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

So what's your solution?

cutterone

Well-known member
I think most of us agree that the cattle industry and agriculture as a whole is in a mess - low returns, high and escalating input costs, foriegn intervention, and government regulations. Multi-national packers are influencing prices and the corn & soybean price spiral is driving feeders to huge losses trickeling down to the producers.
If we simply increase the price to the consumer we will simply sell less product and every segment of the chain must make a profit. As producers we can adjust somewhat with management practices and using different feed sources but these only amount to modest and short term changes to the bottom line. I think that all of us agree that our pocketbook is hurting and we've all complained so what are the answers.
So, my question is: If you were put in charge of correcting and making changes to improve all of this what would be your agenda?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The END of rbST is near, Monsanto losses a Big one . Could Beef and Pork hormones be next?

Wal-Mart milk to have no artificial growth hormones
Posted 9:03 am EDT
LOS ANGELES, Mar. 21, 2008 (Reuters) — Wal-Mart Stores Inc said on Thursday that its private-label Great Value milk is now being sourced only from cows that have not been treated with artificial growth hormones, such as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST).

The retailer said its Sam's Club chain also is offering milk selections from suppliers that have pledged not to treat cows with rbST.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said that milk from cows treated with rbST poses no risk to human health, Wal-Mart said it made the change in response to customer demand.

(Reporting by Lisa Baertlein; editing by Carol Bishopric)

Copyright Reuters 2008.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
First of all, I think you have to identify your strengths, your weaknesses, your competition and their strenghths and weaknesses, and decide where you want to go. You then map out a strategy to get you from here to there.

Our strength is quality and technology. We are also smack dab in the most lucrative market in the world. A weakness is that we can't compete on price alone in the global marketplace. If somebody wants the most beef for their buck, our competition, South America, can bury us. Another weakness is our politicians that are still drinking the Free Trade Koolaid in spite of the damage those policies have done to our economy. We also need PSA enforced as the authors intended and an end to the consolidation of the packers.

Where do we want to go? I say, since we can't compete on price, we need to work the quality and service angle. We need to be the world's supplier of "the good stuff". If a customer wants their beef tested for BSE, BVD, TBS, LSD, Bird Flu and then packed in cotton candy with a yellow ribbon, we do it. We need to protect our home turf as we are already in the market everybody else in the world wants to be in. We need to give our customers as many options as possible.

To get there: Get COOL running and tune the checkoff into it so that only our product is being promoted and the custmers can find it. Reset our laws so that we are not accepting product that third world countrys will not. Drop this hypocritical, assinine "sound science" requirement on our product that was recently invented and selectively applied. Re-take marketing 101 and realize you need to give the customer what they want. Kick some ass in Washington and slap some sense into them so they realize where their bread is actually buttered.......
 

Silver

Well-known member
I guess it's different wherever you go. Up here I think the best thing would be to opt out of free trade, at least as far as agriculture is concerned. Free trade must have been good for somebody but not us, not in this business. It has put us completely at the mercy of American political whims.
Second would be slamming the border shut to live beef.... if someone wants to buy it, it comes in a box. Breeding stock only to leave this country, or come in.
Next would be a marketing board.... similar to what our dairy and poultry producers have. Controlled supply equals better returns.

Thats at the top of my wish list.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Traceability could be the recipe for trust

By Ahmed ElAmin
To regain credibility with consumers over food safety, processors need to turn to full traceability throughout the supply chain, according to a study by IBM.

A survey of US and UK consumers by the company revealed eroding consumer confidence in brands, IBM stated.

Product contaminations, recalls and confusion over marketing claims have eroded trust in consumer product (CP) manufacturers, their traditional source of information, IBM stated.

About three out of every five consumers in the US and UK report increased knowledge about the contents of the food they buy - as well as a desire for even more information about product sources and contents, IBM stated.

"To rebuild consumer confidence and re-establish brand relevance, CP companies should encourage transparency by delivering credible information about innovative products," IBM stated. "We believe this is best accomplished through full value traceability."

High-profile recalls of pet food, chocolate, lettuce, spinach, peanut butter, melons, beef, and baby food, along with conflicting reports about the credibility of product health and wellness claims have created confusion and suspicion in today's consumers, IBM stated.

In addition, the use of outsourcing has resulted in more complex supply chains, which increases the problems of being transparent with consumers, IBM stated.

