US Beef is not popular with US Consumers

[RobertMac]

SH: "That's a good question but I did not defeat my own argument because the costs of segregating a novelty item have to outweigh the benefits of selling that novelty item."

The costs of segregating????????????? All the boxed beef coming into the USA is COOLed and segregated...NOW!!! The only significant live cattle imports have a big old "M" brand on their butt, if I'm not mistaken.

Don't try to feed me your pat anti-R-CALF arguments...read what I write and try to comprehend it. The question is "Why did N.Z., Aust. and Arg. beef out sell USA beef. Here's a clue....Sick and dead consumers aren't happy consumers and they won't buy your beef again. This is a result of Agman's "real competition" in the tight-margin, commodity beef industry that pushed ConAgra to ignore 33 positive Ecoli test and ship out unsafe beef! The large packers are who the consumers blame for this black-eye to USA beef. And who do WE have in charge of correcting this and selling our product...why it's Mr. Chicken. And how big of a problem is it....45% lost market share should give you a clue! But where did that 45% market share go...to Mr. Chicken's chicken and I'm sure that has devastated him to sell more of a product that has a higher margin for him and he is doing everything possible to recapture our beef market...like slowing his USA processing and importing all the high margin Canadian beef he can.

The thing USA beef producers had better realize...if you want more money from the industry, you are going to have to work for it and that means more than just selling a weaned calf. When you sell your cattle, you lose control. To control your own destiny, producers need to be selling 40% or more of the wholesale beef market.

 

[mrj]

SH: "That's a good question but I did not defeat my own argument because the costs of segregating a novelty item have to outweigh the benefits of selling that novelty item."

The costs of segregating????????????? All the boxed beef coming into the USA is COOLed and segregated...NOW!!! The only significant live cattle imports have a big old "M" brand on their butt, if I'm not mistaken.

Don't try to feed me your pat anti-R-CALF arguments...read what I write and try to comprehend it. The question is "Why did N.Z., Aust. and Arg. beef out sell USA beef. Here's a clue....Sick and dead consumers aren't happy consumers and they won't buy your beef again. This is a result of Agman's "real competition" in the tight-margin, commodity beef industry that pushed ConAgra to ignore 33 positive Ecoli test and ship out unsafe beef! The large packers are who the consumers blame for this black-eye to USA beef. And who do WE have in charge of correcting this and selling our product...why it's Mr. Chicken. And how big of a problem is it....45% lost market share should give you a clue! But where did that 45% market share go...to Mr. Chicken's chicken and I'm sure that has devastated him to sell more of a product that has a higher margin for him and he is doing everything possible to recapture our beef market...like slowing his USA processing and importing all the high margin Canadian beef he can.

The thing USA beef producers had better realize...if you want more money from the industry, you are going to have to work for it and that means more than just selling a weaned calf. When you sell your cattle, you lose control. To control your own destiny, producers need to be selling 40% or more of the wholesale beef market.

RobertMac, that is the very thing many of us are trying to achieve through alliances with producers controlling the beef from the farm gate at least to the retailer, maybe even to the consumer.

That is the very same practice the LMA found was reason enough for them to go on the attack against the Beef Checkoff in order, in Herman Schumachers' words: "we had to go after the checkoff to stop NCBA". That was after a study that was construed by LMA as encouraging ranchers to abandon the sales barns and retain ownership all the way to the meat market. LMA indicates they will not tolerate any great number of ranchers taking marketing of beef into our own hands, IMO.

While it may work fine for you, living in a very populous area, to market your beef on an individual basis, it won't work for those of us at long distances from significant numbers of consumers, and great distances from processing facilities, AT THIS POINT IN TIME. And, I use caps for emphasis, not shouting!

MRJ

 

[agman]

SH: "That's a good question but I did not defeat my own argument because the costs of segregating a novelty item have to outweigh the benefits of selling that novelty item."

The costs of segregating????????????? All the boxed beef coming into the USA is COOLed and segregated...NOW!!! The only significant live cattle imports have a big old "M" brand on their butt, if I'm not mistaken.

