A
Anonymous
Guest
WRONG AGAIN!
NEXT!
~SH~
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Real Cost of Hamburger
- Thread starter cowzilla
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
WRONG AGAIN!
NEXT!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Sandbag: "You're forgetting one thing, SH. YOU HAVEN'T PAID THE AUSSIES YET. Who takes the lighter check so they can get paid?"
WRONG AGAIN!
SH (previous): "$200 for the chucks and rounds + $300 for the 75/25 lean ground - the $100 cost of the lean imports = $400."
NEXT!
~SH~
Who takes the lighter check? You've got four hands in the pot instead of three.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "Who takes the lighter check?"
The person who ground the chucks and rounds makes less than the person who sold the chucks and rounds at $2.00 and imported lean trimmings at $1.00 per pound to blend with the 50/50 trim.
I knew you'd be too dense to figure it out.
Sandbag: "You've got four hands in the pot instead of three."
Another fabricated lie!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Quote:
Sandbag: "You've got four hands in the pot instead of three."
SH, "Another fabricated lie!"
Here is your very own quote, SH, "The producer, the consumer, and the packer." You add the Aussies and you have four. Maybe the "fabricated lie" was in your original statement? :lol:
Sandbag: "You've got four hands in the pot instead of three."
SH, "Another fabricated lie!"
Here is your very own quote, SH, "The producer, the consumer, and the packer." You add the Aussies and you have four. Maybe the "fabricated lie" was in your original statement? :lol:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Who made the most money Sandbag?
The packer who ground the chucks and rounds or the packer who sold the chucks and rounds and imported lean trimmings to blend with the 50/50 trim?
~SH~
The packer who ground the chucks and rounds or the packer who sold the chucks and rounds and imported lean trimmings to blend with the 50/50 trim?
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Who made the most money Sandbag?
The packer who ground the chucks and rounds or the packer who sold the chucks and rounds and imported lean trimmings to blend with the 50/50 trim?
~SH~
Quit diverting, SH. Everybody and their dog on this board knows why the packer uses the crap instead of US chucks - why do you keep bringing up that strawman?
You want to tell us where the Aussies cut came from?
~SH~ said:Who made the most money Sandbag?
The packer who ground the chucks and rounds or the packer who sold the chucks and rounds and imported lean trimmings to blend with the 50/50 trim?
~SH~
So I guess you should dance on over and give your advice on how domestic producers make money by importing meat from Australia, SH. Tell them how it helps them, SH. Show your little proof. You show how ridiculous you are every time you post. That consumer who went to the store and bought your little package of meat that was imported passed over the chuck roasts and decided to have hamburgers or meatloaf or whatever she made with ground beef.
Are you telling us that she bought a round or a chuck too and gorged her family because she saw imported meat at such a great deal?
Can anyone tell us where/how consumers desire for lower fat ground beef fits into these questions of sourcing of the components (imported very lean beef mixed with domestic fatty trim)?
I realize the discriminating consumer can go to a butcher shop or locker plant, or other source available and choose ground round or whatever one wants with whatever percent of lean to fat desired.
We need the varying degrees such as 70%lean/30%fat.....on through to 93%lean/7%fat to satisfy the different customers' choices, IMO, but I'm not sure how that meshes with the imported vs domestic question.
MRJ
I realize the discriminating consumer can go to a butcher shop or locker plant, or other source available and choose ground round or whatever one wants with whatever percent of lean to fat desired.
We need the varying degrees such as 70%lean/30%fat.....on through to 93%lean/7%fat to satisfy the different customers' choices, IMO, but I'm not sure how that meshes with the imported vs domestic question.
MRJ
A
Anonymous
Guest
Quit diverting, Sandbag!
Who made the most money? The packer who ground the chucks and rounds or the packer who sold the chucks and rounds and imported lean trimmings to blend with the 50/50 trim?
~SH~
Who made the most money? The packer who ground the chucks and rounds or the packer who sold the chucks and rounds and imported lean trimmings to blend with the 50/50 trim?
~SH~
~SH~ said:Quit diverting, Sandbag!
Who made the most money? The packer who ground the chucks and rounds or the packer who sold the chucks and rounds and imported lean trimmings to blend with the 50/50 trim?
~SH~
The choices you give show that domestic producers did not benefit and that was the original point. Packers benefitted, consumers benefitted, and domestic producers lost out.
