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

Real Cost of Hamburger

Help Support Ranchers.net:

RobertMac; I believe the reason Fast Food Joints use vegetable Oils instead of Beef tallow is because of self live and not nutrition. I think the real problem we need to work on is finding other ways Fast food Joints serve beef . Clearly the cost of beef compared to chicken is not a problem since most people pay the same or more for chicken products in these Fast Food Joints. It's amazing how much people will pay for something new in food products( remember KFC'S popcorn chicken).
 
Fats and Oils and Their Impact on Health
By Mary G. Enig, PhD

I want to address the topic of food fats and oils and their impact on health, because fat represents an important nutrient that was negatively impacted by the forerunner to the planned National Nutrition Summit, namely, the 1969 White House Conference on Foods and Nutrition and the resulting McGovern Committee hearings in the 1970s, which produced the Dietary Goals. These Dietary Goals and later Guidelines have been largely responsible for promoting an unbalanced intake of the fat components of our diets. Natural fats such as butter, tallow, lard, and palm and coconut oils have been relegated to the garbage heap, and the man-made fats such as the widely-used, partially hydrogenated shortenings and margarines, and excessive polyunsaturated oils, have been promoted as if they were magic medicine. That is just the opposite of what we should be doing because those natural fats and oils have components found only in them, which are health-promoting, and their replacements are now known to be disease-causing.

The 1969 White House Conference produced the New Foods Document, which promoted the acceptance of imitation foods as if they were real foods. This has led to a major decline in the quality of our foods and especially in the quality of food fats. It has led to the open promotion of genetically-modified foods that suit the production of processed fats, and has also led to a decline in quality and uses of our farm-produced fats.

Now, 30 years later, there may be an opportunity to correct some of the mistakes. It is necessary, however, for those who will be in charge of the forthcoming Summit to make an effort to become properly educated as to the changes in the diet that occurred during the intervening 30 years, which have resulted in the situation we have today. We are confronted with the problems of widespread obesity, runaway diabetes in adults, ever-increasing cancer incidence rates, immune dysfunction, a continuing increase in heart disease rates, and growth and development problems in our young.

In 1970, the FDA prepared an internal memo that said the trans fatty acids in the food supply should be identified. Thirty years later the FDA has proposed the cloudy labeling of the trans fats under an unsuitable saturated fats umbrella. In the intervening 30 years in my former position as a fats, oils, and lipids researcher in a university lipids laboratory, I have frequently pointed out to various agencies, through reports to the appropriate dockets, that ignoring the levels of trans fatty acids in foods has prevented us from having accurate data on fat composition of our diets. As a result of being misled, we have a consuming public terrified of natural fats and oils—a public, which, by its avoidance of these natural fats and oils, and consumption of fabricated, man-manipulated fat and oil replacements, such as the trans fats and the unstable polyunsaturates, is becoming increasingly obese and ill.

This attempt by the FDA to tar the wholesome saturated fats with the sins of the trans fats so as to promote in the minds of the consumers the idea that they are both the same, is not supported by real science. Biologically, the saturates and the trans have totally opposite effects; the effects of the saturates are good and those of the trans are undesirable.

By considering a proposal which would put trans fats and saturated fats together on nutrition labels, the FDA is simply responding favorably to a petition by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which is a transparent and ingenious effort by the CSPI and its mostly vegetarian nutritionist staff to malign the dairy and meat industries by having consumers incorrectly associate animal products with trans fat.

Many of you at this meeting may not have been born by 1969. Those of us who were adults at that time know the extent to which the "new foods" really are imitation foods even though they are not labeled as such.

About the Author

Mary G. Enig, PhD is the author of Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils, and Cholesterol, Bethesda Press, May 2000.
 
cowzilla said:
RobertMac; I believe the reason Fast Food Joints use vegetable Oils instead of Beef tallow is because of self live and not nutrition.

Beef and mutton tallow are 50-55% saturated, about 40% monounsaturated and contain small amounts of the polyunsaturated, usually less than 3%. Suet, which is the fat from the cavity of the animal, is 70-80% saturated. Suet and tallow are very stable fats and can be used for frying. Traditional cultures valued these fats for their health benefits. they are a good source of antimicrobial palmitoleic acid.