Don't try to feed me your pat anti-R-CALF arguments...read what I write and try to comprehend it. The question is "Why did N.Z., Aust. and Arg. beef out sell USA beef. Here's a clue....Sick and dead consumers aren't happy consumers and they won't buy your beef again. This is a result of Agman's "real competition" in the tight-margin, commodity beef industry that pushed ConAgra to ignore 33 positive Ecoli test and ship out unsafe beef! The large packers are who the consumers blame for this black-eye to USA beef. And who do WE have in charge of correcting this and selling our product...why it's Mr. Chicken. And how big of a problem is it....45% lost market share should give you a clue! But where did that 45% market share go...to Mr. Chicken's chicken and I'm sure that has devastated him to sell more of a product that has a higher margin for him and he is doing everything possible to recapture our beef market...like slowing his USA processing and importing all the high margin Canadian beef he can.

The thing USA beef producers had better realize...if you want more money from the industry, you are going to have to work for it and that means more than just selling a weaned calf. When you sell your cattle, you lose control. To control your own destiny, producers need to be selling 40% or more of the wholesale beef market.

RM..I am both amazed and amused at your willingness to always see a conspiracy somewhere. You are simply too caught up in manipulation therories to recognize how businesses function. Blame the loss of beef demand on chicken. Why not blame it on beef. The product that you raise.

I was fortunate enough to be part of an Industry Summit sponsored by the NCBA when Jim Lacey was their President. Every sector of the beef industry was represented. A gentlemen from Marsh Foods, with 50 years in the meat business, was a featured speaker. I will paraphrase his opening comment. "You produce crap and then I have nothing but crap to sell to the consumer. I can show you from my internal sales records how beef demand declined each year as the quality of your product declined throughout the 1980's and early 1990's." Please note he did not say beef demand declined because of chicken. He also pointed out he had just lost $250,000 the previous week on a tenderloin promotion for those who think we do not try to promote beef product. To satisfy customers he bought back 438 Sara Lee Turkeys following their recall and he has never had or sold a Sara Lee brand turkey in his store. He took the loss to satisfy those customers who CLAIMED they were purchased from his store. The marketplace is significantly better and more complex than you comprehend. Have a great day, one without a conspiracy throught.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Response...The difference is that I have actual report data of consumer acceptance and you have nothing but pure speculation on your part. I believe actual results trumps your speculation every time."

Your consumer acceptance report was NOT made in an environment where US beef was actually promoted over the competition. Your "actual results" were not compiled in the scenario I propose, and thus, are suspect .

 

[agman]

Agman, "Response...The difference is that I have actual report data of consumer acceptance and you have nothing but pure speculation on your part. I believe actual results trumps your speculation every time."

Your consumer acceptance report was NOT made in an environment where US beef was actually promoted over the competition. Your "actual results" were not compiled in the scenario I propose, and thus, are suspect .

You are making another assumption on your part-par for the course. While you may not be able to differentiate most consumers can by the process of deduction. Hang it up, you do not know what you are talking about regarding this matter.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Response...The difference is that I have actual report data of consumer acceptance and you have nothing but pure speculation on your part. I believe actual results trumps your speculation every time."

Your consumer acceptance report was NOT made in an environment where US beef was actually promoted over the competition. Your "actual results" were not compiled in the scenario I propose, and thus, are suspect .

You are making another assumption on your part-par for the course. While you may not be able to differentiate most consumers can by the process of deduction. Hang it up, you do not know what you are talking about regarding this matter.

Your arrogance knows no bounds, Agman. How the heck can you tell me about actual results when when there are no actual results? When have US consumers been the object of a US BEEF campaign? NEVER! How many ads promoting US BEEF have the average consumer heard? NONE! People will buy what they are told to buy and will desire what they are told to desire - that is the basis of advertising. They have never been told why they should want US beef, but yet you have the results?

