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

Worth while reading

Help Support Ranchers.net:

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
New cuts profitable for beef industry

By JEAN WILSON/Telegram Assistant Editor

Columbus Telegram

February 9, 2006

Nebraska, US

COLUMBUS - Beef products that were introduced to the marketplace a few years ago are starting to show their worth.

Ranch steak, flat iron steak and petite tender medallions are three of the most popular new value cuts, according to Misty Mattox, director of industry relations and compliance for the Nebraska Beef Council. She was one of the presenters at the Nebraska Pork & Livestock Industry Exposition on Tuesday at Platte County Agricultural Park.

“It takes a lot of years of continuing to work with the product to make it ready for retail as well as the food service,” Mattox said.

The new cuts are being offered at several large chain restaurants, including Olive Garden, Lone Star Steakhouse, Sizzler, and Whiskey Creek Steakhouse. And Kroger stores recently signed up to sell the meat.

It's added about $60-$70 more per head for the price of feeder cattle, Mattox said.

About two-thirds of a beef carcass come out of the chuck and round - shoulders and back end. Traditionally, the meat was mostly used for roasts and hamburger. Muscle profiling provided the basis for the single muscle, value-added beef merchandising.

Priced between the premium steaks and ground beef, the new cuts are being advertised as full of beef flavor and very tender. The flat iron steak is ranked the second most tender cut, at a price that's consumer friendly, according to Mattox.

“That's why they call these value cuts,” she said.

It will most likely be a year or two before the new cuts are widely available at retail stores, although people can ask at their local lockers for the products.

Other new beef products that are meeting with success are the ready-to-eat meats that are now being paired with vegetables.

Research and promotion for the all of the new products is funding by Beef Checkoff dollars.

Darrell Mark, University of Nebraska Extension livestock marketing specialist, was also at Tuesday's Expo.

He said cattle demand could be slightly lower this year than in 2005, which was down 3.6 percent from the previous year. But, that's following 2003 and 2004 when demand was up 6 percent to 8 percent each of those years.

“So we settled down a little in 2005, but beef demand is still pretty good,” Mark said.

Part of the reason for the decrease in demand is due to a decline in the popularity of high-protein diets.

Response:

The vast silent majority of this industry is engaged in worth while and beneficial projects. The vocal minority remain misled and only clamor for more lawsuits or government intervention. Thank God they are the very small minority which neither represents all beef producers nor those other sectors that comprise our great beef industry.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tyson bidding up the cattle markets and decreasing their margins there so the main substitute for poultry remains at a higher price could also be the reason for the 60-70 dollar per head along with coordinated lower supplies in the meats category.

Agman, Tyson and the other packers should be trying to get the most value out of a carcass all of the time. Jim James was cutting those cuts out over 25 years ago. Advertising those cuts should bring additional revenue. Do you always shower credit on people for doing the job that they should have been doing anyway so you can divert from real issues? How does doing the obvious make anyone more superior. You are beginning to sound like those who heap praise on politicians for their work on certain popular issues when those politicians have been doing poorly on running the country and solving its problems.

Delay given ethics oversight?
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
13
Location
South Central Montana
Thanks for the post, agman. Those cuts really have increased the value of the chuck and round. By ATTENDING ANCW/NCBA we are updated on what our beef checkoff dollars are doing for us. I don't think you see those updates at some "other" conventions :? :???:
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
I've been getting the flat iron seperated on my beef for nearly 2 years now.

I asked if I could get my processor to take the petite tender and ranch steak out, he started complaining about the work involved (although he didn't even know how much work it really is as he had never heard of the custs). Finally he said for him to do it, he would charge me an extra 25 cents a pound on processing. Needless to say I won't get the value from the petitie tender or the ranch cut any time soon.

Conman shows again how little about the beef industry he knows. Trying to say Tyson can cut their margins to give the chuck $70 more value is really stupid. :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
I've been getting the flat iron seperated on my beef for nearly 2 years now.

I asked if I could get my processor to take the petite tender and ranch steak out, he started complaining about the work involved (although he didn't even know how much work it really is as he had never heard of the custs). Finally he said for him to do it, he would charge me an extra 25 cents a pound on processing. Needless to say I won't get the value from the petitie tender or the ranch cut any time soon.

