How will beef fare in the future?

As a chef feeding mostly urban dwellers, I feel that we as beef promoters are not doing enough to come up with solutions to make our product as popular as it could be. I'm in a position were I feed very wealthy people. The consensus is that beef is not as healthy as our competition which is chicken, fish, turkey and wild game. Almost all of my customers are into organic, grass feed or the multitudes of other gimmicky labels. For the most part they don't eat beef and pretty much broadcast their non-beef eater habit to everyone they come into contact with. They believe it is very unhealthy and will take years off your life.

The last three evenings, I had the privilege of having dinners cooked by a 3-Star Michelin chef who was voted the best chef in England. The other guests were a surgeon and his wife which is an ex- olympic free style skater, a Wall Street bonds broker, a couple of very successful New York business people. All were well educated and had an image that beef is unhealthy. In fact the last evening's dinner had beef tenderloin for the main course and all but myself and my guest requested fish instead.

My concern is what are we as producers going to do to improve the negative image of beef? Not eating beef appears to becoming a part of the American culture and a large percentage are getting on this bandwagon.

cook other cuts and do them well.  been having lots of other cuts lately.  top, bottom round, london broil, flank, skirt .

i think we should shed the awe shucks cowboy hat thing.  prospective customers associate the cowboy, at least out here, with poor sterwardship, being backward, etc.

it's really amazing sometimes how easy it is to sell to these people sans the image with a story about different directions, different ways of doing things, combining restoring pasture, using "heritage" breeds, and yes, maine's are a heritage breed, especially fullbloods.

Are you guys dues payers to the national cattleman beef association.  Join.  Go to some meetings. Your questions will be well answered.

knabe said:

i think we should shed the awe shucks cowboy hat thing.  prospective customers associate the cowboy, at least out here, with poor sterwardship, being backward, etc.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a marketing problem.     

http://www.gourmet.com/diaryofafoodie/video/2008/01/208_bovine_preview

may snag so try a couple of times, especially on dialup.

i'd like 50 hanger steaks please.

balls of cocoa powder were housing bacteria, so get them in completely in solution before adding to vat

the STUPID thing about the above show was that the taste test on the grass fed versus grain fed was not blind.  that is totally STUUUUUUUUPID and NOT scientific.

I suppose I shouldn't go here, but just can't help myself.....

We are crappy marketers of our industry. If it is carrying a defect, breed it anyway. The animal rights people love seeing deformed calves coming out the side of cows.
                                                                  If it MIGHT get sick, medicate it with what the neighbor used last year. In fact, double the dose. It worked for him.
                                                                  If it IS sick, ask for advice from everyone but our vet. I'm sure they know better than a person that can actually SEE the calf.
                                                                  If it is too wild, shove some tranquilers in it. Heck, its just a show steer.... I'm not going to eat it... someone else is.
                                                                   

Who cares if the meat is actually healthy or not.... that is not our problem. IMAGE is the problem and our industry has a bad one, and refused to take responsibility.

ok both show heifer and roundrobin, you both just did what you are accusing others of doing.

top my post of people doing good out there.  let PETA etc worry about the bad eggs.

I am being honest about an industry that I am involved in. No sense in hidding or denying it... that makes me just as bad as those not only doing the bad deeds, but also those who refuse to acknowledge that it is happening.  I am not an ostrich. In fact, those do much more harm than peta ever will do.

tell a good story.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/107345/prime-time-for-steak-lovers.html?mod=family-love_money

purchased prime tri-tip the other day.  was great.

lots of all cuts available.

Jack, 

In my circle, many people were very alarmed at the link between red meat and cancer.

Here is an article from MD Anderson:  http://www.mdanderson.org/news-and-publications/publications/focused-on-health/current-issue/where-s-the-beef-focused-on-health-july-2009.html

I personally think moderation is key to ANYTHING, but just wanted to spread on what I've heard.

Also, somewhat as an aside, I find myself trying to eat healthier and healthier - I'm training for a 1/2 Marathon and I have a young child that I'm trying to nourish in the best ways possible.  I try to avoid processed foods ... basically anything with other *stuff* in it.  We obviously eat red meat, but I do throw in fish, chicken, turkey burgers, veggie burgers, etc to the mix.  There is nutritional value to a varied diet.

As far as how to HELP the industry ... I'm not sure.  People are driven by sensationalism and this is the latest "kick".  I saw some prices for "organic" and "grass fed" beef ~ and almost fell over.  But the reality is that they charge those prices because they can ~ people are paying it.

As far as the drugs are considered ... I really don't think the "average" consumer has that play into their purchasing.  Again, I can only speak for what I hear around me, but the growth hormone and the preventative antibiotic treatments are what seem to get people riled up the "most".

~Traci

the article linked above is typical lacking in specifics as to what is meant by a diet high in red meat.  what is meant by fatty red meat?  the stuff you cut off when you don't eat it?  stewing meat and skimming fat is what people have been doing for centuries.  there isn't fat left.