I hate to label somebody, but you are AMI to the core. Anything that is presented that could help producers but not the big packers you're against. I guess I can understand the differences on our allegences - you make your living working for the big boys and I make mine working for the little guys. Actually, I don't even hold it against you. We all have our agendas - mine is that the cow/calf producer makes the best living he can. Your agenda is plain to see - and that's fine - I just get awful dang tired of your propensity to try to baffle us with BS.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a Nebraska cow/calf man profits from a US consumer buying a Canadian steak.

 

[agman]

Agman, "Response...The difference is that I have actual report data of consumer acceptance and you have nothing but pure speculation on your part. I believe actual results trumps your speculation every time."

Your consumer acceptance report was NOT made in an environment where US beef was actually promoted over the competition. Your "actual results" were not compiled in the scenario I propose, and thus, are suspect .

You are making another assumption on your part-par for the course. While you may not be able to differentiate most consumers can by the process of deduction. Hang it up, you do not know what you are talking about regarding this matter.

Your arrogance knows no bounds, Agman. How the heck can you tell me about actual results when when there are no actual results? When have US consumers been the object of a US BEEF campaign? NEVER! How many ads promoting US BEEF have the average consumer heard? NONE! People will buy what they are told to buy and will desire what they are told to desire - that is the basis of advertising. They have never been told why they should want US beef, but yet you have the results?

I hate to label somebody, but you are AMI to the core. Anything that is presented that could help producers but not the big packers you're against. I guess I can understand the differences on our allegences - you make your living working for the big boys and I make mine working for the little guys. Actually, I don't even hold it against you. We all have our agendas - mine is that the cow/calf producer makes the best living he can. Your agenda is plain to see - and that's fine - I just get awful dang tired of your propensity to try to baffle us with BS.

By the way, .

Arrogance, you don't even know the stores which are selling this beef. Since you have no results from your local Hop and Shop for comparison you assume I do not posses valid comparative data. That is both arrogance and stupidity combined on your part. You---want to tell me what goes on in these stores when I have been there and I am in contact with their reps weekly. You can go to your local Hop and Shop and tell me what you see but you have never set foot into any of these establishments I am referencing for factual information. So tell me genius, how would you know? You cannot extrapolate your total ignorance per this subject to me.

I have done more to help producers of all sizes than you could ever hope to. Your comment is another example of your ignorance of subject matter-par for the coarse. The mere fact that you know nothing beyond the producer level exposes your total lack of knowledge of the entire beef industry; that is your shortfall, not mine. You live on assumptions, not facts. When you are in over you're head at least be intelligent enough to admit so.

I see you posed a new question to divert from you lack of knowledge per the said subject. Your question...."I'm still waiting for you to explain how a Nebraska cow/calf man profits from a US consumer buying a Canadian steak."

I guess I would also have to explain to you why it is important for consumers to eat pork and chicken. A U.S. producer benefits the same way when a Canadian buys a steak from the USA. That is called driving "total demand". We do not live in a closed economy-thank God for that. What is being lost is the gain from added value which was derived to the U.S beef industry before the boarder closure. But then again, such an economic reality is beyond your narrow scope of comprehension. Good night.

 

[Soapweed]

Sandhusker to Agman: "By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a Nebraska cow/calf man profits from a US consumer buying a Canadian steak."

Agman explained the answer in educated terms, but here is the way I grasp it in cowboy language. If a United States consumer buys a steak, whether it be a USA steak, Canadian, South Dakota, or Nebraska Corn Fed, the purchase is for BEEF, not pork, poultry, mutton, or seafood, but BEEF. Pretend there are headings for all of these meat-type protein products on a score sheet. When a steak is purchased, a mark goes down in the BEEF column. The more "marks", the more demand, and the higher the price goes.

Your question could be re-written: "By the way, how does a Nebraska cow/calf man profit from a US consumer buying a South Dakota steak?" The same principal applies--the more demand, the higher the price for beef. Now if that consumer bought chicken instead, the little mark would be placed in the poultry column. The "vote" would be for poultry, and beef would, in essence, "lose" two points when compared with poultry. The more beef sold, the more demand, the higher the price. At least this is the way I comprehend the scenario, and I guess I qualify as a Nebraska cow/calf man.