Conman shows again how little about the beef industry he knows. Trying to say Tyson can cut their margins to give the chuck $70 more value is really stupid. :roll:

Jason, this post shows your reading comprehension. Were you home schooled? Maybe you should find another butcher.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
conman said:
Tyson bidding up the cattle markets and decreasing their margins there so the main substitute for poultry remains at a higher price could also be the reason for the 60-70 dollar per head

Your own words convict you jacka$$.

I gave an example of how some people stand in the way of others gaining extra profit. I would switch butchers if I had one that was as clean and could offer the extra fabrication at the same cost.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
conman said:
Tyson bidding up the cattle markets and decreasing their margins there so the main substitute for poultry remains at a higher price could also be the reason for the 60-70 dollar per head

Your own words convict you jacka$$.

I gave an example of how some people stand in the way of others gaining extra profit. I would switch butchers if I had one that was as clean and could offer the extra fabrication at the same cost.

So, for your little reading comprehension lesson, where is it that I say anything about giving the chuck anything? Here is your quote:

"Trying to say Tyson can cut their margins to give the chuck $70 more value is really stupid."

Now, can you reconcile your statement? Is there something I need to know about you like English being a second language to you?

If you think you can get extra value from your animal being cut differently, then educate your butcher and get him to do it. If he doesn't want to do it, get another butcher and stop complaining about it.

If it is a relevation that the petite tender and the flat iron can be cut out to create extra value, maybe you should work on more of those kind of revelations. You could meditate if and try to get those relevations if that works for you or you could ask a good butcher. Don't go bragging about something that just now has become a relevation to you, especially since it has been known some time before the little propaganda campaign that is apparent in this article. Next they will be telling us that you can cut out t-bone steaks and sell them higher than hamburger and that it was found out with the research money from NCBA.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Confronted with your own lunacy you still try to deny saying it.

Agman posted the value added to chcuck is about $70 then you chimed in with your idiot statement of maybe they trimed their margins to get the $70.

You are a pathetic idiot whose only value is a chuckle that someone can be so stupid.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Tyson bidding up the cattle markets and decreasing their margins there so the main substitute for poultry remains at a higher price could also be the reason for the 60-70 dollar per head along with coordinated lower supplies in the meats category."

What a dumbassed statement!

Tyson decreasing their margins COULD BE the reason for the 60 - 70 dollar per head????

The retailers seperated out these pieces that used to be sold at ground beef prices. They sell them for more money and in turn pay more for boxed beef. How do you get a Tyson conspiracy out of that?

Are you on drugs or are you really that stupid?


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason, I think you and SH should get along just fine. You both speak your own language and have a hard time understanding anyone else. If packers are just now getting extra value out of the primals by cutting them

If you read slowly and put on your thinking hats you might understand the following:

Conman: "Tyson bidding up the cattle markets and decreasing their margins there so the main substitute for poultry remains at a higher price could also be the reason for the 60-70 dollar per head along with coordinated lower supplies in the meats category."


What a dumbassed statement!

Tyson decreasing their margins COULD BE the reason for the 60 - 70 dollar per head????

The retailers seperated out these pieces that used to be sold at ground beef prices. They sell them for more money and in turn pay more for boxed beef. How do you get a Tyson conspiracy out of that?

Are you on drugs or are you really that stupid?


~SH~
Jason
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject:
Confronted with your own lunacy you still try to deny saying it.

Agman posted the value added to chcuck is about $70 then you chimed in with your idiot statement of maybe they trimed their margins to get the $70.

You are a pathetic idiot whose only value is a chuckle that someone can be so stupid.
Econ101
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject:
Jason wrote:
conman wrote:
Tyson bidding up the cattle markets and decreasing their margins there so the main substitute for poultry remains at a higher price could also be the reason for the 60-70 dollar per head


Your own words convict you jacka$$.

I gave an example of how some people stand in the way of others gaining extra profit. I would switch butchers if I had one that was as clean and could offer the extra fabrication at the same cost.


So, for your little reading comprehension lesson, where is it that I say anything about giving the chuck anything? Here is your quote:

"Trying to say Tyson can cut their margins to give the chuck $70 more value is really stupid."

Econ: Now, can you reconcile your statement? Is there something I need to know about you like English being a second language to you?

