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

What Consumers Want

RobertMac

Well-known member
Susanne Bopp 'What Consumers Want'_Drovers said:
Another result that echoed previous studies was what some researchers have called a “fat paradox.” Consumers seemed to negatively relate the fat content of steak to perceptions of quality. Respondents consistently rated Select cuts of meat as preferable to Choice cuts. Consumers who bought lean steaks expected them to be higher-quality — with more tenderness and better taste — than steaks with more marbling, but they were disappointed when they actually ate the steaks. Apparently the knowledge a consumer possesses about meat and animal characteristics will influence attitudes about the features of steak products that are considered important.

The "fat paradox" comes from consumers being told since the 1970s that fat is bad for their health with the bull's eye on BEEF!!!!!!! Until this propaganda is addressed and corrected...as in differentiating between animal fats (good for your health) and hydrogenated vegetable fats (trans fats...bad for your health)...beef will never regain market share! Unfortunately, most in the beef industry have bought into the propaganda. :mad:
 

Jason

Well-known member
Educate consumers.

In Canada we have been promoting the actual fat numbers on steaks for a while now, and the type of cooking for each type of cut.

Some choose the leaner type but are satisfyed with it because they know what they are getting.

Today the majority of beef buyers in Canada know AAA is more marbled than AA. Many consumers in the States don't know the difference between choice and select. If they did they could buy better and be more satisfyed.
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Susanne Bopp 'What Consumers Want'_Drovers said:
Another result that echoed previous studies was what some researchers have called a “fat paradox.” Consumers seemed to negatively relate the fat content of steak to perceptions of quality. Respondents consistently rated Select cuts of meat as preferable to Choice cuts. Consumers who bought lean steaks expected them to be higher-quality — with more tenderness and better taste — than steaks with more marbling, but they were disappointed when they actually ate the steaks. Apparently the knowledge a consumer possesses about meat and animal characteristics will influence attitudes about the features of steak products that are considered important.

The "fat paradox" comes from consumers being told since the 1970s that fat is bad for their health with the bull's eye on BEEF!!!!!!! Until this propaganda is addressed and corrected...as in differentiating between animal fats (good for your health) and hydrogenated vegetable fats (trans fats...bad for your health)...beef will never regain market share! Unfortunately, most in the beef industry have bought into the propaganda. :mad:

RobertMac, have you bothered to check out the current research projects re. fatty acids and their effect on the diet of humans involving the Beef Checkoff?

MRJ
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
MRJ said:
RobertMac said:
Susanne Bopp 'What Consumers Want'_Drovers said:
Another result that echoed previous studies was what some researchers have called a “fat paradox.” Consumers seemed to negatively relate the fat content of steak to perceptions of quality. Respondents consistently rated Select cuts of meat as preferable to Choice cuts. Consumers who bought lean steaks expected them to be higher-quality — with more tenderness and better taste — than steaks with more marbling, but they were disappointed when they actually ate the steaks. Apparently the knowledge a consumer possesses about meat and animal characteristics will influence attitudes about the features of steak products that are considered important.

The "fat paradox" comes from consumers being told since the 1970s that fat is bad for their health with the bull's eye on BEEF!!!!!!! Until this propaganda is addressed and corrected...as in differentiating between animal fats (good for your health) and hydrogenated vegetable fats (trans fats...bad for your health)...beef will never regain market share! Unfortunately, most in the beef industry have bought into the propaganda. :mad:

RobertMac, have you bothered to check out the current research projects re. fatty acids and their effect on the diet of humans involving the Beef Checkoff?

MRJ

MRJ, do you and the Checkoff/NCBA understand that your current research is about twenty years behind????????????????????? And the counter message to "fat is bad" is well over thirty years behind???????
 

TSR

Well-known member
Jason said:
Educate consumers.

In Canada we have been promoting the actual fat numbers on steaks for a while now, and the type of cooking for each type of cut.

Some choose the leaner type but are satisfyed with it because they know what they are getting.

Today the majority of beef buyers in Canada know AAA is more marbled than AA. Many consumers in the States don't know the difference between choice and select. If they did they could buy better and be more satisfyed.