 

[agman]

Sandhusker to Agman: "By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a Nebraska cow/calf man profits from a US consumer buying a Canadian steak."

Agman explained the answer in educated terms, but here is the way I grasp it in cowboy language. If a United States consumer buys a steak, whether it be a USA steak, Canadian, South Dakota, or Nebraska Corn Fed, the purchase is for BEEF, not pork, poultry, mutton, or seafood, but BEEF. Pretend there are headings for all of these meat-type protein products on a score sheet. When a steak is purchased, a mark goes down in the BEEF column. The more "marks", the more demand, and the higher the price goes.

Your question could be re-written: "By the way, how does a Nebraska cow/calf man profit from a US consumer buying a South Dakota steak?" The same principal applies--the more demand, the higher the price for beef. Now if that consumer bought chicken instead, the little mark would be placed in the poultry column. The "vote" would be for poultry, and beef would, in essence, "lose" two points when compared with poultry. The more beef sold, the more demand, the higher the price. At least this is the way I comprehend the scenario, and I guess I qualify as a Nebraska cow/calf man.

You are correct in your understanding and explanation of this issue per beef. Thanks

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Just for those that want M cool we passed a resolution at SSGA convention that all meat slaughtered in Canada be labeled Product of Canada any meat that is just Processed in Canada be labeled that. Of course that is our opinion but now we lobby for this. For those R-CALFers that how the process works.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Arrogance, you don't even know the stores which are selling this beef. Since you have no results from your local Hop and Shop for comparison you assume I do not posses valid comparative data. That is both arrogance and stupidity combined on your part. You---want to tell me what goes on in these stores when I have been there and I am in contact with their reps weekly. You can go to your local Hop and Shop and tell me what you see but you have never set foot into any of these establishments I am referencing for factual information. So tell me genius, how would you know? You cannot extrapolate your total ignorance per this subject to me."

How many times do I have to point out to you that any data you may have gathered was not in an environment where US beef was touted over foreign?


Agman, "I see you posed a new question to divert from you lack of knowledge per the said subject. Your question...."I'm still waiting for you to explain how a Nebraska cow/calf man profits from a US consumer buying a Canadian steak."

Agman, "I guess I would also have to explain to you why it is important for consumers to eat pork and chicken. A U.S. producer benefits the same way when a Canadian buys a steak from the USA. That is called driving "total demand". We do not live in a closed economy-thank God for that. What is being lost is the gain from added value which was derived to the U.S beef industry before the boarder closure. But then again, such an economic reality is beyond your narrow scope of comprehension. Good night."

I guess you could just answer the question.

 

[Sandhusker]

Soapweed, "Agman explained the answer in educated terms, but here is the way I grasp it in cowboy language. If a United States consumer buys a steak, whether it be a USA steak, Canadian, South Dakota, or Nebraska Corn Fed, the purchase is for BEEF, not pork, poultry, mutton, or seafood, but BEEF. Pretend there are headings for all of these meat-type protein products on a score sheet. When a steak is purchased, a mark goes down in the BEEF column. The more "marks", the more demand, and the higher the price goes."

I see where you're coming from, Man-of-the-Yucca, but your profits from demand depend on the level of your participation. Just because the commodity you are selling is doing well, it doesn't neccessarily mean you are. Prime example is the fast-food industry. Industry sales could be thru the roof, but if everybody is buying Big Macs, Burger King gets nothing from the increased demand. Instead, they're weakened because their competition has gained strength.

You notice that McDonalds and Burger King don't advertise burgers genericly? With Agman's rationale, they would promote "burgers" jointly and simply be happy that demand for burgers includes them both. But they don't because that notion is rediculous. Both of them want to increase their level of participation as much as they can so they will profit more. So, they advertise THEIR product - even going to lengths to point out why people should buy their's instead of the other guy's. It's not just fast food, pick any industry; automotive, grocery stores, brewers, etc...

I'm saying the US beef industry needs to do what every other industry is doing and increase OUR level of participation. Agman's message is lulling producers to sleep with the message "all of us beef producers world-wide are in this together" HORSE PUCKEY! We are COMPETING! We're competing with the Canadians, Australians, etc... and the competition is only going to get fiercer when Brazil gets unfettered access to our domestic markets. We're not one big unified world (yet), those guys don't pay many of the US Treasury's bills.