If you think you can get extra value from your animal being cut differently, then educate your butcher and get him to do it. If he doesn't want to do it, get another butcher and stop complaining about it.

If it is a relevation that the petite tender and the flat iron can be cut out to create extra value, maybe you should work on more of those kind of revelations. You could meditate if and try to get those relevations if that works for you or you could ask a good butcher. Don't go bragging about something that just now has become a relevation to you, especially since it has been known some time before the little propaganda campaign that is apparent in this article. Next they will be telling us that you can cut out t-bone steaks and sell them higher than hamburger and that it was found out with the research money from NCBA.
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Econ101 said:
Tyson bidding up the cattle markets and decreasing their margins there so the main substitute for poultry remains at a higher price could also be the reason for the 60-70 dollar per head along with coordinated lower supplies in the meats category.

Agman, Tyson and the other packers should be trying to get the most value out of a carcass all of the time. Jim James was cutting those cuts out over 25 years ago. Advertising those cuts should bring additional revenue. Do you always shower credit on people for doing the job that they should have been doing anyway so you can divert from real issues? How does doing the obvious make anyone more superior. You are beginning to sound like those who heap praise on politicians for their work on certain popular issues when those politicians have been doing poorly on running the country and solving its problems.

Delay given ethics oversight?

Econ, you gotta admit it was a great article. It gave very specific examples of restaurant chains in Neb that are introducing value added cuts to patrons. Maybe your buddy Jim James did know what the teres major muscle was 25 years ago, and had the expertise to separate it out. If so, he was way ahead of his time. What he obviously lacked, was the means to do anything about it. Muscle profiling studies funded by the checkoff is what brought these products to life and propelled them into the marketplace and added value to the tune of the mentioned $70.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Beefman said:
Econ101 said:
Tyson bidding up the cattle markets and decreasing their margins there so the main substitute for poultry remains at a higher price could also be the reason for the 60-70 dollar per head along with coordinated lower supplies in the meats category.

Agman, Tyson and the other packers should be trying to get the most value out of a carcass all of the time. Jim James was cutting those cuts out over 25 years ago. Advertising those cuts should bring additional revenue. Do you always shower credit on people for doing the job that they should have been doing anyway so you can divert from real issues? How does doing the obvious make anyone more superior. You are beginning to sound like those who heap praise on politicians for their work on certain popular issues when those politicians have been doing poorly on running the country and solving its problems.

Delay given ethics oversight?

Econ, you gotta admit it was a great article. It gave very specific examples of restaurant chains in Neb that are introducing value added cuts to patrons. Maybe your buddy Jim James did know what the teres major muscle was 25 years ago, and had the expertise to separate it out. If so, he was way ahead of his time. What he obviously lacked, was the means to do anything about it. Muscle profiling studies funded by the checkoff is what brought these products to life and propelled them into the marketplace and added value to the tune of the mentioned $70.

Actually, Beefman, you are right. It is good for the butchers to know how to get the highest value out of a carcass. If they couldn't we might all be eating leather. It is also good that some of these lesser known cuts are getting some more attention. The publicity and advertising kick is nothing but good.

I learned a long time ago when I was about 6 that my ratfink (said in a good way) dad always picked the smaller side of the T-bone steak as his part when we had steak at home. My other brothers would get a nice piece of meat from the right, and I would always take the bone. I found out quick why my dad did what he did and then I always wanted to know more and more about the different pieces, how to cut them, which ones needed to age more, the best cut off a muscle group, etc... We ate flank steak before it was popular for fajitas and my neighbor always knew how to cook a bbq brisket. If you went to eat with jim james, you would eat tripe, or if it was hogs--chitlins. All the muscle groups relate to different species and for the most part the tenderness/juicyness are similar.

Any good butcher would know about cutting up the primals for the best eating and cooking method. Rediscovering the lessons from those butchers to be used in the factory processing shouldn't win anyone an award----but hey, if it brings more value to the packers who are rediscovering those deals, then more power to them. My mom could always capitalize off of other people's ignorance when it came to buying cuts of meat for value and she got that knowlege from her dad, my grandfather, and Jim James.

Maybe we should have called one of those cuts the Jim James steak.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Beefman said:
Econ101 said:
Tyson bidding up the cattle markets and decreasing their margins there so the main substitute for poultry remains at a higher price could also be the reason for the 60-70 dollar per head along with coordinated lower supplies in the meats category.