This is why Chuck Lambert's short term thinking on "no harm done" when the cattle markets are swung higher and lower is just wrong.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Quit diverting, Sandbag!
Who made the most money? The packer who ground the chucks and rounds or the packer who sold the chucks and rounds and imported lean trimmings to blend with the 50/50 trim?
~SH~
The packer who used the imported crap made the most money SH. Are you satisfied with the answer we all knew and didn't question?
Now, who took the lighter check so the Aussies could get paid?
Sandhusker said:~SH~ said:Quit diverting, Sandbag!
Who made the most money? The packer who ground the chucks and rounds or the packer who sold the chucks and rounds and imported lean trimmings to blend with the 50/50 trim?
~SH~
The packer who used the imported crap made the most money SH. Are you satisfied with the answer we all knew and didn't question?
Now, who took the lighter check so the Aussies could get paid?
Sandhusker, how does it benefit the producer if the packer has to sell the excess fat at 8 cents per pound to the renderer (or worse, has to pay someone to dispose of it) and grinds the chuck and sells it at hamburger prices, rather than selling it for Flat Iron and other "new" steaks at higher prices while ADDING VALUE to the fat trim by mixing it with lean imported beef?
Isn't it logical that if the packer realizes LESS for the total carcass he is going to pay LESS for the live animal......and if he gets more for the total carcass, he will be able to pay MORE for the live animal, other marketing aspects being equal?
MRJ
Sandhusker
Well-known member
MRJ, "Sandhusker, how does it benefit the producer if the packer has to sell the excess fat at 8 cents per pound to the renderer (or worse, has to pay someone to dispose of it) and grinds the chuck and sells it at hamburger prices, rather than selling it for Flat Iron and other "new" steaks at higher prices while ADDING VALUE to the fat trim by mixing it with lean imported beef?"
How many tons of trim do you think has been sent to the renderer or disposed of at a cost? I don't think that is a huge problem, do you?
My question is; How does it benefit a producer by substituting US product for foreign? Maybe you can answer the question SH dodges - who gets the lighter check so the Aussies can get paid?
MRJ, "Isn't it logical that if the packer realizes LESS for the total carcass he is going to pay LESS for the live animal......and if he gets more for the total carcass, he will be able to pay MORE for the live animal, other marketing aspects being equal?"
No, I don't think that is logical. The packer will pay as little for the animal as he can regardless - that's Business 101. Look what they just got thru doing in Canada. Did they share the wealth there or did make all they damn well could?
How many tons of trim do you think has been sent to the renderer or disposed of at a cost? I don't think that is a huge problem, do you?
My question is; How does it benefit a producer by substituting US product for foreign? Maybe you can answer the question SH dodges - who gets the lighter check so the Aussies can get paid?
MRJ, "Isn't it logical that if the packer realizes LESS for the total carcass he is going to pay LESS for the live animal......and if he gets more for the total carcass, he will be able to pay MORE for the live animal, other marketing aspects being equal?"
No, I don't think that is logical. The packer will pay as little for the animal as he can regardless - that's Business 101. Look what they just got thru doing in Canada. Did they share the wealth there or did make all they damn well could?
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
OOOOh a banker talking ethics.Tthe most regulated of all. Wonder why? Crooked bankers ? they look out for you against the evil packers.
Big Muddy rancher said:OOOOh a banker talking ethics.Tthe most regulated of all. Wonder why? Crooked bankers ? they look out for you against the evil packers.
Bankers are well regulated but some politicians and packers are not.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:OOOOh a banker talking ethics.Tthe most regulated of all. Wonder why? Crooked bankers ? they look out for you against the evil packers.
BRM, do your realize that many of those regulations deal with the issue of loan customers not being truthful?
RobertMac
Well-known member
If 50/50 trim didn't have value, it wouldn't exist! It exist because it isn't worth the packers time to extract the 65% of 70/30 ground beef out of the 50/50 trim...more efficient to sell it to a subsidiary or independent grinder.
Anytime your market share is lost to some one else, that is lose of potential income. 20% of total USA beef production is imported...the value of that imported beef goes to those that produced it. USA producer lose the potential to produce that beef.
'Other marketing aspects' are always fluid.