Soapweed, "Your question could be re-written: "By the way, how does a Nebraska cow/calf man profit from a US consumer buying a South Dakota steak?" The same principal applies--the more demand, the higher the price for beef. Now if that consumer bought chicken instead, the little mark would be placed in the poultry column. The "vote" would be for poultry, and beef would, in essence, "lose" two points when compared with poultry. The more beef sold, the more demand, the higher the price. At least this is the way I comprehend the scenario, and I guess I qualify as a Nebraska cow/calf man."

I guess if a guy really wanted to get picky, they could ask how someone in Grant County profited from a sale of Cherry County product! You have to pick a subset that makes sense, and international borders are the rule of thumb.

As far as your losing vote on poultry, it appears you have a disagreement with Agman. He's talking total demand now. I see how Tyson profits from total demand, they sell pork and poultry, too. He wouldn't explain to me how a Nebraska cow/calf man such as yourself profits from a US consumer buying a Canadian steak - maybe he will explain how a Nebraska cow/calf man profits from a US consumer eating chicken - he likes you better than me. :lol:

 

[Soapweed]

Points taken, Sandhusker. Besides, it's just not very smart or "good business" to get my banker too mad and down on me. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

RM: "The costs of segregating????????????? All the boxed beef coming into the USA is COOLed and segregated...NOW!!! The only significant live cattle imports have a big old "M" brand on their butt, if I'm not mistaken."

The Canadian border is not going to stay closed forever no matter what R-CULT thinks and we have foreign cattle in our country today including Canadian cattle. Both shoot your over simplistic "M" brand solution all to hell.

Being the packer blamer you are, why do you suddenly trust the large packers to label beef correctly without an enforceable traceback system????? Hmmmm???

Talk about a self defeating argument.

If there is no traceback on that "M"brand and you really believe your conspiracy of large packers not wanting "M"COOL so they can market foreign beef under the USDA label, why wouldn't they just ignore the "M"brand if there is no traceback on all beef to enforce it?????

You can't answer the enforcement questions BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM!!!!! BWAME DA USDA!

"just mark the imports, just mark the imports"

That statement screams as loud about the complete ignorance of this issue today as it ever did.

Once that hide comes off, the "M" comes off. Unless there is an accurate record on what entered the packing house, there doesn't have to be an accurate record on what leaves it.

Even though I don't believe Country of Origin Labeling will hurt anything and I believe that the costs of segregating, although higher than the benefits, will not be as high as some state, I refuse to support something based on such backwards logic as to believe segregation of 5% of our product as "FOREIGN BEEF" will have consumers scrambling to buy "U.S. PRODUCT". What could be more stupid?

consumer: "Garsh, what should I buy, the U.S. beef, the U.S. beef, or the U.S. beef"

HELLO??????

To have competition YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO COMPETE AGAINST.

If you don't want to take my word for it, listen to the people that are in it on a daily basis. Listen to the "M"COOL listening sessions with packers and retailers of all sizes explain what will be required to enforce "M"COOL WITH NO PROOF OF ANY BENEFITS.

The marked boxed beef DOES NOT LABEL THE CATTLE once the Canadian border opens again or the foreign cattle that are already here.

The "M" brand does not burn through to the 300 individual packages of beef that one critter becomes. If you are going to insist on selling "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED IN THE U.S." BEEF, you have to be able to enforce it with a traceback system.

Why have a law if it cannot be enforced?


RM: "The question is "Why did N.Z., Aust. and Arg. beef out sell USA beef. Here's a clue....Sick and dead consumers aren't happy consumers and they won't buy your beef again. This is a result of Agman's "real competition" in the tight-margin, commodity beef industry that pushed ConAgra to ignore 33 positive Ecoli test and ship out unsafe beef!"

WHOA!

First, your beloved R-CULT says we have the safest beef in the world, NOW WHICH WAY IS IT??????