Agman, Tyson and the other packers should be trying to get the most value out of a carcass all of the time. Jim James was cutting those cuts out over 25 years ago. Advertising those cuts should bring additional revenue. Do you always shower credit on people for doing the job that they should have been doing anyway so you can divert from real issues? How does doing the obvious make anyone more superior. You are beginning to sound like those who heap praise on politicians for their work on certain popular issues when those politicians have been doing poorly on running the country and solving its problems.

Delay given ethics oversight?

Econ, you gotta admit it was a great article. It gave very specific examples of restaurant chains in Neb that are introducing value added cuts to patrons. Maybe your buddy Jim James did know what the teres major muscle was 25 years ago, and had the expertise to separate it out. If so, he was way ahead of his time. What he obviously lacked, was the means to do anything about it. Muscle profiling studies funded by the checkoff is what brought these products to life and propelled them into the marketplace and added value to the tune of the mentioned $70.

Actually, Beefman, you are right. It is good for the butchers to know how to get the highest value out of a carcass. If they couldn't we might all be eating leather. It is also good that some of these lesser known cuts are getting some more attention. The publicity and advertising kick is nothing but good.

I learned a long time ago when I was about 6 that my ratfink (said in a good way) dad always picked the smaller side of the T-bone steak as his part when we had steak at home. My other brothers would get a nice piece of meat from the right, and I would always take the bone. I found out quick why my dad did what he did and then I always wanted to know more and more about the different pieces, how to cut them, which ones needed to age more, the best cut off a muscle group, etc... We ate flank steak before it was popular for fajitas and my neighbor always knew how to cook a bbq brisket. If you went to eat with jim james, you would eat tripe, or if it was hogs--chitlins. All the muscle groups relate to different species and for the most part the tenderness/juicyness are similar.

Any good butcher would know about cutting up the primals for the best eating and cooking method. Rediscovering the lessons from those butchers to be used in the factory processing shouldn't win anyone an award----but hey, if it brings more value to the packers who are rediscovering those deals, then more power to them. My mom could always capitalize off of other people's ignorance when it came to buying cuts of meat for value and she got that knowlege from her dad, my grandfather, and Jim James.

Maybe we should have called one of those cuts the Jim James steak.


You could not even accept a positive article regarding beef without dreaming up some phony conspiracy theory. You are really a total fool and waste.

No one believes anything you say. You have proven yourself a blatant liar and skew facts to meet your bias. There is a conspiracy behind every event per your comments. Your conspiratorial comments are a result of pure and total IGNORANCE on your part. You are a laugh a day-a total joke.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman: You could not even accept a positive article regarding beef without dreaming up some phony conspiracy theory. You are really a total fool and waste.

No one believes anything you say. You have proven yourself a blatant liar and skew facts to meet your bias. There is a conspiracy behind every event per your comments. Your conspiratorial comments are a result of pure and total IGNORANCE on your part. You are a laugh a day-a total joke.

Econ: I like positive articles, Agman. I just don't like the self aggrandizing that is at its source. Is Tyson so incompetent on cutting a carcass that they have to have a cattleman's funded checkoff to research and tell them how to do it? Maybe they should have stayed with chicken. When cattlemen have to spend their money to do the packer's job, you know something is wrong. I am sorry you are so short sighted and so easy to fool that you can not see it that way.

Your defense of them at every twist and turn is revealing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "I learned a long time ago when I was about 6 that my ratfink (said in a good way) dad always picked the smaller side of the T-bone steak as his part when we had steak at home. My other brothers would get a nice piece of meat from the right, and I would always take the bone."

That explains a lot right there. No wonder you can't reason.


Conman: "Is Tyson so incompetent on cutting a carcass that they have to have a cattleman's funded checkoff to research and tell them how to do it? Maybe they should have stayed with chicken. When cattlemen have to spend their money to do the packer's job, you know something is wrong. I am sorry you are so short sighted and so easy to fool that you can not see it that way."

If you would have read the article without jumping right in to your conspiracy mode you would have seen that these products are being cut up AT THE RETAIL LEVEL, not the packing level! Tyson wasn't even mentioned in the article. A large portion of the beef Tyson sells has not been broke down into primals cuts.

