value added

[intr3est]

Thought I'd throw this out to you folks and see what you think, and before anybody codemns me and says that the packers would reap this additional profit, just take a look at it and let me know if you think it would add value!

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv4.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=421185&FOLDER%3C% 3Efolder_id=162687&bmUID=1101248400117

[InAHurry]

Personally I would not take this survey and base a program on it.

It states "national survey" but then says "online survey of 1,085 adults was conducted in mid-January 2004. "

1085 adults does not qualify as "national" in my books. Also it it was an online survey. I am presuming this would be from those that volunatrily view their site - what I'm trying to say is a particular type of people.

I'm not saying this survey doesn't have merit of some kind, just not enought to change a country's rule process over.

As for those stating they would be willing to pay more for tested beef, I can only offer an opinion because in all honesty I don't think I know one single person who buys 100% of their beef from the retail counter. Of those that do buy occasionally, they prefer to wait for sales and only buy the choice, high $ cuts for a special occasion. It depends on their disposable income - people are pretty used to cheap food. Perhaps maybe in the (this might not be the best way to say it) high of a BSE (media induced) scare the consumer might actually spend more but like alot of things they quickly loose relevance and people aren't spending where they say (in a survey) they would.
Make sense or do I pull both feet out!

[intr3est]

In a hurry, you make sense, especially the comment about people making a decision at that point in time, deciding on the lower priced product. think ahead and tell me what would happen if we had a lot of those points in time?

[cakadu]

As a point of interest and maybe one of caution, there have been many surveys done where consumers have said that they were willing to pay more for certain things i.e. organic food etc., yet when the time came for them to put their pocketbooks on the line, they didn't buy as they said they would.

That being said, however, there are those that will pay extra because they are getting what they want.

Consumers as a rule are very fickle beings and yes, they have gotten used to paying very little for food in this country. "Food Freedom Day" has already passed for the producer - that would have been met about 3 or 4 days ago. In other words, the average family has already paid the producer for their share of the food bill for the year. The rest of the "chain", if you will, gets paid by about mid-February. What is wrong with this picture?

[InAHurry]

intr3est


First, I might not be qualified to give my opinion - I'm a smoker and with all the threats out there ... I haven't quit.

But to change my thought process, I'll give it a shot.

If we had a lot of those points in time? And I hope you mean BSE positives because that's what I'm responding to.
If we "had a lot" (to me a lot is many more than the 11/yr) I would think the media would have a heyday. If we are not testing, the cost to the industry might be two-fold - lost consumers plus the financial outlay to regain or hold remaining consumer's trust in beef as well as the extreme measures: ex. OTM not allowed for human consumption and their disposal/owner compensation, whatever is needed to cleanup the industry. I haven't considered and can't imagine if these positives start showing up in cattle less than 5 or 6 yrs of age.

If we are to have/make the consumer understand the basis/reason/safety aspect of BSE tested-free beef why can't we get them to understand the same aspects with the precautions we now have in place?? Is there that tiny seed of doubt - even in our own minds? I think the precautions currently in place are close to being sufficient. What I do doubt is the systems ability to make sure everyone is following the rules. Whether intentionally or naively rules can be way-layed. From that comment I would like to see MBM / SRMs etc banned from all feed, milk replacer, petfood and (I have a tough time with) fertilizer. For a given time - keep to the current testing limits set, when no positives show up for say, 5 yrs, introduce this last batch of proposed banned substances back into the non-mammalian / pet food and fertilizer. To err on the side of caution keep todays MBM / SRM rules in place for an additional 5 yrs. (I have nothing to back my 5 yr stance-a shot in the dark).


If those same numbers of positives show up and we have implemented testing, I can still see some consumer's doubting their selection of beef. The ag. industry will have to deflect word for word presented in the media, maybe not quite to the extent as if we weren't testing, but the media would play to the emotional perception of the urban consumer none the less. Now I'm reaching here, but I think todays society is so fast-tracked most will just take the easy route - buy the pork and poultry that have no stigma attached and are cheaper anyway. Some will stick with us but not if the price increases significantly. Whether testing 100% or continueing with our present testing I think as the # of positives become less and less over a given time, the "scare" will wear off, become irrelevant to those consumers that know/knew anything about it in the first place. I'm all over the place with this but would like to add that since May of 2003 we have had contacts from south of the border wishing to purchase cattle - now I realize this isn't talking about beef consumers directly, but if actual producers don't even know the existing restrictions and where Canada and the US are at with BSE, it leads me to think that there are consumers who don't know or just don't care also.

What will BSE testing everything cost anyway? Beyond the actual test of anywhere from $15 to $50 we still need the infrastructure to implement it. Labs, personnal, record-keeping systems (gun registry comes to mind) plus the fact that we become dependant on the gov't to enforce it. To say tomorrow we will be testing everything, how long do you think we could actually "get to it"? From the time we say it is implemented until the time it actually is done could be long enough for us, unintentionally to put further doubt in the customers mind. Look at the time that has elapsed for any additional slaughter capacity to come online - red-tape, finances etc.

I have no idea why we went through so many head with no positives and suddenly come upon 2 within days of one another - all I know is perhaps we are over-reacting, but at the same time we can't ignore it. Add the USDA's proposal to open the border on top of it and I can see why there is panic - stress and frustration are immense.

My suggestion would be for everyone to contact their livestock/ag/stockgrower's/breed representitive and layout your thoughts and concerns with them. They have the ability to represent the majority and thought exchange can lead to a solution. Whatever is decided will probably not satisfy 100% of the people. Our reps can't read our minds so if you don't contribute your ideas, don't complain.

intr3est, have you taken any of your thoughts (this one in particular) to the next level? What kind of feedback have you received? There are hundreds of feasable ideas out there - hopefully with enough input we land upon the one that works for the best. As usual if we could omit the "ifs, ands or buts' the solution would be a lot easier.

So I guess I really can't tell you what would happen if we had a lot of those points in time? How's that for a lame attempt at answering? (smile)

Crap, did I ever get long-winded. A lot of words that probably mean nothing!!
2:20 am - off to check for new calves .....

[nsbeef]

I certainly don't think that a survey like this should be dismissed out of hand, the number of respondents is similar to pre-election polls, although consumer reports readers are not a typical cross-section of society. Consumer reports latest news release calls for banning Canadian beef, eliminating all animal products in feeds and testing all cows (sic) over 20 months. CR is obviously unaware of the massive boxed beef trade crossing the border. We should go beyond the minimum scientific and regulatory requirements in place as the most important part in this whole chain is not goverment,packers or even producers but the consumer. Take yourself out of the beef industry perspective and look at this crisis from the consumer's viewpoint; reassurances are not enough, we need to be closer to the EU and Japan's positions. I can't remember where I read it but a recent Canadian survey showed that approx. 27% of Canadians had no faith in the safety of Canadian beef.