Exactly, and as I have said several times on here, every consumer knows what tender means but not every consumer can relate to the word "marbling". IMO if they could then marbling would become very significant to them when they went to the grocery. More education needed in this regard.
 

agman

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Susanne Bopp 'What Consumers Want'_Drovers said:
Another result that echoed previous studies was what some researchers have called a “fat paradox.” Consumers seemed to negatively relate the fat content of steak to perceptions of quality. Respondents consistently rated Select cuts of meat as preferable to Choice cuts. Consumers who bought lean steaks expected them to be higher-quality — with more tenderness and better taste — than steaks with more marbling, but they were disappointed when they actually ate the steaks. Apparently the knowledge a consumer possesses about meat and animal characteristics will influence attitudes about the features of steak products that are considered important.

The "fat paradox" comes from consumers being told since the 1970s that fat is bad for their health with the bull's eye on BEEF!!!!!!! Until this propaganda is addressed and corrected...as in differentiating between animal fats (good for your health) and hydrogenated vegetable fats (trans fats...bad for your health)...beef will never regain market share! Unfortunately, most in the beef industry have bought into the propaganda. :mad:

The reality is that this industry misinterpreted what the consumer meant by reducing "fat". What they really did not want is visible fat surrounding
a cut of meat. Thus, along with producing a leaner product exterior trim was reduced from 1" to 1/4" and now the general standard "denuded" product is favored by retailers and restaurants. Choice demand has improved as witnessed by almost all major retailers now featuring some choice product in their offerings. This meat is also well marbled and is not being rejected by consumers due to extremely tight exterior trim specifications.

The industry movement toward a ultra-lean product offering little taste and plenty of "toughness" was resoundingly rejected by consumers. That transition was the primary factor which eroded beef demand for a period of nineteen years.

While againg can improve select product it is no substitue for choice product IMO. Have a great day.
 

Jason

Well-known member
In addition to Agman's comments, many breeders are falling short in knowing what type of cattle to produce.

My customers love the type of beef Agman posted about, practically devoid of outside fat cover, yet marbled for taste.

At what point is it still worth while raising cattle that are so externally fat consumers reject them? Some of the same producers who are raising those cattle are the ones crying about the packers buying cheaper imported trim to mix with the trimmed fat, go figure.

I read a good article last year or early this year about a lady in Texas that started her own packer. Her daughter took over packer operations and sent beef back to the ranch her mom was running. The mom was horrified how bad it was, the daughter said send me something better to work with.... they changed breeding focus and improved quality. It was a great article in the Angus Journal.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Jason said:
In addition to Agman's comments, many breeders are falling short in knowing what type of cattle to produce.

My customers love the type of beef Agman posted about, practically devoid of outside fat cover, yet marbled for taste.

At what point is it still worth while raising cattle that are so externally fat consumers reject them? Some of the same producers who are raising those cattle are the ones crying about the packers buying cheaper imported trim to mix with the trimmed fat, go figure.

I read a good article last year or early this year about a lady in Texas that started her own packer. Her daughter took over packer operations and sent beef back to the ranch her mom was running. The mom was horrified how bad it was, the daughter said send me something better to work with.... they changed breeding focus and improved quality. It was a great article in the Angus Journal.

Drovers said:
Acceptance levels in cattle identified for the Certified Angus Beef brand stand near historical lows in the 15 percent area.

The percentage of Prime and Choice carcasses have been declining as the cattle herd has been becoming more Black. Don't let facts get in the way of hype!!!

Jason said:
...many breeders are falling short in knowing what type of cattle to produce.

So, Jason, what's the problem?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Agman, I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was directed at why the consumer wanted less fat. In the minds of consumers (put there by the medical profession and the media), is that the three major causes of chronic health problems is smoking, drinking, and eating red meat. Until the industry aggressively addresses this issue, beef's market share isn't going to increase. Demand has increased because consumers that are eating beef are willing to pay more, but for the industry to grow, volume must increase.

Lean and ultra-lean beef can be an acceptable eating experience IF it is properly prepared. I know, I've eaten my share of it. You know the reason restaurants want high choice or better is so the minimum wage steak-flipper is less likely to ruin it. Take care, Robert
 

agman

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Agman, I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was directed at why the consumer wanted less fat. In the minds of consumers (put there by the medical profession and the media), is that the three major causes of chronic health problems is smoking, drinking, and eating red meat. Until the industry aggressively addresses this issue, beef's market share isn't going to increase. Demand has increased because consumers that are eating beef are willing to pay more, but for the industry to grow, volume must increase.