Do you see how incredibly stupid your comment was? FAT CHANCE?



~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
Beefman said:
Econ101 said:
Tyson bidding up the cattle markets and decreasing their margins there so the main substitute for poultry remains at a higher price could also be the reason for the 60-70 dollar per head along with coordinated lower supplies in the meats category.

Agman, Tyson and the other packers should be trying to get the most value out of a carcass all of the time. Jim James was cutting those cuts out over 25 years ago. Advertising those cuts should bring additional revenue. Do you always shower credit on people for doing the job that they should have been doing anyway so you can divert from real issues? How does doing the obvious make anyone more superior. You are beginning to sound like those who heap praise on politicians for their work on certain popular issues when those politicians have been doing poorly on running the country and solving its problems.

Delay given ethics oversight?

Econ, you gotta admit it was a great article. It gave very specific examples of restaurant chains in Neb that are introducing value added cuts to patrons. Maybe your buddy Jim James did know what the teres major muscle was 25 years ago, and had the expertise to separate it out. If so, he was way ahead of his time. What he obviously lacked, was the means to do anything about it. Muscle profiling studies funded by the checkoff is what brought these products to life and propelled them into the marketplace and added value to the tune of the mentioned $70.

Actually, Beefman, you are right. It is good for the butchers to know how to get the highest value out of a carcass. If they couldn't we might all be eating leather. It is also good that some of these lesser known cuts are getting some more attention. The publicity and advertising kick is nothing but good.

I learned a long time ago when I was about 6 that my ratfink (said in a good way) dad always picked the smaller side of the T-bone steak as his part when we had steak at home. My other brothers would get a nice piece of meat from the right, and I would always take the bone. I found out quick why my dad did what he did and then I always wanted to know more and more about the different pieces, how to cut them, which ones needed to age more, the best cut off a muscle group, etc... We ate flank steak before it was popular for fajitas and my neighbor always knew how to cook a bbq brisket. If you went to eat with jim james, you would eat tripe, or if it was hogs--chitlins. All the muscle groups relate to different species and for the most part the tenderness/juicyness are similar.

Any good butcher would know about cutting up the primals for the best eating and cooking method. Rediscovering the lessons from those butchers to be used in the factory processing shouldn't win anyone an award----but hey, if it brings more value to the packers who are rediscovering those deals, then more power to them. My mom could always capitalize off of other people's ignorance when it came to buying cuts of meat for value and she got that knowlege from her dad, my grandfather, and Jim James.

Maybe we should have called one of those cuts the Jim James steak.


Econ, the cattle producers who control what Beef Checkoff spending is used for have the right to decide what will be done with it, within the law. It seems to irritate you that such is the fact, for which I can feel a bit sorry for you.

The fact remains that the research necessary to first determine the fact that some of those muscles in the chuck and round were verifiably and reliably more tender and tasty than the conventionally cut steaks, then to devise the means to economically remove the tough fibrous coatings and connective tissue to make those steaks a profitable cut of beef had not been done until the Beef Checkoff projects did so.

Could'a, should'a, would'a just doesn't cut much ice. Hindsight is 20-20. But neither produces any new products that make consumers eager to spend more money on beef. The Beef Checkoff does.

I believe you have mentioned previously that Jim James ate foods which seem to indicate he is/was a black man. Why is it important to you to tell us that, in that way?

BTW, I have also a claim similar to your mothers talent for identifying low cost cuts of beef and creating great meals with them. I don't know that it is necessarily due to anyones ignorance, but to the experience gained in an era where home cooking was the norm, and people were at home for the time needed to cook at low temperature for a long time, before the days of crock pots and even-heating ovens. The beef I choose more often comes from my own freezer than the meat case. It is good that we can make great dishes out of those tougher cuts that come with every beef carcass, if we don't want much hamburger.

MRJ
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Agman: You could not even accept a positive article regarding beef without dreaming up some phony conspiracy theory. You are really a total fool and waste.

No one believes anything you say. You have proven yourself a blatant liar and skew facts to meet your bias. There is a conspiracy behind every event per your comments. Your conspiratorial comments are a result of pure and total IGNORANCE on your part. You are a laugh a day-a total joke.