Diets high in red meat (beef, pork and lamb) -- and especially processed meats (such as hot dogs) -- have been reported to be a convincing cause of colorectal cancer, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research. Fatty red meat is high in saturated fat, which is the most damaging type of fat.

Every 3.5 ounces of processed meat eaten per day increases your chances of getting colorectal cancer by 42%.  what does that statement mean?

“It is not clear exactly how processed meat raises cancer risk,” Piper says. “It might be because processing produces cancer-promoting substances, but research is ongoing.”  processing, like grinding?  list the processes.

Grilling any type of meat, even chicken or fish, until it’s charred or burned can increase your chances of getting cancer.  anyone who does this is ruining meat.  totally irresponsible statement.

Research suggests a link between high consumption of well-done, fried and barbecued meats to an increase in colorectal, pancreatic and breast cancer.  this comment to the laymen lumps all BBQg together.

The higher the temperature at which food cooks and the longer it stays on the grill, the more HCAs develop.  the best way to cook meats is to use indirect heat after a quick sear and let them sweat.

basically all this article is doing is lumping techniques that ruin meat with other techniques.  people looking for rationalization based on bad news just salivate for articles like this, especially vegetarian proponents.

This will reduce flare-ups. Just make sure to make small holes in the foil to allow fat to drain.  there's one really awesome gas grill from norway or something that does it this way.  can't remember the name.

the article doesn't do the beef industry any good.  it's info is good at the end, but at the beginning, all it does is scare people.  it's typical of giving both sides "equal" time, even if the info or techniques are wrong.

beef industry could compare methods.  some people will just never eat anything unless it's burnt.  that's not who we should be selling to.

Show Heifer said:

We are crappy marketers of our industry. If it is carrying a defect, breed it anyway. The animal rights people love seeing deformed calves coming out the side of cows.
there are far more important issues than that
If it MIGHT get sick, medicate it with what the neighbor used last year. In fact, double the dose. It worked for him.
If it IS sick, ask for advice from everyone but our vet. I'm sure they know better than a person that can actually SEE the calf.
If it is too wild, shove some tranquilers in it. Heck, its just a show steer.... I'm not going to eat it... someone else is.
 How much of the real beef industry is represented here, .005% ? probably less than that.                                                                 

Who cares if the meat is actually healthy or not.... that is not our problem. IMAGE is the problem and our industry has a bad one, and refused to take responsibility.
Ever heard of a BQA program?

Click to expand...

The problems you pointed out that supposedly represent the "industry" is far from true.  As a percentage of total beef production, the clubby/show deal is a fly on the windshield.  Just like people who harp on the show pig industry and how it's ruining the hog industry--has nothing to do with it.

I feel in order for beef to regain it's popularity it once had, we must lean our product up. Also taking hormones or anything else unnatural out of the equation and making sure all feeders are on the same playing field will boost consumer demand.

If people knew what what chickens and pigs are fed they wouldn't worry nearly as much about what goes into beef.

I would fully support an effort to ban the various hormones beef producers use.  We use them to, but the game should be changed to do away with the heavy, heavy emphasis on gain instead of quality. 

I believe there is a push in the USDA now to strongly curtail and further regulate the use of antibiotics to start working on the whole resistance issue.  But even if it would address the issues we are talking about here, it would be soundly rejected just because of whose administration it would come from.  If they could figure out how to make it pay, it would work.

Should beef be cheaper so that more people would eat steaks or should it be more expensive so that more profit could be made on less beef sold?  For most of history, beef has been way too expensive for common people to eat as much of as they do now.

chambero said:

But even if it would address the issues we are talking about here, it would be soundly rejected just because of whose administration it would come from.  If they could figure out how to make it pay, it would work.

Click to expand...

which is why industries should just do it themselves.  we default to always depending upon government.  the market is shifting and so are producers.  government really isn't needed on this issue.  for those who want cheap beef, they don't care.  the more that care, the more beef will be provided that fits their needs.  but for some reason, no one has faith in the free market system.  it's more about getting paid to impose whatever administration is in power.  people don't realize they are in power. oh well.

chambero said:

If people knew what what chickens and pigs are fed they wouldn't worry nearly as much about what goes into beef.

I would fully support an effort to ban the various hormones beef producers use.  We use them to, but the game should be changed to do away with the heavy, heavy emphasis on gain instead of quality. 
I believe there is a push in the USDA now to strongly curtail and further regulate the use of antibiotics to start working on the whole resistance issue.  But even if it would address the issues we are talking about here, it would be soundly rejected just because of whose administration it would come from.  If they could figure out how to make it pay, it would work.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we'd live in a place called Europe. We're half way there now.

chambero said:

If they could figure out how to make it pay, it would work.

Click to expand...

by default, that's not the government's job.  it's the private sector.  it's called profit.  government regulates.

there really isn't much the government has figured out how to make it pay other than inflation by printing money, expanding the money supply etc.  by default, the government isn't motivated to make it pay because it can print money.

why we as a society keep trying this is beyond me.

markets decide if people want hormones in their supply.  harris beef doesn't use hormones and they market it. 

http://www.westword.com/1998-10-01/restaurants/mouthing-off/

veggie nightmare.