Lean and ultra-lean beef can be an acceptable eating experience IF it is properly prepared. I know, I've eaten my share of it. You know the reason restaurants want high choice or better is so the minimum wage steak-flipper is less likely to ruin it. Take care, Robert

The industry has and is addressing the health concerns regarding beef. You can thank your checkoff dollars for that. The issue still boils down to the eating experience and visible exterior fat. A select piece can also have substantial exterior fat which must be trimmed. Better quality beef which is being produced today and is closely trimmed helped to reverse a nineteen year decline in beef demand.

The advent of more branded product will require less variability in one's eating experience or that brand is destined to fail.

When you talk about the industry's need to grow one must be reminded that beef production has grown over the years although we have just completed the down cycle in production. However, it has not kept pace with population growth, thus per capita supplies have declined. If we can mange to maintain demand sufficiently to sustain per capita consumption at current levels then the industry would need to grow by approximately 1.0% per year or approximately 1.0 million head. Such an achievement would be very "bullish" to the beef industry. Have a great day.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Robert CAB acceptance has been static over the years. More cattle than ever are trying for the premiums, but many are just black look alikes.

CAB has had limits on excess fat cover as well. Overfed cattle trying to feed in the marbling isn't cutting it. The genetics are there to marble at an early age, but some insist on using genetics that aren't designed to marble.

Bringing the frame score down just aggrivates the outside fat cover problem, as exterior fat is associated with maturity. Early maturing cattle are harder to get large enough before they are too fat.

CAB has realized they had to adjust their carcass standards because the average carcass has changed since 1978 when the program was started. They have allowed a smaller ratio of ribeye to carcass size because of larger carcasses. They are also softening on the YG 4 as breeders seem to be stuck on get the exterior fat as well as the marbling. The 2 are seperate, but most don't get that.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Interesting comments about CAB Jason. Just think how fast you could change your program (if it is truely about quality beef) by adding one of the other true Black Breeds to your herd. This challenge that you have had with your straight angus cattle could be moved ahead quickly by adding the hair and hide that allows a carcass the fine marbling qualities while naturally taking off a layer or two of bark.
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
MRJ said:
RobertMac said:
The "fat paradox" comes from consumers being told since the 1970s that fat is bad for their health with the bull's eye on BEEF!!!!!!! Until this propaganda is addressed and corrected...as in differentiating between animal fats (good for your health) and hydrogenated vegetable fats (trans fats...bad for your health)...beef will never regain market share! Unfortunately, most in the beef industry have bought into the propaganda. :mad:

RobertMac, have you bothered to check out the current research projects re. fatty acids and their effect on the diet of humans involving the Beef Checkoff?

MRJ

MRJ, do you and the Checkoff/NCBA understand that your current research is about twenty years behind????????????????????? And the counter message to "fat is bad" is well over thirty years behind???????


RM, do you KNOW what the Checkoff and NCBA are doing re. fat research, or are you assuming?

Were credible, acccredited, peer reviewed researchers working on beef fatty acids twenty years ago?

You know that the Pillsbury's of this world had the bull by the horns with their deep pockets to promote the oils and hydrogenated fats as superior to animal fats back then.

You also know that the Beef Checkoff was a fledgling enterprise that had to accept the then current best of science and fight our way up by showing that beef was one of very few foods actually consumed at LESS than optimum 3 ounce servings (actually about two ounces per day after taking away the offal numbers used in previous measurements).

Beef advertising as having NATURALLY occuring, healthful fats will be the wave of the future.......but must have our ducks line up properly with irrefutable, scientific documentation of the facts before we can roll it out.

That is how and why NCBA has the excellent reputation they enjoy.....our insistence upon accuracy and honesty in claims for beef, along with all other endeavors of the group.

MRJ

The beef checkoff has to live and act within the realities of accepted information to a degree.

Asking the questions that have led to research to verify what some cattle producers and others have KNOWN instinctively has not happened as fast as most of us would prefer.

Breaking down the barriers of what was believed about animal fats did not happen overnight, and we WERE working on it long ago.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Agman said:
The industry has and is addressing the health concerns regarding beef. You can thank your checkoff dollars for that.

