|
| Author |
Message |
PPRM
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1589
Location: NE Oregon
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Actually, I reread your post robertmac.
I think the Packer Influence is overstated. Packers need a variety of cattle within a variety of breeds to fulfill the variance of wants and needs of the market.
Beef is very different than Chicken. When someone asks for a great steak, it can mean a variety of things. Some want lean, some want highly marbled. Some want a giant steak, some want a more moderate....
Perfect example is the range of wieghts before discounting. 550-950 pound carcasses on the grid I sell into. That is a huge variance in steak sizes. I place emphasis of what people want by looking at what they are willing to pay for...
I do think CAB reflects where the premiums are in the market,
PPRM
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ben Roberts
Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 641
Location: Pomeroy, Washington
|
|
| Back to top |
|
RobertMac
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2632
Location: Mississippi, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
PPRM
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1589
Location: NE Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmmm.....Robertmac, I am not saying they can, I am saying we are....
Can is relevant. They can do lots of things they aren't...It would be orety risky to dry age that many cattle and move into the frozen beef marketing.... But they could, LOL..
I do have to take on thing back in this thread. I took my wife to Burger King raving about thier Angus Biurgers...I did not see any on the menu right off and after asking I was guided to the "Steakhouse Burger" as 100% Angus...
I am not saying it was a bad burger, I am saying it was not a fantastic burger like before. It was dry and lacked the flavor... I am not sure f the shape had something to do with it...It was thinner and square shaped...
People have become so accustomed to mediocre that they do not know great...
PPRM
|
|
| Back to top |
|
RobertMac
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2632
Location: Mississippi, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 16313
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see old Dittmer is out there still packing water for the Packers/NCBA/AMI...
This is an e-mail I got forwarded to me from an NCBAer....
| Quote: |
AFF Sentinel
For Immediate Release
Six Years of Wrangling - And Still Bubbling
From There to Where with a "Thus?!?"
The long-dreaded mCOOL is here but after more than six years of wrangling and re-shaping, key points are in flux on this far-reaching event.
While producers, feeders and packers wrestle with the realities of recordkeeping and changing processes and systems, politicians in Washington D.C., are demanding even more changes in regulation, if not new legislation.
Friday, Sept. 26, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) spooked everything by issuing a sentence in a guidance document that instantly changed what livestock feeders and packers had been assuming for months.
What the naïve and the poor thinkers had not understood all along was that tracking the identities - even a general origin identity - of the nearly 300 pieces of meat that comes from a typical beef carcass, for example, was going to be complicated, risky and expensive. The risk comes from a packer and retailer guaranteeing the origin of a single piece of meat that has been through slaughter lines, coolers, grading, sorting, branded program qualifying, fabrication, aging, sorting, shipping, cutting and more shipping - not necessarily in that order or that simple a process - to the satisfaction of retail label checks, FSIS inspectors, mCOOL documentation audits, retail insurance advisors and lawsuit-happy attorneys.
The minute we read the compromise language in the Farm Bill it was obvious to us what packers would do. They could avoid the liability risk of mixing a carcass from a Canadian or Mexican feeder calf in with a U.S. load, as well as avoid millions in costs in reconfiguring processing lines, coolers and systems by putting all cattle in the second "Multiple Countries of Origin" category. No major packer was going to voluntarily spend huge amounts to guarantee U.S.- only category meat without a substantial, demonstrable demand or premium for U.S.-origin meat. Over 90 percent of the muscle cuts in American meat cases are already from U.S. cattle and consumers already assumed that.
Both the law and the interim rule clearly specified that U.S.-origin cattle could be included in the Multiple Origin category.
Then AMS dropped Friday's guidance bomb.
"If meat covered commodities derived from U.S. and mixed origin animals are commingled during a production day, the resulting product may carry the mixed origin claim (e.g., Product of U.S., Canada, and Mexico). Thus, it is not permissible to label meat derived from livestock of U.S. origin with a mixed origin label if solely U.S. origin meat was produced during the production day."
That's a giant leap for a humble "thus." What's going on here?
What USDA is attempting is blunting the political cavalry charge that has descended on Washington, charging their mCOOL law is being abused. Congressmen, radical farm groups and activists have railed that USDA's regulations didn't follow the law and that packers are planning to flout the "intent of the law." So after six years, the intent isn't in the language? The problem is, do-gooders often have no understanding of how the systems they are "fixing" actually work, no concept of cost and no perception of the penalties in reputation, fines and operational disruptions if a business runs afoul of federal food labeling regulations.
Congressmen are fuming about most of the meat going into the Multiple Origins category and their apparent failure to create billions of pounds of specifically labeled U.S. beef. Additionally, they are fuming that further processing like cooking or marinating meat exempts it from mCOOL regulations or that foodservice is also exempt.
When the House Ag committee's chairman set a handful of experts to crafting compromise language to make mCOOL's costs less than draconian, the meat industry lobbyists were trying to preserve flexibility for processor management on a shift basis, one USDA official explained. He claims those who crafted the language are "chagrined" that the shift-by-shift concept has been expanded by the meat industry to putting most meat into the Multiple Origins category.
Perhaps, but we're guessing not all are chagrined.
But the thinking is that if the packers can't find some way to live with the shift basis -- and major cost increases -- and manage to supply some U.S.-only labeled meat, Congress will re- open the mCOOL section of the Farm Bill. And while they're at it, rather than just "fixing" the meat category definitions - costing millions and millions - they'll package the removal of some exemptions in the bill, the bill will pass and turn a mere costly upheaval into a bloodbath.
That doesn't really explain the power of "Thus," but it's Washington political strategic thinking to ponder.
Past issues of the Sentinel are available on our website at www.agribusinessfreedom.org
Help Us Expose Hidden Motivations & Real Agendas
Invest in Your Future.
We are engaged in national efforts that could shape the future of cattle and beef marketing, industry structure and world trade for decades. Animal welfare activists like the Humane Society of the U.S. are engaged in an aggressive campaign to change the way production livestock are raised, housed, doctored and slaughtered. Please join with us and help make sure AFF's independent voice of reason is out there.
The 2006 elections made the road ahead more challenging than ever. Please help us preserve your freedom to innovate and adapt to the 21st century consumer.
We need your check today or your visit to our website, where you can use a credit card to make your contribution. If you prefer, send your check, made out to Agribusiness Freedom Foundation to:
P.O. Box 88179,
Colorado Springs, CO 80908 .
Thank you.
Please go to www.agribusinessfreedom.org and click on the "Make a Contribution" button to make a contribution. You may also review issues of the Sentinel. Contributor's identities are kept confidential. Contributions may be a business deduction - consult your tax professional. Contributions are not deductible as a charitable contribution.
The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain. The AFF believes it is possible to value the traditions and heritage of the past while embracing the future and the changes it brings. The AFF is a communications and educational initiative striving to preserve the freedom of the agricultural food chain to operate and innovate in order to continue the success of American agriculture.
The AFF - freedom watchdog for American agriculture.
Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
AFF: Promoting free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain.
Website: http://www.agribusinessfreedom.org
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
