MRJ said:
MRJ, How do you know I am not black? The color of one's skin has nothing to do with it. Jim James was about 87 years old when I worked with him on butchering. He didn't act 87. Maybe it was all that experience you mentioned.
MRJ said:Econ101 said:Beefman said: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 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.
Brad S said:Hey there professor econ, You made this statement: they run the local butchers out of business(many of whom were already cutting these cuts out), lay claim to the art of butchering based on checkoff funded programs.
Please explain how this "run out of business deal works? Is it magic and mystical or efficiency?
Econ101 said: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 keep talking about how tyson wants to get into beef and bring more value added. Why do they have to get the cattleman to subsidize this part of the business for them? Can't they do it themselves? How does the $70 get passed down from another level to the cattleman? Do you have real numbers on this or are you just going to trump it all up to "increased demand" propaganda? Will this "increased demand" excuse be part of your next x factor?
As I told beefman, the positive aspects of the article are good. I just have a problem with an industry that plays the market concentration game and after they run the local butchers out of business(many of whom were already cutting these cuts out), lay claim to the art of butchering based on checkoff funded programs. Self aggrandizing. Soon Tyson will be claiming tha they can cut out the tenderloin and claim, based on checkoff funds, that they are increasing the value of the carcass with "further processing". The advertising aspects of this program (which is what the checkoff is really meant to do) does help beef consumption, but it has to go through two layers before it helps out the cattleman. What is the pass through on these higher values back to the cattleman? Do you have any real numbers (real studies, not just some reporter) so we can look at this?
We have already gone through the discussion on how/why cattle prices for heifers went over that of steers due to packer decisions and not efficiency. Do we have to do that discussion again here?
The beef business has always needed better help on determining palatability and tenderness (two of the most important factors for meeting consumer's preferences). For the packers, this should start with the buyers, and Pickett proved that was not the case.
Econ101 said:MRJ said:Econ101 said: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
MRJ, How do you know I am not black? The color of one's skin has nothing to do with it. Jim James was about 87 years old when I worked with him on butchering. He didn't act 87. Maybe it was all that experience you mentioned.
Econ101 said:Your race, and that of your friend is really of no concern or interest to me........it seemed to me that you were making a point of the fact that Mr. James ate foods usually associated with ethnicities other than those of European descent and I wondered what your point was in doing so.
MRJ
The only point was that if you know how to cook good, you can cook almost anything and make it taste good. My grandfather was good at that. I guess they were good butchers and good cooks. Good hunters too.
MRJ said:Econ101 said:Your race, and that of your friend is really of no concern or interest to me........it seemed to me that you were making a point of the fact that Mr. James ate foods usually associated with ethnicities other than those of European descent and I wondered what your point was in doing so.
MRJ
The only point was that if you know how to cook good, you can cook almost anything and make it taste good. My grandfather was good at that. I guess they were good butchers and good cooks. Good hunters too.
That point of good cooks, and older cooks growing up with meat hard to come by, cooks who had the time to cook meats that might be a little on the tough side or even somewhat like an old boot and ending up with a delicious meal, has been made dozens if not hundreds of times on this site and in other places.
The fact remains that most cooks liveing with the realities of work and family care today do not have the knowledge or the time to cook those less 'cook friendly' cuts of beef and the work of the Beef Checkoff to bring them quick and easy, or already prepared beef virtually guaranteed to be delicious and tender has served cattle producers well.
MRJ
agman said:Econ101 said:agman said: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 keep talking about how tyson wants to get into beef and bring more value added. Why do they have to get the cattleman to subsidize this part of the business for them? Can't they do it themselves? How does the $70 get passed down from another level to the cattleman? Do you have real numbers on this or are you just going to trump it all up to "increased demand" propaganda? Will this "increased demand" excuse be part of your next x factor?
As I told beefman, the positive aspects of the article are good. I just have a problem with an industry that plays the market concentration game and after they run the local butchers out of business(many of whom were already cutting these cuts out), lay claim to the art of butchering based on checkoff funded programs. Self aggrandizing. Soon Tyson will be claiming tha they can cut out the tenderloin and claim, based on checkoff funds, that they are increasing the value of the carcass with "further processing". The advertising aspects of this program (which is what the checkoff is really meant to do) does help beef consumption, but it has to go through two layers before it helps out the cattleman. What is the pass through on these higher values back to the cattleman? Do you have any real numbers (real studies, not just some reporter) so we can look at this?
We have already gone through the discussion on how/why cattle prices for heifers went over that of steers due to packer decisions and not efficiency. Do we have to do that discussion again here?
The beef business has always needed better help on determining palatability and tenderness (two of the most important factors for meeting consumer's preferences). For the packers, this should start with the buyers, and Pickett proved that was not the case.
Once again your comments demonstrate your total lack of knowledge. If you did not have Tyson to blame on everything you would just curl up and die. It is apparent that you do not know the difference between a carcass, a primal, a sub-primal and individual cuts of beef. You remain a total fool and a laugh every time you post. No one believes what you say except maybe yourself until you make the next twist and turn.