You can't take one argument for BSE and another argument for Ecoli and have any credibility with the "non blamers".

Your argument completely ignores two important consumer considerations:

1. PRICE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

2. TRYING SOMETHING NEW

To suggest that foreign beef outsold U.S. beef due to health concerns for domestic beef shows just how out of touch you really are with the consuming world.

If they were concerned about the health of domestic beef wouldn't they just buy chicken, pork, or fish?????

You don't even think before you type.


RM: "The large packers are who the consumers blame for this black-eye to USA beef. And who do WE have in charge of correcting this and selling our product...why it's Mr. Chicken."

I shouldn't even address your conspiracy theories but you can't even keep your own arguments straight.

How did ConAgra's Ecoli problem become Tyson's problem to solve?????


You are so filled with packer blame that you can't even keep your arguments straight.


RM: "But where did that 45% market share go...to Mr. Chicken's chicken and I'm sure that has devastated him to sell more of a product that has a higher margin for him and he is doing everything possible to recapture our beef market...like slowing his USA processing and importing all the high margin Canadian beef he can."

You tell me to read what you write and comprehend it. Robert you don't even comprehend what you write because there is no logic in it.

Why would Tyson buy ibp and not want beef profitable?????

To believe that Tyson would buy ibp and allow their beef sales to slip so they could sell more chicken proves to me that there is no logic in the conspiring mind.



Let me introduce you to your conflicting packer blame Robert............

On one hand you believe packers are making large profits at the expense of producers and not paying them enough for their cattle. On the other hand, you blame their productivity for the ecoli outbreaks which are minimal considering the volume of beef that is being moved.

You are so filled with conspiracies that you can't even keep your arguments straight.

HECK, SLOW THOSE CHAINS DOWN SO YOUR COMPANY IS LESS EFFICIENT SO YOU CAN PAY LESS FOR CATTLE.

BRILLIANT!!!

No, don't spin that, I'm not suggesting they put out an unsafe product by increasing their efficiency. I'm saying your arguments are conflicting and pointing out how incredibly arrogant it is to assume that the large packers are not concerned about ecoli.

What the heck do you think took BEEF AMERICA under???

Do you think their increased efficiencies were worth going under?


RM: "The thing USA beef producers had better realize...if you want more money from the industry, you are going to have to work for it and that means more than just selling a weaned calf. When you sell your cattle, you lose control. To control your own destiny, producers need to be selling 40% or more of the wholesale beef market."

Finally, from the depths of conspiracy comes the voice of reason. You are correct but unfortunately, you may never be involved in the beef processing and marketing business to a level that would teach you how little you know about the companies you blame.



~SH~

 

[Tommy]

SH...The "M" brand does not burn through to the 300 individual packages of beef that one critter becomes. If you are going to insist on selling "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED IN THE U.S." BEEF, you have to be able to enforce it with a traceback system.

Why have a law if it cannot be enforced?


Scott how are we selling Egypt and Taiwan USA verified beef if what you say is true? How are they tracing it back now for them?

Taiwan's conditions...The lifting of the beef ban will be contingent on the following four conditions: the beef must come from cows under 30 months old that are born, fed, and slaughtered in the U.S., must not contain "high risk" parts of the cow such as brain matter or spinal marrow, should originate from slaughter and packing houses registered with the DOH and approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Finally, the beef must be certified by the USDA before exportation to Taiwan.


Egypt...The agreement requires age and origin requirements under a USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Beef Export Verification (BEV) program.

 

[Mike]

SH...The "M" brand does not burn through to the 300 individual packages of beef that one critter becomes. If you are going to insist on selling "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED IN THE U.S." BEEF, you have to be able to enforce it with a traceback system.

Why have a law if it cannot be enforced?


Scott how are we selling Egypt and Taiwan USA verified beef if what you say is true? How are they tracing it back now for them?

Taiwan's conditions...The lifting of the beef ban will be contingent on the following four conditions: the beef must come from cows under 30 months old that are born, fed, and slaughtered in the U.S., must not contain "high risk" parts of the cow such as brain matter or spinal marrow, should originate from slaughter and packing houses registered with the DOH and approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Finally, the beef must be certified by the USDA before exportation to Taiwan.


