What is the right way to compete with chicken?

[pointrider]

A couple of days ago I stopped at a Wendy's for a burger for lunch. When I received my meal, in addition to the tray liner, there was a special notice on the tray about their premium chicken sandwiches.

On Friday, October 21st, USA Today reported, "Beef costs help shrink McDonald's profit - McDonald's on Thursday reported a 6% decline in third-quarter profit as U.S. sales growth continued to slow, while its European business gained some momentum. Higher beef costs, in particular, hurt profit margins. Comparable sales - from restaurants open more than one year - were up 5.1% in Europe and 3.7% in the USA. But the U.S. market was helped by a 50% jump in sales of its Premium Chicken Sandwiches."

Do you think maybe that the premium chicken sandwiches are helping Wendy's bottom line, too? Do you believe there are others doing the same thing? Chick-fil-A (you know, the one with the cow saying, "Eat more chickin'!") is having double digit growth. Do you believe that beef will regain market share when prices go down? What's the best way to compete with chicken?

 

[Sandhusker]

I'd like to see some data on the relation between marketshare and beef prices. My line of thinking is; if prices have to come down to regain marketshare, is it worth it? At what point are we getting the highest return on our % marketshare. When I say "we", I'm talking producers.

I kind of like prices now. If they have to go down to get more marketshare, I dont' know if I want any more!

 

[PORKER]

Be wary of spring chickens
Did you know that standard poultry producers feed trace amounts of arsenic to their broilers? In small amounts, the well-known poison stimulates the birds' appetites and helps fight certain diseases that can spread rapidly in confinement facilities. A survey published in Environmental Health Perspectives sheds light on how much arsenic makes it to our dinner plates.

The researchers determined that there was 0.39 ppm of arsenic in the meat of young broiler chickens, the type of chicken that fills the meat cases at your local supermarket. They calculated this was "3–4 fold higher than in other poultry and meat. People who eat typical amounts of chicken may ingest 1.38–5.24 mcg a day from chicken alone." They concluded that "These concentrations are higher than previously recognized in chicken," and went on to say it may be wise to recalculate how much of the poison that consumers are ingesting on a daily basis.

This Will sell More BEEF north and South of the Border.

 

[Econ101]

Be wary of spring chickens
Did you know that standard poultry producers feed trace amounts of arsenic to their broilers? In small amounts, the well-known poison stimulates the birds' appetites and helps fight certain diseases that can spread rapidly in confinement facilities. A survey published in Environmental Health Perspectives sheds light on how much arsenic makes it to our dinner plates.

The researchers determined that there was 0.39 ppm of arsenic in the meat of young broiler chickens, the type of chicken that fills the meat cases at your local supermarket. They calculated this was "3–4 fold higher than in other poultry and meat. People who eat typical amounts of chicken may ingest 1.38–5.24 mcg a day from chicken alone." They concluded that "These concentrations are higher than previously recognized in chicken," and went on to say it may be wise to recalculate how much of the poison that consumers are ingesting on a daily basis.

This Will sell More BEEF north and South of the Border.

I wonder if that will ever be in a beef checkoff ad. I think that would be the true test to see of the checkoff program was captive advertising for the packers that are heavy into the substitutes.

 

[katrina]

TWO WORDS: BIRD FLU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

[Econ101]

TWO WORDS: BIRD FLU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Careful, we don't want to scare everyone into being a vegetarian! BSE could be used the same way. It is far better to make sure these agribusinesses are not reducing the quality of all of our food for thier own pocketbook. The arsenic is a perfect example.

The arsenic in poultry ONLY benefits the poultry companies who use it as they compete against other companies but when all companies are using arsenic to get the advantage, nothing has really been accomplished except possibly a little less grain being consumed (per lb. savings is really low but adds up over a huge producer like Tyson). Consumers have a little more arsenic in their food that they have to worry about. The quality of the food in the country has decreased because of this "efficiency". Just like my classroom example of cheaters in the classroom; when everyone is cheating and making higher test scores, there is no real benefit. The measuring goal posts of test scores showing advancement has been moved. If you measure how well a class is doing when everyone knows the answer to 1/3 of the test, the test is not an accurate measurement of value anymore. Who cares if they score in the top of the nation as far as test scores, they are cheaters!!! The value of that chicken has decreased because of the arsenic!!!

What is interesting is to see the industry influence on this little example of arsenic. Right now Tyson is in a few lawsuits over additional arsenic in the environment in Oklahoma, I think. Something over cancer clusters. They would probably have more if more of the damage to the quality of the environment is known. The studies used to see what the residuals of the arsenic in chicken by the manufacteror were obviously shown to be false. The question then became: 1) Do we take the arsenic out of the feed or 2) Do we increase the FDA/USDA "safe" limits of arsenic in the population?

So far, industry has delayed any action on these questions. More insider dealings behind closed doors. The foxes are winning.

We deserve more from our politicians and political appointees.

 

[katrina]

Econ, I was being hateful. I wouldn't wish that on anyone..

 

[Econ101]

Econ, I was being hateful. I wouldn't wish that on anyone..

I didn't take it as a negative response or attack, Katrina. Your comment just might be a reality.

I still think it would be a good test for beef checkoff advertising to make sure the checkoff is not "captive advertising".

 

[katrina]

Econ, I heard on the radio that maybe millions of americans could die from bird flu.. I hope they can make a vaccine for it.

 

[Econ101]

d

 

[Econ101]

Econ, I heard on the radio that maybe millions of americans could die from bird flu.. I hope they can make a vaccine for it.

Me too. It might make us put our lives into a different perspective.

 

[PORKER]

What is interesting is to see the industry influence on this little example of arsenic. Right now Tyson is in a few lawsuits over additional arsenic in the environment in Oklahoma, I think. Something over cancer clusters. They would probably have more if more of the damage to the quality of the environment is known. The studies used to see what the residuals of the arsenic in chicken by the manufacteror were obviously shown to be false. The question then became: 1) Do we take the arsenic out of the feed or 2) Do we increase the FDA/USDA "safe" limits of arsenic in the population?

Some thought here that when cattle are fed chicken manure then the arsenic wold be higher in beef too.How about grass fed cattle grazing fertlized pasture with chicken manure.Wonder if the countrys importing chicken have checked out the levels of arsenic in imported chicken?Some Questions need to be answered !

 

[mp.freelance]

Econ, I heard on the radio that maybe millions of americans could die from bird flu.. I hope they can make a vaccine for it.

What's weird is that millions of people around the world already die from the regular flu, but we hardly ever hear about it.

 

[Econ101]

Econ, I heard on the radio that maybe millions of americans could die from bird flu.. I hope they can make a vaccine for it.

What's weird is that millions of people around the world already die from the regular flu, but we hardly ever hear about it.

Put a frog in a pot of water and turn it on you can cook all of them. If you put them in a pot hot water they will try to jump out.

It is consolation to me that some people are more advanced than frogs. I wish more were.

 

[N Ellis]

Does anyone know if there is any independent research into the arsenic and chicken claims?

Am I the only one suspicious of research by Environmental Health Perspectives as having a possibility of bias against the poultry industry. Have they made any enviro/health claims against beef in the past? Do they have such work in progress against other agricultural products?

eCON, does your 'investigative' work look into both sides of such issues?

BTW, your jab about the Beef Checkoff on this issue is all too typical of your biases. The checkoff people work diligently to be factual and positive in statements. Such as: ads will point out the verifiable superiority of nutrients in beef as compared with, for instance, chicken...........but won't simply state the chicken is inferior to beef.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Does anyone know if there is any independent research into the arsenic and chicken claims?

Am I the only one suspicious of research by Environmental Health Perspectives as having a possibility of bias against the poultry industry. Have they made any enviro/health claims against beef in the past? Do they have such work in progress against other agricultural products?

eCON, does your 'investigative' work look into both sides of such issues?

BTW, your jab about the Beef Checkoff on this issue is all too typical of your biases. The checkoff people work diligently to be factual and positive in statements. Such as: ads will point out the verifiable superiority of nutrients in beef as compared with, for instance, chicken...........but won't simply state the chicken is inferior to beef.

MRJ

MRJ, There is a lot of research on the arsenic. It is an organic arsenic in the product roxarasone, I believe. It gets broken down into an inorganic arsenic which is the lethal kind in the litter, I think. Go research it. If you are not going to believe what anyone else says then what is the use?

Factual and positive statements are not an ad campaign. They are just spending producer money. Show where it has had a positive impact on beef consumption. I have a bias against things that do not work. You can be slick in how you promote beef other than just the dry facts over chicken.

 

[N Ellis]

Does anyone know if there is any independent research into the arsenic and chicken claims?

Am I the only one suspicious of research by Environmental Health Perspectives as having a possibility of bias against the poultry industry. Have they made any enviro/health claims against beef in the past? Do they have such work in progress against other agricultural products?

eCON, does your 'investigative' work look into both sides of such issues?

BTW, your jab about the Beef Checkoff on this issue is all too typical of your biases. The checkoff people work diligently to be factual and positive in statements. Such as: ads will point out the verifiable superiority of nutrients in beef as compared with, for instance, chicken...........but won't simply state the chicken is inferior to beef.

MRJ

MRJ, There is a lot of research on the arsenic. It is an organic arsenic in the product roxarasone, I believe. It gets broken down into an inorganic arsenic which is the lethal kind in the litter, I think. Go research it. If you are not going to believe what anyone else says then what is the use?

Factual and positive statements are not an ad campaign. They are just spending producer money. Show where it has had a positive impact on beef consumption. I have a bias against things that do not work. You can be slick in how you promote beef other than just the dry facts over chicken.

I hope to find time to do a little checking into the claims and the science backing them before accepting as whole cloth the claims made here.

No one has said only "dry facts" are being used in beef ads. The ads are said to be very attractive and even funny while presenting a factual message beneficial to the consumer. National and, if recall serves well, even international awards and prizes from independent agencies have been won by the beef ads over many years.

What is your basis for implying beef ads do not work?

There have been independent agencies doing research to determine the value of various aspects of the beef checkoff to the producers. Will you admit that the results of such research has validity?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Does anyone know if there is any independent research into the arsenic and chicken claims?

Am I the only one suspicious of research by Environmental Health Perspectives as having a possibility of bias against the poultry industry. Have they made any enviro/health claims against beef in the past? Do they have such work in progress against other agricultural products?

eCON, does your 'investigative' work look into both sides of such issues?

BTW, your jab about the Beef Checkoff on this issue is all too typical of your biases. The checkoff people work diligently to be factual and positive in statements. Such as: ads will point out the verifiable superiority of nutrients in beef as compared with, for instance, chicken...........but won't simply state the chicken is inferior to beef.

MRJ

MRJ, There is a lot of research on the arsenic. It is an organic arsenic in the product roxarasone, I believe. It gets broken down into an inorganic arsenic which is the lethal kind in the litter, I think. Go research it. If you are not going to believe what anyone else says then what is the use?

Factual and positive statements are not an ad campaign. They are just spending producer money. Show where it has had a positive impact on beef consumption. I have a bias against things that do not work. You can be slick in how you promote beef other than just the dry facts over chicken.

I hope to find time to do a little checking into the claims and the science backing them before accepting as whole cloth the claims made here.

No one has said only "dry facts" are being used in beef ads. The ads are said to be very attractive and even funny while presenting a factual message beneficial to the consumer. National and, if recall serves well, even international awards and prizes from independent agencies have been won by the beef ads over many years.

What is your basis for implying beef ads do not work?

There have been independent agencies doing research to determine the value of various aspects of the beef checkoff to the producers. Will you admit that the results of such research has validity?

MRJ

I don't know. I haven't seen the numbers yet.

The big tests to whether or not checkoff dollars are captive to the packer interests is if they advertise against their interests in the substitutes effectively. I would like to see some of those adds and not just when it is strategically beneficial to the packers.