Sorry, Agman, I don't buy it. I'm very conscious of this issue and I see nothing putting a positive light on animal fats and beef with the exception of Dr. Atkins. He did more for the beef industry in a few years than the industry and the checkoff have done in their entire existence. The condemnation of animal fats started with margarine being claimed to be healthier than butter...and you know that was a long time ago. Where has the industry been????????????????

Jason, why has the percentage of Prime and Choice carcasses been declining as the cattle herd has been becoming more Black?
 

agman

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Agman said:
The industry has and is addressing the health concerns regarding beef. You can thank your checkoff dollars for that.

Sorry, Agman, I don't buy it. I'm very conscious of this issue and I see nothing putting a positive light on animal fats and beef with the exception of Dr. Atkins. He did more for the beef industry in a few years than the industry and the checkoff have done in their entire existence. The condemnation of animal fats started with margarine being claimed to be healthier than butter...and you know that was a long time ago. Where has the industry been????????????????

Jason, why has the percentage of Prime and Choice carcasses been declining as the cattle herd has been becoming more Black?

Where would we be without the Beef Checkoff regarding the benefits of beef???? What you are focusing on are the excuses that were used. The fact is the quality of our beef declined for a long period and time and improved as the quality of our offerings improved. Atkins also was a factor but not the only factor. Since Atkins is no longer a fad and those on that diet are decline in numbers why is beef demand still way above the low recorded in 1998??

Regarding your question to Jason there are several factors. First, not all black cattle grade choice. Second, the increased use of implants appears to impact grading. Third, more stringent grading by USDA inspectors which began last August.

Is it not strange that while cattle grading has not improved the percent of YG4's is at a record high as are carcass weights? Once this industry gets through this part of the feeder supply cycle I expect we will see a sustatined upturn in choice grading; only time will prove the latter statement correct. Have a cool one.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
agman said:
Where would we be without the Beef Checkoff regarding the benefits of beef???? What you are focusing on are the excuses that were used. The fact is the quality of our beef declined for a long period and time and improved as the quality of our offerings improved. Atkins also was a factor but not the only factor. Since Atkins is no longer a fad and those on that diet are decline in numbers why is beef demand still way above the low recorded in 1998??

Regarding your question to Jason there are several factors. First, not all black cattle grade choice. Second, the increased use of implants appears to impact grading. Third, more stringent grading by USDA inspectors which began last August.

Is it not strange that while cattle grading has not improved the percent of YG4's is at a record high as are carcass weights? Once this industry gets through this part of the feeder supply cycle I expect we will see a sustatined upturn in choice grading; only time will prove the latter statement correct. Have a cool one.

Agman, I'm in favor of the checkoff...I just want it to work better at increasing beef consumption at good prices. If you can't recognize that it is ingrained into consumers minds that fat is unhealthy(particularly beef fat), you have your head in the sand. The market share we lost and have not regained are these people. Until we address their concerns(which should have started many years ago) they aren't coming back no matter how good our steaks are...because they aren't going to try them.

Producers have responded to market signals(packers paying more for black cattle) and follow recommended best management practices, yet quality is in a slow decline. When you are going in the wrong direction, at some point, you stop and go a different direction.
 

agman

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
agman said:
Where would we be without the Beef Checkoff regarding the benefits of beef???? What you are focusing on are the excuses that were used. The fact is the quality of our beef declined for a long period and time and improved as the quality of our offerings improved. Atkins also was a factor but not the only factor. Since Atkins is no longer a fad and those on that diet are decline in numbers why is beef demand still way above the low recorded in 1998??

Regarding your question to Jason there are several factors. First, not all black cattle grade choice. Second, the increased use of implants appears to impact grading. Third, more stringent grading by USDA inspectors which began last August.

Is it not strange that while cattle grading has not improved the percent of YG4's is at a record high as are carcass weights? Once this industry gets through this part of the feeder supply cycle I expect we will see a sustatined upturn in choice grading; only time will prove the latter statement correct. Have a cool one.

Agman, I'm in favor of the checkoff...I just want it to work better at increasing beef consumption at good prices. If you can't recognize that it is ingrained into consumers minds that fat is unhealthy(particularly beef fat), you have your head in the sand. The market share we lost and have not regained are these people. Until we address their concerns(which should have started many years ago) they aren't coming back no matter how good our steaks are...because they aren't going to try them.