"CP companies have partially responded to these issues by investing in lot tracking processes and systems, which allow them to track batches of products through the supply chain," IBM stated. "However, these systems are usually limited in scope, lacking in precision and deliver sharply reduced visibility as products move downstream in the supply chain. As well, they focus on isolating affected products after a contamination occurs."

Adding to the complicated mix is the emergence of what IBM tags as the "omni consumer", a new generation that is both enlightened and empowered - and has a new set of motivations that influence its purchasing decisions

This "omni consumer" is influenced by factors relating not only to the product, but also to its broader impact on society, such as environmental damage. To guide their purchasing decisions, these consumers leverage trusted sources of information about the product.

In the past such sources traditionally included CP companies, but no longer.

The omni consumer wants products that deliver more, such as functional foods that provide incremental health and wellness benefits, IBM stated. They also care more about the impact of these products on individuals, society and the environment.

The omni consumer is informed, aware and concerned about products, has the power and capability to tune messages in or out, purchases a wider range of products through an ever growing, changing number of channels, and finally, doesn't fit in neat boxes or descriptions.

They have a hunger for information - not just from the labelling on the box -- but through numerous channels and from a variety of sources, including Web sites, blogs and online chat rooms.

Their concerns range from a product's health benefit, to whether the packaging recyclable, and to questions about fair pay for employees.

"This consumer is less concerned with brand name alone - if quality, functionality and responsibility levels are comparable - and is becoming more concerned about the accountability of each segment of the supply chain, including manufacturers -- CP companies -- retailers and suppliers," IBM stated.

The increasing convergence of food and pharmaceuticals, and the explosive
growth of these products, creates a separate information challenge, for companies.

"CP companies should proactively address the informational requirements of these new products, or face the prospect of regulation similar to that of the pharmaceutical industry," IBM warned.

Another complication is the greater use of outsourcing along the logistics chain.

A recent survey of CP companies revealed that 50 per cent had extensively
outsourced transportation - and 44 per cent had extensively outsourced warehousing and distribution centers, IBM stated.

"The burden on these companies to affirm product safety has also increased - as shifts to global sourcing have strained the ability of regulators to monitor and sample the quality and safety of shipments," IBM stated.


For international shipments the complications arise from the CP company's inability to secure containers to protect against theft and guarantee content integrity and product authenticity.

They also have a limited ability to monitor and affect conditions during shipment and storage - or to have knowledge of the contents of individual containers.

Because of multiple hand-offs between suppliers, logistics service providers, contract manufacturers, distributors and the end customer, product authenticity is also brought into question.

Inconsistent, inaccurate and missing shipment documentation can cause delays at ports and borders.

CP companies also have potential tracking and tracing issues that can affect a final product. They often have difficulty locating products and isolating risk in the event of contaminations.

Ineffective supplier management can result in difficulty in identifying the suppliers of raw materials.

At every point such issues can affect food safety, lead to diversions of the shipment and counterfeiting, IBM stated, while noting that foodborne diseases still cause more than 76 million illnesses each year in the US.

"The challenge for CP companies is to move from a defensive posture and discrete solution to an opportunistic posture and an integrated solution," IBM stated.

One way in which CP companies can achieve greater transparency in its supply chain is to follow the example of the US pharmaceutical industry.

Traceability concerns have generated individual, state-led pushes for legislation to track drugs from their source through to the retail outlet.

The semi-automated lot traceability systems in place at many CP companies are unlikely to provide the necessary "chain of custody" documentation if functional foods come under similar regulatory requirements, IBM noted.

Traceability is not just a supply chain or compliance issue - but a marketing issue as well, IBM concludes.

"Consumer product marketing increasingly requires a high degree of trust, especially regarding functionality and responsibility claims," the report stated. "CP companies can substantiate these claims and empower their brands in these large and rapidly growing segments by effectively communicating information about ingredient source, functionality, sustainability and supply chain conditions."

IBM is a provider of supply chain technology, including devices and software related to radio frequency identification.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Porker, I'm impressed...you posted an article by your competition!! :wink: :wink: :)


About three out of every five consumers in the US and UK report increased knowledge about the contents of the food they buy - as well as a desire for even more information about product sources and contents, IBM stated.

"Consumer product marketing increasingly requires a high degree of trust, especially regarding functionality and responsibility claims," the report stated.

It's all about trust. Consumers are becoming more and more educated and they don't trust large companies that have demonstrated they care more about stockholder dividends than consumer safety!!!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
PORKER said:
Competition never hurt anyone,Eat Local Southern Hormone free BEEF.

