RM: "Fedup2, I, as well as, I believe, most here, appreciate your post and your point of view. Thanks for being a part of this board."
Robert we already know what your bias is. I can't think of anyone that has been corrected more times on this site than you have and still you continue to search for anything that will support your anti corporate packer blaming bias. Obviously you would support Fedup's relentless post evaluations.
You, like most packer blamers, are not looking for the truth, you are looking to support your bias. Sandbag, OT, Tommy, Conman, Rod, and you are all the same from that standpoint.
It's also well known how you packer blamers need your little support groups. When you don't bring anything to the table, you discuss the manner in which others bring something to the table. Some things never change.
When I first came to this site, I honestly believed that the facts and truth would turn many packer blamers around. I never understood the depths of the need for some to have someone or something to blame. I'm still amazed. Time and time again the packer blamers false allegations are corrected or challenged for the facts that support them and time and time again the packer blamers are proven wrong. This truth brings resentment.
I guess it's just a fact of life that those who want to blame are going to find something or someone to blame. As Agman says, "facts be damned".
R-CALF loses every court case they are involved in and blamers still clutch on to their need to blame and throw money at R-CALF. Unbelievable!
Rod: "This is how I know that you have no business experience at all. Within business, GROSS profits are discussed all the time. And when someone lists figures upon which no costs have been deducted, its understood to be gross profits, something you obviously have no idea about."
When discussing "profits", it's well known that "profit" means NET PROFIT AFTER EXPENSES unless specifically addressed as "GROSS PROFITS BEFORE EXPENSES".
The dictionary agrees.
Effective communication is something you obviously have no idea about.
No need to address that further. If you want to have a discussion on "GROSS PROFITS", address it as "GROSS PROFITS BEFORE EXPENSES" then everyone will know you are not talking about "PROFITS" per say which is what is left after expenses.
Rod: " like how you "forget" to post the follow on information. Nice work SH in trying to warp facts to your own viewpoint. Like where I use you 40% of live weight (which, by the way, according to the shops I talk to is closer to 43% - 45% for regular ground beef)."
Same-O, Same-O! When the packer blamers are corrected with the facts they immediately resort to lies about "warping facts" or some other lame excuse.
HOW DO YOU WARP YOUR ACTUAL STATEMENTS ROD???? Show me the warped facts! More cheap talk I presume.
Still can't admit you were wrong can you? It's all there for anyone to see Rod. YOUR claim was a 50% red meat yield from an 1140 pound culls and heiferettes priced at $1.99 per pound.
Those are your exact words Rod.
I just got off the phone with one of the largest locker plants in the area. He said a cull cow in good shape would dress about 48% - 50%, NOT 63%. Just as a I figured. After that, 2/3 is red meat yield.
1140 X 49% = 559 lb. carcass (dressing percentage)
559 x 66% (2/3) = 369 lb. of ground beef.
369 POUNDS OF GROUND BEEF IS A HELL OF A LONG WAYS FROM THE 570 POUNDS OF GROUND BEEF YOU STATED!!!
Instead of trying to spin around it, be a man and admit you were wrong, BIG TIME!
559 lb. x $1.99 per pound = $1112.41
369 lb. x $1.99 per pound = $734.31
THAT'S $378.10 DIFFERENCE IN PRICE?????
Does that answer a big part of your question regarding where the $875 went???? LOL!
My 40% figure was too high, for cull cows. Granted, those heiferrettes would have dressed better. 32% red meat yield is closer to the actual red meat yield on a cull cow.
Don't shoot the messanger. LOL! You should be happy that you're not getting screwed that additional $378.
Rod: "No I didn't. I'm CANADIAN. Those were CANADIAN PRICES. Which I also clearly stated in that message thread and which you conveniently left out."
Nowhere in the message above did you state CANADIAN DOLLARS. Another of your many "after thoughts".
In fairness, the locker plant quoted ground beef prices higher than I had estimated. U.S. dollars for 85/15 ground beef, AT CURRENT CULL COW PRICES, is selling for $2.20 per pound.
Now before you go hammering on my small miscalculation which is dwarfed in comparison to a 18% difference in red meat yield, COMPARE OUR CULL COW PRICES TO YOURS. This locker is paying a lot more for cull cows than yours are.
Also consider that locker plant 85/15 ground beef is higher priced than Walmart 85/15 ground beef.
Rod: "Not even 1% of carcass when considering hamburger."
(in regards to injection site lesions, blemishes, and bruises)
Granted, as stated, injection site lesions and bruising is not much of a problem. On some cows it used to be a big problem.
Rod: "40% already knocks off trim."
40% wasn't your number, 50% was and you never mentioned trim because you didn't consider it. The actual 32% red meat yield considers trim.
Rod: "Live weight was shrunk weight."
I'm not talking about the live weight shrink, I'm talking about the carcass weight loss due to shrink. It is an issue. How much? Probably not much but it is a factor.
Rod: "Just did, you missed on all of them."
Hahaha! I missed on none of them. Every one of those is a factor. You said 50% red meat yield, the red meat yield was closer to 32% as opposed to my estimate of 40%. You said $1.99 for ground beef Canadian, that still seems too high considering your cull cow prices but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there. You never mentioned the trim. You never mentioned the carcass shrink. You never mentioned the possibility of loss due to cut out injection sites and blemishes.
Yeh, you bet, I really missed on all of them. LOL!
The big miss here was an 18% difference in red meat yield that was miscalculated by you in your haste to blame the packers for profitting at the expense of poor Rod.
Rod: "Enron accounting. SRM removal is actual cost in labor of removal of SRMs. The lost value is already taken into account by the reduced value saleable meats."
When discussing the lost value of a carcass due to SRM removal, this SRM cost estimate considers the lost value, PERIOD.
That is what the whole discussion on SRM removal encompasses.
~SH~