Econ: I like positive articles, Agman. I just don't like the self aggrandizing that is at its source. Is Tyson so incompetent on cutting a carcass that they have to have a cattleman's funded checkoff to research and tell them how to do it? Maybe they should have stayed with chicken. When cattlemen have to spend their money to do the packer's job, you know something is wrong. I am sorry you are so short sighted and so easy to fool that you can not see it that way.

Your defense of them at every twist and turn is revealing.

Your display of ignorance just grows with every post you make. First, Tyson was not even mentioned in the articles. It was your fantasy mind that dragged them into the conversation as you just have to lay blame somewhere. Second, all the cutting tests done for these cuts was completed before Tyson bought IBP. Third, Tyson and almost every other packer of any size ship primals and sub-primals. Do you know the difference? The further processing of these primals and sub-primals is seldom done a the packer level. It is done in store, by specialty meat cutters and in some cases at the distributive level. As the demand for these cuts grows it will become economically viable for packers to invest to produce the individual cuts aforementioned. To create a cut and do it economically are vastly different situations. Fifth, chefs must be educated as to the value and preparation of these cuts. These things are not automatic. The BEEF checkoff has been involved in this entire process including the education of Chefs to properly prepare these new cuts.

I don't stand in defense of Tyson. Rather I stand against the continuous flow of unsupported and misleading allegations such as you interjected into this discussion which again shows both your extreme bias and total ignorance of subject matter. That is par for you; all foam no beer. You are just too easy.
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
13
Location
South Central Montana
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Agman: You could not even accept a positive article regarding beef without dreaming up some phony conspiracy theory. You are really a total fool and waste.

No one believes anything you say. You have proven yourself a blatant liar and skew facts to meet your bias. There is a conspiracy behind every event per your comments. Your conspiratorial comments are a result of pure and total IGNORANCE on your part. You are a laugh a day-a total joke.

Econ: I like positive articles, Agman. I just don't like the self aggrandizing that is at its source. Is Tyson so incompetent on cutting a carcass that they have to have a cattleman's funded checkoff to research and tell them how to do it? Maybe they should have stayed with chicken. When cattlemen have to spend their money to do the packer's job, you know something is wrong. I am sorry you are so short sighted and so easy to fool that you can not see it that way.

Your defense of them at every twist and turn is revealing.

Your display of ignorance just grows with every post you make. First, Tyson was not even mentioned in the articles. It was your fantasy mind that dragged them into the conversation as you just have to lay blame somewhere. Second, all the cutting tests done for these cuts was completed before Tyson bought IBP. Third, Tyson and almost every other packer of any size ship primals and sub-primals. Do you know the difference? The further processing of these primals and sub-primals is seldom done a the packer level. It is done in store, by specialty meat cutters and in some cases at the distributive level. As the demand for these cuts grows it will become economically viable for packers to invest to produce the individual cuts aforementioned. To create a cut and do it economically are vastly different situations. Fifth, chefs must be educated as to the value and preparation of these cuts. These things are not automatic. The BEEF checkoff has been involved in this entire process including the education of Chefs to properly prepare these new cuts.

I don't stand in defense of Tyson. Rather I stand against the continuous flow of unsupported and misleading allegations such as you interjected into this discussion which again shows both your extreme bias and total ignorance of subject matter. That is par for you; all foam no beer. You are just too easy.


agman, you said it JUST RIGHT!! :nod: :nod: :nod: :clap: :clap:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "I learned a long time ago when I was about 6 that my ratfink (said in a good way) dad always picked the smaller side of the T-bone steak as his part when we had steak at home. My other brothers would get a nice piece of meat from the right, and I would always take the bone."

That explains a lot right there. No wonder you can't reason.


Conman: "Is Tyson so incompetent on cutting a carcass that they have to have a cattleman's funded checkoff to research and tell them how to do it? Maybe they should have stayed with chicken. When cattlemen have to spend their money to do the packer's job, you know something is wrong. I am sorry you are so short sighted and so easy to fool that you can not see it that way."

If you would have read the article without jumping right in to your conspiracy mode you would have seen that these products are being cut up AT THE RETAIL LEVEL, not the packing level! Tyson wasn't even mentioned in the article. A large portion of the beef Tyson sells has not been broke down into primals cuts.

Do you see how incredibly stupid your comment was? FAT CHANCE?



~SH~

With good butchers they have always been cut up at the retail level, SH.
 

Latest posts

Top