Safflower, corn, sunflower, soybean and cottonseed oils all contain over 50% omega-6 and, except for soybean oil, only minimal amounts of omega-3. Safflower oil contains almost 80% omega-6. Research continues to accumulate on the dangers of excess omega-6 oils in the diet, whether rancid or not. Use of these oils should be strictly limited. They should never be consumed after they have been heated, as in cooking, frying or baking.

...from "Nourishing Traditions"
 
Why did it take so long for the 3 oz beef vs the 8.5 chicken breasts ads to be used. The checkoff has had this information for years. No sneak attack here, just wondering why.
 
RobertMac; I believe the reason Fast Food Joints use vegetable Oils instead of Beef tallow is because of self live and not nutrition.

Actually another reason is to cater to vegetarians and certain Religions that do not want to eat beef products!

MacDonalds, I believe, used to use beef tallow, but discontinued, after losing sales, due to an animal byproduct being used!
 
RobertMac said:
Econ101 said:
And there are no such limitations on Tyson advertising. They are running circles around the Beef checkoff. All Tyson has to do is get some one sided studies that they fund and off they go. Arsenic in poultry feed a perfect example.

MRJ, As I stated before, if the Beef Checkoff is not captive to the packing interests at the USDA, then why can they not advertise against chicken on this issue.

And who is charge of the majority of OUR BEEF product...Tyson and friends.
And who is displacing hamburgers with chicken sandwiches...Tyson and friends.
Tyson and friends are going to do what is best for them, NOT CATTLEMEN!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

RM, Tyson does not make consumers eat chicken. That choice is the sole domain of the consumer. You are so biased against Tyson you cannot even acknowledge all the new beef poducts they are bringing to market to improve beef demand.

What is best for Tyson is to grow demand for all the products they produce. They do not sacrifice one for the other as you have previously espoused. You may choose to run your business that way but I can assure you Tyson does not. Perhaps that is why they are successful and recognized as number one in product innovation and service to their customers. BTW, that was the result of a survey of 10,000 respondents conducted by the food service industry.
 
Murgen said:
Actually another reason is to cater to vegetarians and certain Religions that do not want to eat beef products!

MacDonalds, I believe, used to use beef tallow, but discontinued, after losing sales, due to an animal byproduct being used!

Murgen, I can't believe you wrote this...McDonalds quit using beef tallow to cook their fries to attract vegetarians and non-beef eating Religions to eat their HAMBURGER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????? And what percentage of the population are these people that wouldn't be going to McDonalds ANYWAY?????????????????

I agree with your second statement, but it's not because of it being an animal byproduct (that is mostly a post-BSE issue). Tallow is a victim of the Edible Oil Industry lobby and their lying propaganda. Physics and chemistry prove that saturated oils are more stable at high temperature and polyunsaturated oils(vegetable oils) become rancid at high temperatures. More medical proof is exposing the fact that rancid oils are detrimental to human health.
 
agman said:
RobertMac said:
Econ101 said:
And there are no such limitations on Tyson advertising. They are running circles around the Beef checkoff. All Tyson has to do is get some one sided studies that they fund and off they go. Arsenic in poultry feed a perfect example.

MRJ, As I stated before, if the Beef Checkoff is not captive to the packing interests at the USDA, then why can they not advertise against chicken on this issue.

And who is charge of the majority of OUR BEEF product...Tyson and friends.
And who is displacing hamburgers with chicken sandwiches...Tyson and friends.
Tyson and friends are going to do what is best for them, NOT CATTLEMEN!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

RM, Tyson does not make consumers eat chicken. That choice is the sole domain of the consumer. You are so biased against Tyson you cannot even acknowledge all the new beef poducts they are bringing to market to improve beef demand.

What is best for Tyson is to grow demand for all the products they produce. They do not sacrifice one for the other as you have previously espoused. You may choose to run your business that way but I can assure you Tyson does not. Perhaps that is why they are successful and recognized as number one in product innovation and service to their customers. BTW, that was the result of a survey of 10,000 respondents conducted by the food service industry.

Agman, you said nothing to contradict what I said while trying to put a smiley face on Tyson. Are not Tyson and other poultry processors helping to put chicken sandwiches in traditional beef markets? Certainly they are,that's good business...for them, not beef producers!

Aren't Tyson and other major beef processors using high cattle and beef prices to lobby Congress and the Administration to open trade with more beef producing countries to increase beef supplies to lower cost to the consumer(and to lower their cost of raw product...bad for beef producers)? The Sec. of Ag. has said this!!!!!!!!!