Egypt...The agreement requires age and origin requirements under a USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Beef Export Verification (BEV) program.

Here is a link to help with "BEV".
Title: "International Identification, Traceability and Verification" The Key Drivers and the Impact on the Global Food Industry.

http://www.livestockcongress.com/proceedings/2005/05Traceability.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker to Agman: "Your consumer acceptance report was NOT made in an environment where US beef was actually promoted over the competition. Your "actual results" were not compiled in the scenario I propose, and thus, are suspect."

There basically is no competition when only 5% of the total beef consumption would be labeled as U.S. beef under your flawed "M"COOL law.

When 95% of the labeled beef is U.S. beef, what are you promoting against Sandhusker?????

Where's the logic?

You think we should start this now in case the import blamer's sky really falls with South American imports.

To counter that argument, commodity beef is yielding to an ever increasing branded beef industry making the advertising of US commodity beef irrelevant anyway.


As far as your need for domestic vs. import comparison proof......

We have seen side by side sale comparisons in the sales of New Zealand lamb vs. American lamb. New Zealand lamb outsold U.S. lamb in many cases. Why? PRICE and NOVELTY!

Now I suppose you are going to try to convince me that price and novelty would yield to advertising of commodity US lamb? Not a chance!

Also consider that foreign labeled lamb is more readily available than foreign labeled beef would be under "M"COOL which defeats your argument of the benefits of advertising US beef even further.

Mike Callicrate has a "born, raised, and processed in the U.S." beef product selling against commodity beef. According to him, his product suffered from CONSUMER APATHY????

Does that support your argument? Hardly!


Sandhusker to Agman: "I hate to label somebody, but you are AMI to the core. Anything that is presented that could help producers but not the big packers you're against. I guess I can understand the differences on our allegences - you make your living working for the big boys and I make mine working for the little guys. Actually, I don't even hold it against you. We all have our agendas - mine is that the cow/calf producer makes the best living he can. Your agenda is plain to see - and that's fine - I just get awful dang tired of your propensity to try to baffle us with BS."

As always, those who cannot debate the issues, make their feeble attempts to discredit the opposition. Same-O "factually defenseless" Sandhusker!

There is no proof that labeling 95% of the beef consumed in the U.S. as "Born, raised, and processed in the U.S." and promoting it as such would have any benefit over advertising generic beef.

Why anyone would even pursue advertising U.S. commodity beef in the advent of BRANDED BEEF PROGRAMS is really beyond me.

If you want to conduct beef advertising that would benefit producers, try advertising a branded beef product that has value to the consumer. That's when advertising would pay, not advertising US commodity beef with a USDA stamp that you claim consumers already believe is US beef.

Symbolism over substance.


BTW, you don't represent the small producer Sandhusker, you represent the blaming segment of the small producers. Successful producers are not driven by packer blame, USDA blame, and import blame.


Sandhusker: "Just because the commodity you are selling is doing well, it doesn't neccessarily mean you are."

I suppose that would explain why live cattle prices track with boxed beef prices huh?

Once again, the obvious is simply too obvious for the conspiring mind.


Sandhusker: "Prime example is the fast-food industry. Industry sales could be thru the roof, but if everybody is buying Big Macs, Burger King gets nothing from the increased demand. Instead, they're weakened because their competition has gained strength."

Apples and oranges.

You are comparing two individual companies within an industry as opposed to foreign beef vs. domestic beef with the consumption of either creating more demand for beef in general.


Sandhusker: "You notice that McDonalds and Burger King don't advertise burgers genericly? With Agman's rationale, they would promote "burgers" jointly and simply be happy that demand for burgers includes them both. But they don't because that notion is rediculous. Both of them want to increase their level of participation as much as they can so they will profit more. So, they advertise THEIR product - even going to lengths to point out why people should buy their's instead of the other guy's. It's not just fast food, pick any industry; automotive, grocery stores, brewers, etc..."