Because packers make more money doesn't mean they pass more money to producers...we are down on that list of priorities. In fact, reducing the cost of raw product(live cattle) is the packers easiest place to increase margins. Supply of live cattle dictates the price of live cattle with respect to demand.
MRJ, yes, I do eat most of the chunks of fat from MY beef(although I do prefer it in my ground beef)...I only eat real butter, whole milk, cold pressed olive oil, and cook with saturated coconut oil. One of the best things you can do for your health is to stop eating hydrogenated vegetable oils!
Anytime your market share is lost to some one else, that is lose of potential income. 20% of total USA beef production is imported...the value of that imported beef goes to those that produced it. USA producer lose the potential to produce that beef.
MRJ said:Isn't it logical that if the packer realizes LESS for the total carcass he is going to pay LESS for the live animal......and if he gets more for the total carcass, he will be able to pay MORE for the live animal, other marketing aspects being equal?
MRJ
'Other marketing aspects' are always fluid.
Because packers make more money doesn't mean they pass more money to producers...we are down on that list of priorities. In fact, reducing the cost of raw product(live cattle) is the packers easiest place to increase margins. Supply of live cattle dictates the price of live cattle with respect to demand.
MRJ, yes, I do eat most of the chunks of fat from MY beef(although I do prefer it in my ground beef)...I only eat real butter, whole milk, cold pressed olive oil, and cook with saturated coconut oil. One of the best things you can do for your health is to stop eating hydrogenated vegetable oils!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "The choices you give show that domestic producers did not benefit and that was the original point. Packers benefitted, consumers benefitted, and domestic producers lost out."
Wrong again!
The choices I gave had nothing to do with what domestic producers were paid for their cattle due to the value of their trim AFTER IT WAS BLENDED.
The U.S. producer is served best when all the money that can be made from a carcass is made. Packers pay according to what they receive.
You are so completely ignorant of this industry that you actually believe that prices cannot go up as supplies go up. That's how lost you are.
MRJ: "Isn't it logical that if the packer realizes LESS for the total carcass he is going to pay LESS for the live animal......and if he gets more for the total carcass, he will be able to pay MORE for the live animal, other marketing aspects being equal?"
Totally logical for anyone with any business savy and void of conspiracy notions.
That's why these conspiracy theorists can't explain why live cattle prices track with boxed beef prices on a long term basis. The most obvious observation blows their market manipulation conspiracy theories wide open. They can't accept the truth or the most obvious supply and demand relations.
Sandbag: "Now, who took the lighter check so the Aussies could get paid?"
Nobody! The producer was paid more for his cattle because the retailer sold more of the chucks and rounds at $2.00 rather than grinding them to blend with the 50/50 trim and devaluing them to $1.50 per pound. He imported cheap lean trimmings to blend with the trim adding value to the trim while he sold the chucks and rounds for $2.00.
Why can't you figure it out?
Sandbag: "How many tons of trim do you think has been sent to the renderer or disposed of at a cost? I don't think that is a huge problem, do you?"
YOU TELL ME SANDBAG!
Back a position with some hard data for once and you might gain some respect around here beyond your packer blaming clones.
Sandbag: "No, I don't think that is logical. The packer will pay as little for the animal as he can regardless - that's Business 101."
That is true BUT the packer is going to have to pay more than the competition to get the cattle bought - THAT IS BUSINESS 101 and a more important factor. Something you cannot get through your thick conspiracy minded head. If there is a buck to be made, someone is going to make it unless government mandate lovers like you discourage them from entering the market due to excessive regulations.
You can't explain why live cattle prices track with boxed beef prices.
Sandbag: "Look what they just got thru doing in Canada. Did they share the wealth there or did make all they damn well could?"
When the Canadian border closed to live cattle imports into the U.S., Canada found themselves in a situation of having more cattle than slaughter capacity. In contrast, the U.S. found themselves in a position of more slaughter capacity than cattle. That is an absolute fact.
The normal competition ceased to exist in Canada and Canadian packers profited while U.S. plants were cutting shifts and closing plants.
That is not a normal supply and demand situation because the closing of the border disrupted the normal flow of cattle through the packing plants. The extreme does not make the norm.
You R-CULTers helped prolong that situation until your lies were revealed in court.
Explain to me why prices in Canada rebounded once the border opened?
You can't! The answer is because the supply of cattle once again stabalized with the demand of slaughter capacity in both the U.S. and Canada.