My problem with Tyson is that their bottom line does not correspond with cattlemen's bottom line like a beef only processor's does. A beef only processor would be helping McDonalds sell more hamburgers, not replacing hamburgers with chicken sandwiches!!!!!!!!! :mad:
Take care and have a cold one this afternoon...TGIF, Robert
 
MURGEN I thought other relegion's don't eat Pork ,<<Actually another reason is to cater to vegetarians and certain Religions that do not want to eat beef products!
 
Some will not eat the beef if it is not Halal. And yes, vegetarians were going to sue McDonalds at one time, due to cooking vegetables (fries) in animal fat.
 
fedup2 said:
Why did it take so long for the 3 oz beef vs the 8.5 chicken breasts ads to be used. The checkoff has had this information for years. No sneak attack here, just wondering why.

I'm not so sure they have had the info for very long, but could be wrong.

Just remember some excitement over getting it confirmed and that doesn't seem long ago, but then again, time really flies when we are having so much fun.

Anyway, I'm checking on it.

But, you know, you can check things like that for yourself at www.beefboard.org, or by emailing [email protected]. You do not need to be a member of NCBA....that one is the Cattlemens Beef Board website, and any cattle producer, or anyone else, I guess, can to to it, or to email Monte Reese with questions.

MRJ
 
RobertMac said:
agman said:
RobertMac said:
And who is charge of the majority of OUR BEEF product...Tyson and friends.
And who is displacing hamburgers with chicken sandwiches...Tyson and friends.
Tyson and friends are going to do what is best for them, NOT CATTLEMEN!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

RM, Tyson does not make consumers eat chicken. That choice is the sole domain of the consumer. You are so biased against Tyson you cannot even acknowledge all the new beef poducts they are bringing to market to improve beef demand.

What is best for Tyson is to grow demand for all the products they produce. They do not sacrifice one for the other as you have previously espoused. You may choose to run your business that way but I can assure you Tyson does not. Perhaps that is why they are successful and recognized as number one in product innovation and service to their customers. BTW, that was the result of a survey of 10,000 respondents conducted by the food service industry.

Agman, you said nothing to contradict what I said while trying to put a smiley face on Tyson. Are not Tyson and other poultry processors helping to put chicken sandwiches in traditional beef markets? Certainly they are,that's good business...for them, not beef producers!

Aren't Tyson and other major beef processors using high cattle and beef prices to lobby Congress and the Administration to open trade with more beef producing countries to increase beef supplies to lower cost to the consumer(and to lower their cost of raw product...bad for beef producers)? The Sec. of Ag. has said this!!!!!!!!!

My problem with Tyson is that their bottom line does not correspond with cattlemen's bottom line like a beef only processor's does. A beef only processor would be helping McDonalds sell more hamburgers, not replacing hamburgers with chicken sandwiches!!!!!!!!! :mad:
Take care and have a cold one this afternoon...TGIF, Robert

No RM, I just presented the other side of the Tyson beef story which you fail to acknowledge. They are making more investments into beef than they are chicken. Adding value to beef is the future of Tyson. Presently 48% of the carcass ends up in ground beef, the lowest cost and margin item. Do you not think with their marketing skill and product development skill that they do not recognize the opportunity to add value to that product. Go into a major supermarket and look at all the processed and pre-cooked beef items developed and marketed now by Tyson. The other major packers are involved in similar product development to establish a brand name and grow market share.


They are aggressively promoting hamburger, it may not always be visible to you. They are on the forefront with a major hamburger chain at the present time that could very well change how business is conducted. This process will tie producers directly to end user values. It is very complex marketing and risk management model and there are many hurdles yet to cross. However, I am confident that this process will be implemented in due time as the model is fully developed to all participants satisfaction including those producers who sign on.

Beef imports existed and grew before Tyson got involved with beef and the recent cyclical price advance occurred. Check the records. They are lobbying to get import tariffs reduced to export more beef. Point: Korea has a 40% tariff on beef imports. If that tariff were cut in half how many more Korean consumers could afford U.S. beef? The fact is that other than Canadian imports Tyson and other major packers import very little meat from other countries. Most beef imports go to processors and or distributors other than major packers. That is a fact RM.

Consumers make the choice as to how they will spend their hard earned dollars. It behooves everyone in the beef business to understand that simple fact of life. It is the responsibility of the beef industry, including beef producers, to provide what the consumer wants at a price that is competitive to the other proteins.