Producers have responded to market signals(packers paying more for black cattle) and follow recommended best management practices, yet quality is in a slow decline. When you are going in the wrong direction, at some point, you stop and go a different direction.

If you want to increase consumption basically all we have to do is lower the price. Increasing demand is a completely different issue from increasing consumption. You should differentiate the two. I am interested in increasing demand. If you are not aware of all the efforts ( written, audible and visual) to educate consumers regarding the health benefits of beef then you are the one with your head in the sand. How much do you advertise the healthfulness of beef in your retail business? Are you pitting your grass fed beef against corn fed beef or natural versus conventional beef? If so, how does such help total beef demand?

I cited several reasons for the failure of grading to improve to date. Why did you not address any of those issues I referenced? Are you not aware of those issues and their impact on grading? I remain very confident that grading will improve as we enter the next phase of the feeder and calf supply cycle. That process will begin over the next two-three years. Stay cool.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Agman said:
If you want to increase consumption basically all we have to do is lower the price. Increasing demand is a completely different issue from increasing consumption. You should differentiate the two. I am interested in increasing demand.

RM said:
Agman, I'm in favor of the checkoff...I just want it to work better at increasing beef consumption at good prices.

I know many may have a problem with the meaning of 'demand', but surely not you. Isn't what I said "increasing demand"? I qualified it as an increase in volume of consumption while maintaining or increasing price. The increase in consumption is what is needed to grow the production side(as in cow/calf).

Agman said:
If you are not aware of all the efforts ( written, audible and visual) to educate consumers regarding the health benefits of beef then you are the one with your head in the sand.

My point is that I(and the average consumer) don't it in everyday living, where as the opposing view is everywhere! The media never misses a chance to bash fast food(hamburgers), fat makes you fat, and red meat causes heart attacks. I know countering this is no easy job, but I think it is the checkoff's most important job(along with finding the CAUSE OF BSE!). I will gladly support doubleing the checkoff to make these happen.

Agman said:
How much do you advertise the healthfulness of beef in your retail business? Are you pitting your grass fed beef against corn fed beef or natural versus conventional beef? If so, how does such help total beef demand?

I don't have to advertise...I have customers coming to me that I have to turn away because I'm sold out! If you have researched grassfed (with an open mind), you would know the difference and the health benefits are in the fatty acid profile. I guess you missed my statement that I think grassfed beef is the most healthy food the consumer can eat...and natural grainfed beef is the second. Increasing sells of both will increase beef demand because we are going after two different consumer bases. If I was only concerned about grassfed and my business, I wouldn't have a problem with the checkoff...now would I !?!?

According to the Drovers article, from 1975 to 2005, there has been a 1% decline in Prime and a 6.2% decline in choice. With all the technological advances, EPDs, research, and movement to a more favorable breed through out the national cow herd, Angus, those numbers should be going the other direction. Obviously the things the industry is doing, aren't the right things. The hardest thing in the world to do is to get PhDs to admit they gave the wrong advise!!! :? Take care, Robert
 

Jason

Well-known member
I just read a couple articles about the things Agman just posted. Implants administered at the wrong time can really hurt marbling. I can see this one heading in the direction of non implanted calves being at a slight premium because it will assure the feeder of a better chance of achieving the genetic marbling potential.

The yearling over calf fed scenario also affects marbling. While the older cattle tend to reach their genetic marbling limits, they also are older or more mature at slaughter so they have more exterior fat cover. The calf feds if handled properly will marble as well yet have reduced fat cover.

One of the problems inherint to the business is that economic decisions don't always produce the very best beef. Implants save about $60 per head in feed costs, yet can result in poorer quality. Holding cattle off to hit a better futures month might make economic sence, but will the beef quality suffer because of the reduced nutrition for that period?

We still don't know everything that hurts beef quality, but at least we are learning and improving.
 

ocm

Well-known member
In a properly functioning market price signals encourage porduction of the product in most demand. Perhaps the checkoff people could do a study to see what the effect might be of changing "select" to "good" like it used to be.

Clear information for the consumer would certainly increase demand, and especially demand for what they want instead of having that demand diverted because of misinformation.
 
Top