You also notice that McDonalds and Burger king don't just advertise one source of meat do they?

They advertise "Thick burgers" and "McNuggets" which proves that they are promoting their company, not beef demand vs. chicken demand.

Apples and oranges comparison!


Sandhusker: "Agman's message is lulling producers to sleep with the message "all of us beef producers world-wide are in this together" HORSE PUCKEY! We are COMPETING! We're competing with the Canadians, Australians, etc..."

No, Agman's message is that we are in a global market. If we stop Canadian imports, Canada will eventually absorb that portion of our export market.

Agman's message is that trade is beneficial and the facts that you cannot contradict prove it. A $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus in the combined beef/ bvm/ and live cattle trade for a 7 year average amounting to another $28 per head.

Agman's message is that nobody ever blamed or regulated their way to prosperity.

Agman's message is that poultry and pork are much bigger competition than Canadian imports that the U.S. adds value to by selling them to Japan WHICH DOES PUT MONEY IN THE U.S. TREASURY as does the added value of AUSTRALIAN LEAN TRIMMING IMPORTS.

One day you acknowledge that fact and the next you are claiming it has no value by suggesting it adds nothing to the U.S. treasury. That proves to me that you can't reason past your blame.

For someone like you, who rarely backs his claims and questions everything that doesn't support his bias, to question the credibilitiy of someone who backs every claim is laughable.

Why anyone would be so loyal to their cult to display their ignorance to the level you just have is beyond my level of understanding.

If my banker was as ignorant about world trade and ecomomics as you are, I'd find a new banker.


~SH~

 

[Tommy]

SH...For someone like you, who rarely backs his claims and questions everything that doesn't support his bias, to question the credibilitiy of someone who backs every claim is laughable.

Scott did you ever back up your statement that Korea will not take our beef unless we take live cattle from Canada? If you did I missed it.

 

[Anonymous]

T: "Scott how are we selling Egypt and Taiwan USA verified beef if what you say is true? How are they tracing it back now for them?"

By providing only soure verified cattle that meet these country's requirements.

To comply with Taiwan's requirements will require enforcement that THEY DEEM ACCEPTABLE. My guess is this will require source verification.

In contrast, the "M"COOL law states that ANY RETAILER MUST PROVIDE proof of the origin of the covered commodity. The specifics for origin in the "M"COOL law are where the animal was "born, raised, and processed". That requires an enforceable traceback system which may or may not apply to Egypt and Taiwan's demands.

The "M"COOL mandate is specific in it's requirements which may or may not be applicable to another countries origin requirements and the enforcement of those requirements.

You cannot compare "M"COOL requirements with Egypt and Taiwan's requirements unless they are the same legally.



~SH~

 

[agman]

Agman, "Arrogance, you don't even know the stores which are selling this beef. Since you have no results from your local Hop and Shop for comparison you assume I do not posses valid comparative data. That is both arrogance and stupidity combined on your part. You---want to tell me what goes on in these stores when I have been there and I am in contact with their reps weekly. You can go to your local Hop and Shop and tell me what you see but you have never set foot into any of these establishments I am referencing for factual information. So tell me genius, how would you know? You cannot extrapolate your total ignorance per this subject to me."

How many times do I have to point out to you that any data you may have gathered was not in an environment where US beef was touted over foreign?


Agman, "I see you posed a new question to divert from you lack of knowledge per the said subject. Your question...."I'm still waiting for you to explain how a Nebraska cow/calf man profits from a US consumer buying a Canadian steak."

Agman, "I guess I would also have to explain to you why it is important for consumers to eat pork and chicken. A U.S. producer benefits the same way when a Canadian buys a steak from the USA. That is called driving "total demand". We do not live in a closed economy-thank God for that. What is being lost is the gain from added value which was derived to the U.S beef industry before the boarder closure. But then again, such an economic reality is beyond your narrow scope of comprehension. Good night."

I guess you could just answer the question.

It is readily apparent this subject is way over your head. I simply don't have time to waste on your senseless position. You have no fact to go on-just baseless assumptions. Call a few of your friends and go outside and play in your sandbox.