Yes Tyson promotes chicken, but they also promote beef. Both are good business practices and are consistent with their protein offerings. If consumers rejected those chicken sandwiches do you think McD's would continue to offer chicken sandwiches? I think not. Have an excellent corn-fed well aged steak tonight!! Have a cool one too.
 
48% of the carcass weight winds up as ground beef? Wow that is higher than I would have expected.

Does that mean many chucks are still being ground instead of making roasts?

I was having the chucks ground after taking the flat iron steaks out on my animals for freezer beef, however I was getting too much grind, close to that 50% mark I guess. I now have roasts made of the chucks after the cap for the flat iron is removed. The roasts are nicer with no seam of fat running through them.
 
Jason said:
48% of the carcass weight winds up as ground beef? Wow that is higher than I would have expected.

Does that mean many chucks are still being ground instead of making roasts?

I was having the chucks ground after taking the flat iron steaks out on my animals for freezer beef, however I was getting too much grind, close to that 50% mark I guess. I now have roasts made of the chucks after the cap for the flat iron is removed. The roasts are nicer with no seam of fat running through them.

Some chucks are still being ground. The removal of seam fat has been an industry standard initiated by IBP in the early 90's. At the same time they went to 1/4 inch trim from 3/4 to 1 inch because of consumer demand to have external fat trimmed from the product. Obvioulsy this adds to the fat availabe as 50/50 trim which in turn requires more lean trim to absorb the increased production of 50/50 trim. Thus, lean trim imports are up to reflect this need.
 
agman said:
Jason said:
48% of the carcass weight winds up as ground beef? Wow that is higher than I would have expected.

Does that mean many chucks are still being ground instead of making roasts?

I was having the chucks ground after taking the flat iron steaks out on my animals for freezer beef, however I was getting too much grind, close to that 50% mark I guess. I now have roasts made of the chucks after the cap for the flat iron is removed. The roasts are nicer with no seam of fat running through them.

Some chucks are still being ground. The removal of seam fat has been an industry standard initiated by IBP in the early 90's. At the same time they went to 1/4 inch trim from 3/4 to 1 inch because of consumer demand to have external fat trimmed from the product. Obvioulsy this adds to the fat availabe as 50/50 trim which in turn requires more lean trim to absorb the increased production of 50/50 trim. Thus, lean trim imports are up to reflect this need.

Lean trim imports may be up, Agman, but they do not help the domestic producers as you falsely claim. They help the packer or grinder and they may help the consumer. They also help the people selling the material to be imported. Now I am not going to call you names and say how stupid and how little you or others know about this industry. That is baby stuff. I do appreciate the fact that you did bring your own facts and numbers to the table instead of asking me to do it for you.

Jason, my wife has a cookbook on ground beef. There are some good recipes in there. Your insistence on having chuck as a roast is a personal preference just like my wife's insistence on having ground round in some recipes is a personal preference. That is the great thing about freedom of choice. We all get to do what it is that brings us the highest utility.
 
Jason; A lot of people don't like to cook chuck roasts. They look wastefull and are not very presentable. In most butcher shops they would sit too long before they would be used. Our consumers ( mostly city folk ) just woun't buy them. When your a country kid you eat what's put in front of you or do without :!: Remember it's about immage and chuck blade Roasts look unheathly ( a least to city folk) :wink:
 
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Jason said:
48% of the carcass weight winds up as ground beef? Wow that is higher than I would have expected.

Does that mean many chucks are still being ground instead of making roasts?

I was having the chucks ground after taking the flat iron steaks out on my animals for freezer beef, however I was getting too much grind, close to that 50% mark I guess. I now have roasts made of the chucks after the cap for the flat iron is removed. The roasts are nicer with no seam of fat running through them.

Some chucks are still being ground. The removal of seam fat has been an industry standard initiated by IBP in the early 90's. At the same time they went to 1/4 inch trim from 3/4 to 1 inch because of consumer demand to have external fat trimmed from the product. Obvioulsy this adds to the fat availabe as 50/50 trim which in turn requires more lean trim to absorb the increased production of 50/50 trim. Thus, lean trim imports are up to reflect this need.