Eat Local Southern Drug Free 100% Grassfed BEEF

Only if your customers are fully aware that Drug Free and Grassfed are both only marketing ploys, have no basis in sound science, and have never been proven to have any benefits. You probably should be required to have them sign a release acknowledging your deceptive marketing practices. :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
RobertMac said:
PORKER said:
Competition never hurt anyone,Eat Local Southern Hormone free BEEF.

Eat Local Southern Drug Free 100% Grassfed BEEF

Only if your customers are fully aware that Drug Free and Grassfed are both only marketing ploys, have no basis in sound science, and have never been proven to have any benefits. You probably should be required to have them sign a release acknowledging your deceptive marketing practices. :wink: :lol: :lol:

In the label's fine print..."Any consumer perceived benefits are not substantiated by AMI or USDA....NCBA is studying these issues."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Don't forget to mention that NCBA is using checkoff dollars. Don't pass up any opportunity to get "NCBA" and "Checkoff" in the same sentence.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
In the label's fine print..."Any consumer perceived benefits are not substantiated by AMI or USDA....NCBA is studying these issues; funded by Check-off dollars."

Have to call my printer to have this included on my new labels!!! :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol:
 

tom cat

New member
cutterone said:
I think most of us agree that the cattle industry and agriculture as a whole is in a mess - low returns, high and escalating input costs, foriegn intervention, and government regulations. Multi-national packers are influencing prices and the corn & soybean price spiral is driving feeders to huge losses trickeling down to the producers.
If we simply increase the price to the consumer we will simply sell less product and every segment of the chain must make a profit. As producers we can adjust somewhat with management practices and using different feed sources but these only amount to modest and short term changes to the bottom line. I think that all of us agree that our pocketbook is hurting and we've all complained so what are the answers.
So, my question is: If you were put in charge of correcting and making changes to improve all of this what would be your agenda?
 

tom cat

New member
Your solutions are good: COOL, Qualitybeef and providing what the consumer wants. We also are being forced to play hard ball by demanding more trade balance, especially with japan, China and India. NAFTA ain't working and Washington needs to pull the plug. maybe we need to tell the politicians in the only language they understand, our vote.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
University of Missouri study shows increased monopolization of
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union expressed alarm at the data presented in a University of Missouri study released April 16 showing the continuing trend of monopolization of the U.S. food supply. The study, which was commissioned by National Farmers Union, shows that in all areas of food and fuel processing, as well as in food retailing, the big guys are getting bigger while other competitors are losing market share. The only industry bucking this trend is ethanol production.

According to the study, four firms controlled 83.5 percent of all beef processing in 2005, as compared with 72 percent just 15 years ago in 1990. The top four pork processing firms have nearly doubled their market share, increasing from 34 percent of the market in 1989 to 64 percent in 2005. Similar trends were found for poultry processing, animal feed plants, flour milling, and soybean crushing industries.

"The other disturbing aspect to this study is that the same companies that process our food also own a large percentage of the livestock," said RMFU President Kent Peppler. "This affords these companies tremendous control over both farm prices and consumers' retail food prices."

The one industry that is starkly counter to this trend is ethanol production. In 1987, four firms had 73 percent of U.S. ethanol production, whereas by 2002, the top four companies had an ethanol market share of only 49 percent. In 2005, the top four companies had a 31.5 percent share of the market, and independent, farmer-owned ethanol processing plants accounted for 39 percent of U.S. ethanol production.

"The growth of U.S. ethanol processing industries shows that smaller, community-based, farmer-owned companies can compete with multi-national corporations in the processing of agricultural products," Peppler said. "The success of the homegrown ethanol industry also serves as an indicator of the positive impact that can result from good public policies which promote investment in local economies."

The University of Missouri study also showed an increase in the retail food industry, with the top five grocery conglomerates controlling 48 percent of the market in 2006. This compares with 24 percent in 1997. With nearly $100 billion in annual sales last year, Wal-Mart accounts for nearly one in every five consumer food dollars spent. Food retail concentration is also a growing global problem according to figures in the report.

As Congress begins to formulate the 2007 farm bill, RMFU is pushing for the inclusion of a competition title and other policies that will increase competition in U.S. agricultural markets. These include policies such as tax credits for ethanol production and other community level production facilities, as well as programs that encourage development of value-added cooperatives, food that is directly marketed to consumers, and other local business opportunities. RMFU also advocates enforcement of current anti-trust laws and implementation of mandatory country-of-origin food labeling contained in the 2002 farm bill.

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union is a general farm organization representing 25,000 families in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico.
 

Latest posts

Top