Something else you can't get through your thick head is the fact that Canadian cattle would not disappear off the world market. If the U.S. did not import Canadian cattle (THAT WHOPPING 4% OF OUR PRODUCTION), Japan eventually would.
Conman: "Bankers are well regulated but some politicians and packers are not."
Packers are highly regulated. You're just upset because violations of the laws cannot be found as readily as conspiracy theorists like you had hoped.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Quote:
Sandbag: "Now, who took the lighter check so the Aussies could get paid?"
SH, "Nobody! The producer was paid more for his cattle because the retailer sold more of the chucks and rounds at $2.00 rather than grinding them to blend with the 50/50 trim and devaluing them to $1.50 per pound. He imported cheap lean trimmings to blend with the trim adding value to the trim while he sold the chucks and rounds for $2.00. Why can't you figure it out?"
Why can't you figure out that packers don't tithe to the producers? Why can't you figure out that you don't make money on something you don't sell? The Aussies have to get paid, but everybody else's check remains unchanged?
Quote:
Sandbag: "How many tons of trim do you think has been sent to the renderer or disposed of at a cost? I don't think that is a huge problem, do you?"
SH, "YOU TELL ME SANDBAG! Back a position with some hard data for once and you might gain some respect around here beyond your packer blaming clones."]
First of all, Mr. No Reading Comprehension, MRJ is the one who brought up the theory of trim being tossed. If you are demanding hard facts, ask her.
Secondly, who are you to demand any facts from anybody? You refuse to back your opinion that Lakeside made more than Pacoe and Boise lost. Why do you demand facts from others but refuse when you are asked? Do you find glory in being a hypocrite?
Sandbag: "Now, who took the lighter check so the Aussies could get paid?"
SH, "Nobody! The producer was paid more for his cattle because the retailer sold more of the chucks and rounds at $2.00 rather than grinding them to blend with the 50/50 trim and devaluing them to $1.50 per pound. He imported cheap lean trimmings to blend with the trim adding value to the trim while he sold the chucks and rounds for $2.00. Why can't you figure it out?"
Why can't you figure out that packers don't tithe to the producers? Why can't you figure out that you don't make money on something you don't sell? The Aussies have to get paid, but everybody else's check remains unchanged?
Quote:
Sandbag: "How many tons of trim do you think has been sent to the renderer or disposed of at a cost? I don't think that is a huge problem, do you?"
SH, "YOU TELL ME SANDBAG! Back a position with some hard data for once and you might gain some respect around here beyond your packer blaming clones."]
First of all, Mr. No Reading Comprehension, MRJ is the one who brought up the theory of trim being tossed. If you are demanding hard facts, ask her.
Secondly, who are you to demand any facts from anybody? You refuse to back your opinion that Lakeside made more than Pacoe and Boise lost. Why do you demand facts from others but refuse when you are asked? Do you find glory in being a hypocrite?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "Why can't you figure out that packers don't tithe to the producers?"
Why can't you figure out that packers have to bid higher than the next packer to get the cattle bought and what they can pay is based on what they receive for the beef and beef by-products?
The most obvious economic factors escape your pathetic conspiring mind.
Sandbag: "Why can't you figure out that you don't make money on something you don't sell?"
Producers are selling 50/50 trim and it's value is determined by the price that is paid OR LOST for the product that is blended with it.
If packers grind chucks and rounds to blend with the 50/50 trim, they devalue the chucks and rounds and pay producers accordingly.
If packers sell chucks and rounds and buy cheap imported lean trimmings to blend with the 50/50 trim, packers make more money and pay producers more money for the value of their 50/50 trim. If they make too much money, another packer will make that same money by bidding them up.
There is a market for twice as much beef as we produce today, THE ISSUE IS, AT WHAT PRICE??????
How do retailers move product? THEY PRICE IT TO SELL ("ie featured prices"). THEY SELL IT OR THEY SMELL IT!
The issue is not how much product is available, the issue is the price it is sold at.
Sandbag: The Aussies have to get paid, but everybody else's check remains unchanged?"
Wrong! Producers get paid more when packers receive more for the value of that carcass. By importing lean trimmings, the carcass is worth more money. I just showed you the figures. $400 vs. $300. The packer who makes more, pays more or he doesn't get the cattle bought against the competition.
~SH~