Lean trim imports may be up, Agman, but they do not help the domestic producers as you falsely claim. They help the packer or grinder and they may help the consumer. They also help the people selling the material to be imported. Now I am not going to call you names and say how stupid and how little you or others know about this industry. That is baby stuff. I do appreciate the fact that you did bring your own facts and numbers to the table instead of asking me to do it for you.

Jason, my wife has a cookbook on ground beef. There are some good recipes in there. Your insistence on having chuck as a roast is a personal preference just like my wife's insistence on having ground round in some recipes is a personal preference. That is the great thing about freedom of choice. We all get to do what it is that brings us the highest utility.

You bring facts and figures...who are you kidding? Why did you change the subject from beef to chicken? What data did you supply? You answer a direct question? You are so delusional it is pathetic. You are the cattle industry's version of "Bagdad Bob".

If laughter is the "best medicine" then you truly serve a valid purpose. You have made me laugh again. The best one yet is your attempt to explain supply & demand. You should submit that one for peer review!!!

As previously stated, imports that add "value" or are converted to "value added" product are beneficial to our beef industry but that is beyond your comprehension ability. Also, what relevance is it that your wife has a cookbook for ground beef. That reference, choice, undermines your own position.
 
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Some chucks are still being ground. The removal of seam fat has been an industry standard initiated by IBP in the early 90's. At the same time they went to 1/4 inch trim from 3/4 to 1 inch because of consumer demand to have external fat trimmed from the product. Obvioulsy this adds to the fat availabe as 50/50 trim which in turn requires more lean trim to absorb the increased production of 50/50 trim. Thus, lean trim imports are up to reflect this need.

Lean trim imports may be up, Agman, but they do not help the domestic producers as you falsely claim. They help the packer or grinder and they may help the consumer. They also help the people selling the material to be imported. Now I am not going to call you names and say how stupid and how little you or others know about this industry. That is baby stuff. I do appreciate the fact that you did bring your own facts and numbers to the table instead of asking me to do it for you.

Jason, my wife has a cookbook on ground beef. There are some good recipes in there. Your insistence on having chuck as a roast is a personal preference just like my wife's insistence on having ground round in some recipes is a personal preference. That is the great thing about freedom of choice. We all get to do what it is that brings us the highest utility.

You bring facts and figures...who are you kidding? Why did you change the subject from beef to chicken? What data did you supply? You answer a direct question? You are so delusional it is pathetic. You are the cattle industry's version of "Bagdad Bob".

If laughter is the "best medicine" then you truly serve a valid purpose. You have made me laugh again. The best one yet is your attempt to explain supply & demand. You should submit that one for peer review!!!

As previously stated, imports that add "value" or are converted to "value added" product are beneficial to our beef industry but that is beyond your comprehension ability. Also, what relevance is it that your wife has a cookbook for ground beef. That reference, choice, undermines your own position.

Are you saying that I did not bring facts and figures? I have been talking about the meat industries and Tyson in particular while you try to make little cases on only one sector of Tyson's business. Tysons can have any one sector(chicken) not make money and operate at a loss to drive out the competition in another sector(beef). They use little arguments like you bring up to have a salesman's pitch to get away what they do. They are false arguments. I am sorry that it gets under your skin when I point these things out. Go ahead, call names, tell me I don't know what is going on. Everytime you do it, you show your tell.

I do appreciate it when you bring real numbers to the argument. You even surpriesed Jason that Tyson routinely grinds as many chucks as they do instead of selling them as a more "high value" roast. You continually support the positions I have with every little bit of factual information you bring to the table.

Post your address, I might send you a copy of one of the hamburger meat cookbooks for Christmas.

By the way, I am glad that I humor you. Laughter is the best medicine for living wih what you have to live with.
 
The real cost of hamburger is what you pay at retail,and there is a big markup between my pasture and Meyers Markets and half of that weight is not what I would eat at home.As thin as some burgers are then some cows are worth a thousand dollars a peice.You figure that lettece ,onions,relish,and the bun plus extras cost more than the BEEF.
 
MRJ I have bookmarked so many articles and made so many folders in the last month, that I am having a hard time finding anything. LOL! I will move some to the word program and write a brief description so I can find things. I will run across the local impact of packing plants again and will post the url for you.

As far as the chicken protein vs beef info, I read an article that compared beef to chicken, tuna, pork etc. The date on the quoted 8.5 chicken breast information was 1998. When you brought this up a while back I thought it was something new. That is why I was wondering why it took almost seven years to use this information.
 

Latest posts

Top