are all the same. I swear there is a factory somewhere that spits you out.

RM: "Why are Tyson and Cargill not labeling Canadian beef as such, if it is so good????? Would be a big profit center for them!!!!!"

Why don't you ask Tyson and Cargill?

If the "M"COOL listening sessions are any indication, it is probably due to the expenses of segregation. If they could guarantee enough Canadian cattle to designate certain shifts to those cattle and assure proper labeling, they probably would.

RM: "Do you think the PSA is a flawed law?????"

From the standpoint of discrimination, YES. I believe any company should be able to conduct business with whomever they want and refuse business to whom ever they want. I hate "socialized cattle marketing" and that's what this law is promoting.

From the standpoint of price fixing, NO. I think laws should be in place to assure that markets remain competitive from price fixing and scandals that are legitimately anti-competitive.

I think the law is outdated and needs to reflect legitimate concerns rather than "PERCEIVED" concerns.

If I was a packer I would like the right to choose who I conduct business with.



~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

First off, I don't work for the Federal Government you moron, I work for the Department of Game, Fish, and Parks...

I did apologize, you m...I ain't going there. I'll have to have someone from South Dakota tell me if that's an improvement or not!?!?!? :???:

If the "M"COOL listening sessions are any indication, it is probably due to the expenses of segregation. If they could guarantee enough Canadian cattle to designate certain shifts to those cattle and assure proper labeling, they probably would.

OH, I guess it is doable. Small and medium plants wouldn't have the "expenses of segregation" for certain designated shifts!?!?!! Large packers must not like the shift in competitive edge???? Unjust competitive practices between packers...doesn't that come under the PSA according to Judge Strom??????? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think the law is outdated and needs to reflect legitimate concerns rather than "PERCEIVED" concerns.

The legitimate legislative concern at the time was that a group of five packers were going to combine to form National Beef and have a 40% market share. Today the fact that one packer, Tyson, has a 30% market share is not a "legitimate concern"?????????

You obviously have a computer problem...you missed this one again...

And that same COOL law is working for fish with no problems...is the problem with beef or the beef packers?????

And some states...like the state of Mississippi...have COOL laws NOW THAT ARE WORKING!!!!!!

:???: :? :???: :? :???: