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

Why Can't the NCBA Get It Right?

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Location
TX
Raising the steaks



BY LEAH A. ZELDES

Chicago Sun-Times

July 19, 2006



Succulent steaks seared over fire mark one of the high points of summer. But will you grill dry-aged or wet? Grass-fed or grain-fed? Kobe or Angus? Flat iron or ranch? Prime or choice? Organic or conventional?



Far more than how you cook it, the meat spells success or failure with steaks.



"You get what you start with" says Chef Randy Waidner, a 15-year veteran of the Weber Grill Restaurants, who now runs the kitchen at Entourage, a new supper club at 1301 American Ln. in Schaumburg.



"It's all in the quality of the animal," says butcher Frank Bornhofen of Bornhofen's Meat Market, 6155 N. Broadway.



Many sizzling new choices are featured in the meat cases of local groceries and butcher shops, and the selection can be bewildering. Here's our guide to sorting out the new steaks.



Grass-fed beef and dry-aged steaks actually aren't new. Sixty years ago, nearly all cattle came to market straight from the pasture and all beef was aged unwrapped for flavor and tenderness. After World War II, American ranchers began to pen steers for a pre-market fattening on a corn-rich diet, which produced better marbled meat in a shorter time.



Meanwhile, meatpackers discovered that a short rest in heavy-duty plastic broke down tough meat fibers with less waste than dry aging, a process that evaporated moisture and formed a jerkylike crust that had to be trimmed and discarded. If the flavor of wet-aged beef was milder, well, folks got used it.



Now, the old-fashioned methods are reviving. Dry-aged beef rocketed to Chicago's epicurean consciousness with the opening of David Burke's Primehouse, 616 N. Rush, as critics gushed over its steaks, bred in Kentucky from the eatery's own bulls and aged 21 days in a special room walled with Himalayan salt bricks.



Dry aging is a costly process. "You need a real butcher and you need real estate," Burke says.



The meat loses up to 20 percent of its weight during dry aging. The process concentrates flavor for an intense, beefy tang, as well as creating very tender steaks.



Burke uses the Japanese term "umami" (meaning "savoriness") to describe the taste, likening it to the flavor of aged Parmesan cheese or cured charcuterie.



"It's a more flavorful and more tender piece of meat," says Allen Schaffer, meat buyer for Treasure Island, which began dry-aging its Sterling Silver brand meat early this year. The beef, sold in all the Treasure Island stores, ages in a special locker at a Lake Shore Drive location. Treasure Island's dry-aged beef is high-end USDA choice. At press time, its dry-aged boneless sirloin strip steaks were selling for $17 per pound (vs. $15 for wet-aged steaks).



"We also offer prime, but not dry-aged," Schaffer says.



Gourmet grocer Fox & Obel, 401 E. Illinois St., dry ages prime beef for 21 days. At press time, these steaks cost $29 per pound.



Steaks for grilling come in three grades. The highest quality beef is labeled prime. "Prime is only 2 percent of the animals," says Klaus Fritsch, vice chairman of Morton's of Chicago and co-author of the new Morton's Steak Bible (Clarkson Potter, $30). "Among thousands of animals, there may be only three prime."



Prime beef is heavily laced with white flecks and veins of fat. "The fat gives it the flavor and the tenderness," Bornhofen says.



The next grade, choice, offers high-quality steaks with somewhat less marbling than prime. "We're very particular with the choice that we get," says Bornhofen, who stocks both prime and choice, but for some steaks he advocates prime. "On the sirloin, it's the difference between night and day."



You'll have to visit a specialty butcher or high-end grocery to buy prime steaks -- most go to restaurants. Choice steaks are available at independent butcher shops and groceries, and most branded beef falls in this grade. Meat cases at Chicago's supermarket chains stock mainly select grade.



Leaner and less tasty, select beef takes special handling to achieve good results.



Because it has less moisture and higher density, dry-aged beef cooks more quickly than conventional meat. The color is less vibrant than wet-aged beef, a duller red, and it gives up fewer juices when you cut it.



Grass-fed beef also cooks more quickly. "It looks the same as other steak, other than there's less fat in it," says Chef Paul Katz of Harry Caray's, which serves Tallgrass Beef as well as conventional steaks. "Tallgrass cooks 30 percent faster than a corn-fed steak. It has less density."



Chicago TV journalist Bill Kurtis' Tallgrass Beef lies behind much of the local interest in grass-fed beef. "It's leaner. It doesn't have the fat inside the muscle," Kurtis says.



He and other advocates of grass-fed beef tout its sustainability since animals forage on the range. A corn-fed steer uses more resources, eating about eight pounds of grain per pound of meat. But grass feeding requires more land and labor per steer. Promoters also argue that keeping cattle out of the feedlot is more humane.



However, purported health benefits seem to be fueling the most interest in grass-fed beef. Promoters claim that this meat offers health benefits because it's higher in omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated lineolic acid and vitamin E than regular beef.



While grass-fed beef can be tough, Tallgrass seeks out cattle bred from old strains more likely to produce tender beef without a corn finish, using ultrasound to identify likely animals. In comparison, Katz says, "I've had other grass-fed beef that almost looked like select."



Katz describes the taste as "sweeter" while Kurtis says for "almost nutty."



Tallgrass Beef is sold at Fox & Obel, Foodstuffs and Sunset Foods stores.



The brand also is certified organic. Organic beef may be corn-fed or grass-fed, as long as the feed is certified organic, which means grown without chemical fertilizers or pesticides. Organic cattle may not receive antibiotics or synthetic growth hormones.



Bornhofen isn't enthusiastic about organic beef. He carried some for a while, but it didn't sell. "It was all right," he says. "It's a lot more expensive. And the meat is a different quality. It's not fed the same way."



While organic cattle need not be wholly grass-fed, organic certification requires that animals being grain-fed have access to the pasture, so the meat tends to be leaner and less tender than regular beef.



As some consumers seek leaner beef, others look for even more fat, as in Japanese-style meat called Kobe or wagyu. In the Kobe region of Japan, wagyu cattle are fed a diet of beer, allowed little exercise and, supposedly, massaged daily to achieve a legendary level of tenderness and white-laced marbling, up to 90 percent of the meat's weight. These steaks, which can sell for $300 a pound, are all but unobtainable by American consumers.



Kobe beef has a succulent texture but a delicate flavor. So-called "American Kobe" refers to U.S.-raised cattle of the same wagyu breed. These steers receive a different diet and get no massages; the end steaks don't quite achieve the sublime texture but may have deeper flavor.



American wagyu is available from premium butchers such as Fox & Obel and Allen Brothers, at prices of up to $100 a pound for top grades, such steaks are best sliced thinly and cooked quickly.



Given the rising cost of beef, producers have begun to look for ways to get more out of a carcass. New "value" cuts from the shoulder or chuck resulted from recent beef industry research that discovered different ways of cutting meat, which used to be sold primarily as part of larger roasts or ground for burgers. The new cuts remove connective tissue, creating lean steaks tender enough for grilling.



These cuts include the flat iron steak, ranch steak and petite tender. They have good, beefy flavor with a somewhat grainier texture than familiar steaks. "It's not the melt-in-your-mouth texture," says Mary Bartz, spokeswoman for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.



Fritsch doesn't like them as well as traditional cuts, but concedes that mid-priced restaurants may find uses for them.



At the other end of the scale, Burke sells a new steak he calls a "South Side filet mignon" -- no fillet at all, but a section of tenderloin on a whopping great bone that looks like a dinosaur's dinner.





Leah A. Zeldes is a local free-lance writer.





STEAK SPEAK: WHAT'S THE BEEF?



AGING: Most beef is aged at least briefly, to allow natural enzymes to break down muscle fiber, tenderizing the meat.

In wet aging, the most common method, meat is refrigerated in vacuum-sealed plastic bags for a few days. During dry aging, a premium method, unwrapped beef stands in a low-humidity cooler, typically for three weeks, allowing moisture to evaporate and concentrating meaty flavor.



ANGUS: A breed of hornless cattle originating in Scotland, with black or dark red coats.



BRANDED BEEF: Some producers market steaks with brand names, promising consistency of quality. These tend to be choice grades. Branding also may refer to the cattle breed, such as Certified Angus which identifies meat from "Angus-influenced cattle," or where it comes from such as the Kobe region of Japan.



GRAIN- OR CORN-FED BEEF: This is regular American beef, some 85 percent of the market. After a year or so at pasture, most cattle get a three- to six-month stretch confined in a feed lot, where they receive a fattening diet high in corn before going to market.



GRASS-FED BEEF: All U.S. cattle start out eating grass, but this designation refers to animals that never get a final fattening on grain. Some describe grass-fed beef as having a sweet, nutty flavor, but others call it tough and gamey, which may reflect a lack of standardization of the available meat.



KOBE BEEF: Costly beef from the Kobe region of Japan, where cattle are fed a diet of beer, allowed little exercise and, supposedly, massaged daily to achieve a legendary level of white-laced marbling and tenderness. So-called "American Kobe" refers to unmassaged U.S.-raised cattle of the same wagyu breed.



MARINADE: A seasoned liquid that adds flavor and, in some cases, tenderizes.



MARBLING: Flecks and streaks of fat integrated in the meat, which give it flavor and contribute to tenderness.



NATURAL BEEF: Beef with no additives, such as preservatives or marinades.



ORGANIC BEEF: To be certified organic, cattle must eat only organic feed and may not be given hormones or antibiotics. This meat, often leaner than regular beef, comes at premium prices from natural-foods stores such as Whole Foods and Wild Oats.



RUB: A blend of seasonings, such as herbs and spices, that adds flavor and is applied to the surface of raw steaks.



Leah A. Zeldes



CHIPOTLE MARINADE AND SAUCE



MAKES ENOUGH FOR 2 (20-OUNCE) STEAKS



1 cup beef stock

1 medium onion, peeled and chopped

1 bottle dark beer

1 teaspoon minced garlic

1/2 teaspoon dried thyme

1/2 teaspoon chipotle powder

or to taste

1 teaspoon salt

1 tablespoon molasses

1-1/2 tablespoons balsamic vinegar

2 tablespoons Red Hot sauce or to taste



Combine all ingredients. Place in a heavy-duty zipper-type plastic bag with the steaks and refrigerate for at least one hour.



To make sauce, place half the marinade in a saucepan, bring to a boil, then reduce the heat and simmer over medium heat till reduced by half.



When cooking the steaks, cook over medium direct heat for 2 minutes per side, and then move to indirect heat until they reach the desired doneness.



Note: Lomprez uses this recipe with "cowboy steak," bone-in rib steak, as well as less tender cuts like short ribs. It would also work well for flat iron steaks and skirt steaks.



Nutrition facts per serving: 166 calories, 0 g fat, 0 g saturated fat, 0 mg cholesterol, 24 g carbohydrates, 3 g protein, 1593 mg sodium, 1 g fiber





From Chef Brent Lomprez, Indian Lakes Resort, Bloomingdale



GRILLED STEAK AND FENNEL PASTA SALAD



MAKES 4 SERVINGS



2 medium red bell peppers, halved and seeded

8 ounces fresh asparagus

Nonstick cooking spray

2 cups uncooked spiral pasta

1/4 cup fresh lemon juice

2 tablespoons olive oil

1 tablespoon white wine vinegar

2 teaspoons chopped fresh oregano

1 teaspoon minced garlic

1/4 teaspoon salt

1/4 teaspoon crushed red pepper

1 large fennel bulb, trimmed, stalks discarded (save tops for garnish)

1 cup thinly sliced red onion

1 pound boneless grilled steak, such as top loin strip, sirloin or flat iron



Start a medium hot fire in a barbecue grill. Spray the peppers and asparagus with nonstick cooking spray. Grill over indirect heat for 20 to 25 minutes or until crisp-tender. (Alternatively, preheat the oven to 425 degrees. Place the peppers and asparagus in a metal baking pan; spray with nonstick cooking spray. Roast for 20 to 25 minutes or until crisp-tender.) Set aside; let cool. Cut into 1- to 2-inch pieces.



Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil; cook the pasta according to package directions, omitting oil; rinse in cold water and drain.



In a small bowl, whisk together the lemon juice, oil, vinegar, oregano, garlic, salt and crushed red pepper until blended. Toss with the pasta and roasted vegetables in a large bowl, cover and refrigerate till serving time.



Cut the fennel bulb lengthwise into quarters; remove and discard the core. Thinly slice fennel quarters lengthwise. Carve the steak into thin slices. Combine the sliced fennel, steak and onion with the pasta mixture. Garnish with the reserved fennel tops.

Note: Throw a couple of extra steaks on the fire so you can enjoy this salad a day or two later.



Nutrition facts per serving: 403 calories, 14 g fat, 3 g saturated fat, 65 mg cholesterol, 28 g carbohydrates, 40 g protein, 254 mg sodium, 5 g fiber



From National Cattlemen's Beef Association on behalf of The Beef Checkoff





THAI GRILLED STEAK SALAD



MAKES 4 SERVINGS



1 tablespoon finely chopped garlic

1 teaspoon chopped jalapenos

3 tablespoons Thai fish sauce

3 tablespoons freshly squeezed lime juice

1 tablespoon sugar

1 pound boneless grilled steak, such as ribeye, top loin strip, sirloin or flat iron, sliced 1/4-inch thick

1/2 cucumber, peeled, halved lengthwise and thinly sliced

1/2 medium red onion, peeled and thinly sliced

2 large tomatoes, cored, halved and thinly sliced

1/4 cup chopped cilantro



Mix together the chopped garlic, jalapenos, fish sauce, lime juice and sugar in a large bowl.



Add the sliced steak, cucumber, onion and tomato. Toss well. Sprinkle with chopped cilantro.



Nutrition facts per serving: 273 calories, 10 g fat, 3 g saturated fat, 70 mg cholesterol, 11 g carbohydrates, 33 g protein, 1136 mg sodium, 1 g fiber





suntimes.com
 
You put the title on the post...please explain. I am honestly confused how that title fits that article.

Can't you at least answer this question?
 
Have to agree with JOJO on this one Econ, what are you after NCBA on this article. Seems to me that it is a fairly well balanced article explaining the difference in grass fed/grain feed animals and wet and dry ageing, with a few reciepes thrown in. What is wrong with this article?
 
The article is an excellent article, exactly what city folks need to be reading about beef.

It doesn't judge them for their choices, it explains why some beef processes cost more. It also tells the difference in taste. Consumer preference should do the rest.

The more facts about beef we can get out there the better off we all are. More beef sold means more opportunity to make a profit.
 
I loved the article and found it more interesting and informative on the level that it should be at.


What I find a little disingenous is the inability of this type of article to be helpful in any way because the NCBA is supporting policies of commodity beef, not differentiation and higher value.

If cattlemen are going to get the value of value added, the whole commodity beef thing has got to be dropped and differentiation that deserves higher value must sell.

The article posted on the nutritionist from the NCBA who boo hoood the grass fed beef segment of the industry in favor of comodity beef is one such example.

If you want to get more value for the value you bring, whether it be better genetics (angus beef, premium, etc) you must have some language and attributes that are not broken down by the commodity beef people (this is a big argument on organic both in beef and dairy production methods).

Tyson is selling select, chemical injected, gas modified beef at the biggest retail store chain in the world, walmart, and cheapening beef to a lowest price.

You might get away with that in hamburger, but when you get to the other select cuts that just aren't palatable or tender enough, you cheapen the quality of the beef eating experience.

As I said before, Tyson has their cheap chicken right down from that commodity beef and you wonder why people choose it.

When the NCBA backs packer policies and doesn't confront them in these tactics to bring value back to the beef industry, the NCBA is on the wrong track.

Meat grades and quality characteristics shouldn't be hidden from customers just to earn an extra nickel, it cheapens the beef eating experience and hence sales. People should know why they are paying a little more for the quality they are getting.

Sometimes you just need to think about these things.
 
"What I find a little disingenous is the inability of this type of article to be helpful in any way because the NCBA is supporting policies of commodity beef, not differentiation and higher value."

What a complete ration of $hit - the founders of USPB & CAB is a who's who in the NCBA


"If cattlemen are going to get the value of value added, the whole commodity beef thing has got to be dropped and differentiation that deserves higher value must sell."

Good of you to agree with what checkoff funds established a decade ago. Its the RCALF/LMA scum you need to convince - you know, "The I raise cattle dip$hits, not beef" And the menca cracking sob is laying this at the NCBA. High comedy.


"The article posted on the nutritionist from the NCBA who boo hoood the grass fed beef segment of the industry in favor of comodity beef is one such example. "

You mischaracterize the finding that most prefer grain fed and its available at a lower price. Nowhere will NCBA fault exploring consumer choice by itself.

"If you want to get more value for the value you bring, whether it be better genetics (angus beef, premium, etc) you must have some language and attributes that are not broken down by the commodity beef people (this is a big argument on organic both in beef and dairy production methods). "

Sooo, one segment is responsible for another segment's language. Like Tyson needs to develope promotional language for Laura's.


"Tyson is selling select, chemical injected, gas modified beef at the biggest retail store chain in the world, walmart, and cheapening beef to a lowest price."

In response to consumer demand, power to them. If consumers demand premium beef, wally's will try to deliver that. Satisfying consumer demand is a good thing.



"You might get away with that in hamburger, but when you get to the other select cuts that just aren't palatable or tender enough, you cheapen the quality of the beef eating experience."

That's the beauty of the invisible hand in the market. Each individual consumer casts their vote.




"As I said before, Tyson has their cheap chicken right down from that commodity beef and you wonder why people choose it."

If only Wally's had Einstein to tell them they could sell $20/# specialty beef to $2/# chicken consumers they could correct their follies. price is a huge determinant in consumer choice; the NCBA position would be to let the invisible hand dictate which beef is sold on a price basis and which beef is sold on a premium basis and various combinations inbetween.



"When the NCBA backs packer policies and doesn't confront them in these tactics to bring value back to the beef industry, the NCBA is on the wrong track. "

The NCBA sez let the market work. USPB is prospering with premium beef, and poor dumb ol Tyson is still open offering the cheap stuff in addition to the good stuff. I would feel real stupid if I was argueing the industry is manipulated to comodity beef given the choice select spread where it is.


"Meat grades and quality characteristics shouldn't be hidden from customers just to earn an extra nickel, it cheapens the beef eating experience and hence sales. People should know why they are paying a little more for the quality they are getting."

Quality distinction hiding isn't any NCBA edict, infact the checkoff study found branded beef would most aptly define market distinction. Yes, people should know why they pay $25 for Omaha beef if they choose, and why they buy an ibp select reund roast for $3# for pot roast tuesday. To date, the checkoff has made this arguement the clearest for the consumer.


"Sometimes you just need to think about these things."

An honest thinking man wouldn't reach the same conclusions as a deceitful thinking man. Econ's post is a poor attempt to manipulate conclusions that don't follow from the date. Some people are not real complimentary of this sort of thing.
 
Econ101 said:
I loved the article and found it more interesting and informative on the level that it should be at.


What I find a little disingenous is the inability of this type of article to be helpful in any way because the NCBA is supporting policies of commodity beef, not differentiation and higher value.)

Response: You must be the biggest fool on earth. On one had you blame the NCBA for supporting vertical cooperation and marketing agreements. It is because of market segmentation and product differentiation that producers and packers can supply the various high quality and branded products demanded by consumers.

Now in a another of your distortions of fact you claim the NCBA is supporting quote "commodity beef, not differentiation and higher value". You cannot have it both ways. If this were a chess game you would have a "Fools Mate" pulled on you everytime.

For a person who attempts to display superior intelligence, we all know you have no REAL knowledge of the beef industry, you really struck out again. You constantly trap yourself in your own lies, phony accusations and desceptive ways. You are just too easy.
 
Thanks Econ101...you proved my point brilliantly. The other day you stated that you agree with most NCBA policies (I am paraphrasing your comment.) If that is the case, why would you go to such a stretch to attempt to criticize the NCBA with an article like this. I am just glad that so many people can see the follies in your "logical" reasoning.

I am the first person to admit that the NCBA is not flawless; however, they are an important part of our industry. It saddens me that people like you attack them constantly. Cattlemen and Beef Producers make up the membership of the NCBA, whether you and some of the others on here would like to admit it or not. These cattlemen and producers set the policy. Just because it disagrees with your line of thinking on a few issues does not make their policy wrong or against the wishes of the rancher.

I personally think that disagreement on policy issues is healthy...What I do not like to see is one side picking up their toys and going to play by themselves. That is truly the sad part of the policy disagreements. Additionally, the correct ideas would sort themselves in the policy eventually. That is what I find so sad about the few selfish, arrogant people that decided to fracture the industry by splitting off into new groups. That action has harmed this industry more than it has helped. It has only caused confusion as to where the rancher stands on most issues. It has also made it a more difficult environment to deal with important environmental issues and other issues that are extremely important to cattlemen.

I apologize for length of my dissertation here. I could go on forever about this because it is truly disconcerting and disappointing to me, but for the sake of everyones boredom I will stop now.
 
Conman: "What I find a little disingenous is the inability of this type of article to be helpful in any way because the NCBA is supporting policies of commodity beef, not differentiation and higher value."

That is a bold faced lie. NCBA has led the way in market differentiation by supporting branded beef programs that differentiate product in the market place. In contrast it was R-CULT and their clones that "CLAIMED" they wanted product differentiation until they found out that it meant traceback which they were opposed to.

Source verified branded beef programs are being supported by NCBA while R-CALF is still focused on branding programs for cattle segregation.

Jojo, if you are looking for logic and reasoning in Conman 101's posts, you will be disappointed. Since the first day he graced this forum with his relentless lies, he has yet to back a position with factual information. The guy is a compulsive liar.



~SH~
 
Jojo, thanks for agreeing that the arguments are worthwhile.

The biggest problem I see with the NCBA's policy and decisions is that when it comes to breaking out product differentiation is that they do not support these policies across the board. They selectively support these policies by the "chosen few" which means more industry concentration and less competition for producers.

What has the NCBA done to support grass fed beef?

What has the NCBA done to promote market transparency?

What has the NCBA done to promote food safety?

What has the NCBA done to promote producer interests over packer interests in the USDA?

Companies have differentiated along these lines but have not had the kind of support that a group like NCBA could give. Instead we have policies coming out of the USDA that do just the opposite.
 
Conman: "What has the NCBA done to support grass fed beef?"

What has the NCBA done to NOT SUPPORT grass fed beef? How the hell does a lack of promotion become a lack of support?

Yet another "ILLUSION"!


Conman: "What has the NCBA done to promote market transparency?"

The NCBA supports VOLUNTARY market transparency efforts such as the Nebraska Cattlemen's Associations service of giving market information in exchange for getting market information. Beats the hell out of taking the packers to court because of faulty MANDATORY price reporting data.

The blamers push for MANDATORY price reporting than sue the packers when USDA screws up the data.


Conman: "What has the NCBA done to promote food safety?"


If you weren't such a complete idiot, you'd know the answer to that. NCBA and the beef board have spent literally millions addressing the issue of food safety.

What the hell has R-CULT done to promote food safety? Stand in front of the US consumer with anti beef groups and proclaim that having bse in your native herd means your beef is contaminated? Claiming USDA doesn't care about food safety? Claiming the packers don't care about food safety?

With friends like R-CALF, who the heck needs enemies?


Conman: "What has the NCBA done to promote producer interests over packer interests in the USDA?"

NCBA has promoted producers having a vested financial interest in the packing industry and promoted efforts like Harris Ranches, Oregon Country Beef, US Premium Beef, etc. etc.

It's the packer blamers that are stuck in the traditional system of cattle marketing where all the cattle end up being slaughtered by the very same packers that they cuss the most.


Conman: "Companies have differentiated along these lines but have not had the kind of support that a group like NCBA could give. Instead we have policies coming out of the USDA that do just the opposite."

More empty cheap talk unsupported by fact. Same-O, Same-O!



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Conman: "What has the NCBA done to support grass fed beef?"

SH: What has the NCBA done to NOT SUPPORT grass fed beef? How the hell does a lack of promotion become a lack of support?

Yet another "ILLUSION"!

Econ: I will let you think on that one some more.


Conman: "What has the NCBA done to promote market transparency?"

SH: The NCBA supports VOLUNTARY market transparency efforts such as the Nebraska Cattlemen's Associations service of giving market information in exchange for getting market information. Beats the hell out of taking the packers to court because of faulty MANDATORY price reporting data.

The blamers push for MANDATORY price reporting than sue the packers when USDA screws up the data.

Econ: The packers would have had an absolute defense on the aberdeen trial had they posted their own market information on the internet on a timely fashion and VOLUNTARILY. They did not.

I guess your "voluntary" argument holds no water.


Conman: "What has the NCBA done to promote food safety?"


SH: If you weren't such a complete idiot, you'd know the answer to that. NCBA and the beef board have spent literally millions addressing the issue of food safety.

What the hell has R-CULT done to promote food safety? Stand in front of the US consumer with anti beef groups and proclaim that having bse in your native herd means your beef is contaminated? Claiming USDA doesn't care about food safety? Claiming the packers don't care about food safety?

With friends like R-CALF, who the heck needs enemies?

Econ: So why haven't they been successful? No one but you has said that "that having bse in your native herd means your beef is contaminated". I have chided you on making statements yourself, getting them wrong, and then attributing them to someone else. Maybe this is another one of those arguments you should have with yourself and get the facts straight before you post them.

Conman: "What has the NCBA done to promote producer interests over packer interests in the USDA?"

NCBA has promoted producers having a vested financial interest in the packing industry and promoted efforts like Harris Ranches, Oregon Country Beef, US Premium Beef, etc. etc.

It's the packer blamers that are stuck in the traditional system of cattle marketing where all the cattle end up being slaughtered by the very same packers that they cuss the most.

Econ: What have they said about the OIG report on GIPSA, an agency that is supposed to bring fairness to the marketplace but instead has acted like a hand of the food processors?

Conman: "Companies have differentiated along these lines but have not had the kind of support that a group like NCBA could give. Instead we have policies coming out of the USDA that do just the opposite."

SH: More empty cheap talk unsupported by fact. Same-O, Same-O!

Econ: Show me the facts that oppose this view.
 
Conman: "The packers would have had an absolute defense on the aberdeen trial had they posted their own market information on the internet on a timely fashion and VOLUNTARILY. They did not."

Anyone can access a number of sources of information on what packers were paying for cattle and what boxed beef prices were reported at. The faulty reported prices were USDA's fault, not the fault of the packers. You can blame this on the "MANDATORY" price reporting advocates. That's what happens when you get the government involved in something like price reporting.


Conman: "Econ: So why haven't they been successful?"

Another lie. NCBA has been successful in their fight against food born pathogens. The number of cases of Ecoli have decreased.


Conman: "No one but you has said that "that having bse in your native herd means your beef is contaminated"."

Another lie!

R-CALFs lawsuit against Canada states that their beef is "high risk" and "contaminated" due to the fact that they had bse in their herd.

Then they did the Conman shuffle when we had a native born case of bse in our herd that contradicted their previous position.


Conman: "I have chided you on making statements yourself, getting them wrong, and then attributing them to someone else. Maybe this is another one of those arguments you should have with yourself and get the facts straight before you post them."

More cheap talk!


Conman: "What have they said about the OIG report on GIPSA, an agency that is supposed to bring fairness to the marketplace but instead has acted like a hand of the food processors?"

I haven't heard their position on the OIG report. My guess is that they want to hear both sides of the story and base their decision on facts as opposed to a politically motivated report that supports their packer blaming bias.


Conman: "Show me the facts that oppose this view."

Show me the facts that support it. You are the one who made the allegation.



~SH~
 
SH, since your posts evolve into stupidity almost all the time, I am just going to stop answering them.

Please don't tell me to do anything for you anymore. You need to learn on your own, grasshopper.

You have been the biggest waste of time on ranchers.net and almost everyone knows it.

There comes a point in time when you are just not worth responding to because of your stupidity.

If anyone else wants to pick up on your chatter and ask the same question, I would be glad to answer them.
 
Conman: "SH, since your posts evolve into stupidity almost all the time, I am just going to stop answering them."

I see! I suppose that explains why you felt you had to respond to 4 of the posts I made last night. Glad we got that straightened out.

I understand completely! If I didn't have anything more to back my positions than empty allegations and cheap talk, I'd avoid me too.

I would certainly appreciate you not responding to my posts because you never have anything to say anyway. You've never backed a position you have held yet with supporting facts. I don't care what you want to believe.


Conman: "Please don't tell me to do anything for you anymore. You need to learn on your own, grasshopper."

Does this mean that you will no longer answer questions that you can't answer? LOL! I'm so hurt.


Conman: "You have been the biggest waste of time on ranchers.net and almost everyone knows it."

ok!


Conman: "There comes a point in time when you are just not worth responding to because of your stupidity."

ok!


Conman: "If anyone else wants to pick up on your chatter and ask the same question, I would be glad to answer them."

YOU??? ANSWER A QUESTION???

BWAHAHAHAHA!

You never answer questions because you don't know anything. You make statements, you don't answer questions. You are just smart enough not to incriminate yourself by revealing what you don't know by answering questions.

Your arrogance is astounding. You think you have the answers to questions when you're not even smart enough to know that consumer demand affects cattle prices independently from any change in supplies. You, the one who thinks Walmart is selling "choice" beef as "select" because that is what some lady at Walmart told you. You, the one who doesn't even know what cwt means and claims to be a rancher? You, the one who thinks you found fly eggs or larvae in your pork loins? You, the one who thought his phone line was being tapped and it turned out to be the local phone company working on the line???

You are a complete phony and have the support of a handful of blamers that don't care about the truth and facts either.

Let me clue you in to something Conman, I have never asked you a question because I thought you had the answer, I only asked you questions to point out the fact that you don't know anything.

Man, you are one wierd dude. You are not intelligent enough to know the limits of your intelligence.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Back
Top