Econ101 said:agman said:Econ101 said:Agman, you keep talking about how tyson wants to get into beef and bring more value added. Why do they have to get the cattleman to subsidize this part of the business for them? Can't they do it themselves? How does the $70 get passed down from another level to the cattleman? Do you have real numbers on this or are you just going to trump it all up to "increased demand" propaganda? Will this "increased demand" excuse be part of your next x factor?
As I told beefman, the positive aspects of the article are good. I just have a problem with an industry that plays the market concentration game and after they run the local butchers out of business(many of whom were already cutting these cuts out), lay claim to the art of butchering based on checkoff funded programs. Self aggrandizing. Soon Tyson will be claiming tha they can cut out the tenderloin and claim, based on checkoff funds, that they are increasing the value of the carcass with "further processing". The advertising aspects of this program (which is what the checkoff is really meant to do) does help beef consumption, but it has to go through two layers before it helps out the cattleman. What is the pass through on these higher values back to the cattleman? Do you have any real numbers (real studies, not just some reporter) so we can look at this?
We have already gone through the discussion on how/why cattle prices for heifers went over that of steers due to packer decisions and not efficiency. Do we have to do that discussion again here?
The beef business has always needed better help on determining palatability and tenderness (two of the most important factors for meeting consumer's preferences). For the packers, this should start with the buyers, and Pickett proved that was not the case.
Once again your comments demonstrate your total lack of knowledge. If you did not have Tyson to blame on everything you would just curl up and die. It is apparent that you do not know the difference between a carcass, a primal, a sub-primal and individual cuts of beef. You remain a total fool and a laugh every time you post. No one believes what you say except maybe yourself until you make the next twist and turn.
Again, Agman, you make the mistake of an accusation that you can not back up. Is this a pattern? I don't have to blame Tyson for this, just a plain old packer backer like you.
agman said:Econ101 said:agman said:You were the one who blamed Tyson as if they are the only packer. I said previously the larger and most smaller packers do not cut sub-primals into individual cuts. Evidently that is beyond your scope of knowledge once again. So to blame Tyson or any other packer who doesn't do individuals cuts from sub-primals shows your ignorance, bias and willingness to distort the truth. Par for you, Conman.
Jason said:Conman the convict, you have no clue about primals because you can't even understand how $70 extra value can be obtained from the chuck.
Has anyone clued you in to what cwt is yet?
Econ101 said:MRJ said:Econ101 said:Your race, and that of your friend is really of no concern or interest to me........it seemed to me that you were making a point of the fact that Mr. James ate foods usually associated with ethnicities other than those of European descent and I wondered what your point was in doing so.
MRJ
The only point was that if you know how to cook good, you can cook almost anything and make it taste good. My grandfather was good at that. I guess they were good butchers and good cooks. Good hunters too.
That point of good cooks, and older cooks growing up with meat hard to come by, cooks who had the time to cook meats that might be a little on the tough side or even somewhat like an old boot and ending up with a delicious meal, has been made dozens if not hundreds of times on this site and in other places.
The fact remains that most cooks liveing with the realities of work and family care today do not have the knowledge or the time to cook those less 'cook friendly' cuts of beef and the work of the Beef Checkoff to bring them quick and easy, or already prepared beef virtually guaranteed to be delicious and tender has served cattle producers well.
MRJ
I said before, MRJ, that some of the aspects of this issue were good. It is the self aggrandizing and self praise on a program that was really paid by cattlemen that I have a problem with. If Tyson has somehow lost the art of cutting meat, they should not be congradulated when they find it again. They shouldn't have lost it in the first place. My local butcher hasn't.
Econ101 said:agman said:Econ101 said:Agman, I know Tyson isn't the only packer, and it is not beyond my scope of knowledge. Back to the question, Agman, what makes you think I don't know the primal cuts? You made the accusation. Are you just making up another allegation that you can't back up?
Here is what you said, Agman:
"It is apparent that you do not know the difference between a carcass, a primal, a sub-primal and individual cuts of beef. You remain a total fool and a laugh every time you post."
Can you back that statement up? I have admonished you before about making the assumption that you know what I know or don't know. You couldn't possibly have a clue. Making your little statements like the above shows how desperate you are to try to look smarter than others so you can be the "expert" everyone goes to. As you are fond of saying, truly pathetic.
agman said:Econ101 said:agman said:If you knew the subject matter you would not make the foolish statements you make. If you actually know what Tyson does then why admonish them for not making certain cuts when that is not their business. Trapped yourself again genius!!
Big Muddy rancher said:Econ i don't know why I bother. When a company makes primal or sub primal cuts they aren't doing the final processing on those carcasses. They are fitting them to a box to be shipped for additional processing.
At times when there is a excess of frontal meats chucks do get ground as that is the best use. Why don't you get a consultants job cause your wasting you your self here.