Leachman and Verified Beef Lawsuit article

[RyanChandler]

It's a strange paradigm where the whistleblower is made out to be the villain.  I'm not here to be some pandering pc pushover-- I'm not here to win your votes or to sell you anything.  I speak up as a consumer advocate. I speak up, because I do have the understanding to discern factual information from the semantics game these marketeers attempt to play. Do not be fooled by those that attempt to use these terms interchangeably-

A crossbred is an animal with purebred parents of two different breeds.  In cattle breeding, this animal is more commonly known as an F1.

A composite is a BREED made up of at least two component BREEDS, designed to retain heterosis in future generations WITHOUT crossbreeding and MAINTAINED AS PUREBRED.

A mongrel is an mixed-breed animal resulting from VARIOUS cross/interbreedings.

A Stabilizer is not a crossbred.

A Stabilizer is not a composite.

A Stabilizer IS a mongrel.

Now that you should have a better understanding of the terminology at hand, read through the 'Leachman profit strategy' PDF and see for yourself the crafty tactics relied upon. Skim through and ask yourself, "what would be the motive for someone to use the documented performance data of crossbred and composite cattle to promote the usefulness of Mongrels?" 

http://www.leachman.com/Philosophies/ProfitStrategies.pdf

X BAR, wouldn't Stabilizer be considered a synthetic breed?

'Stabilizers' are Synthetics, yes, but both the term 'Stabilizer' and 'synthetic breed' are misnomers. There is nothing 'stable' about a 'Stabilizers' mongrelized genotype.  This word choice is nothing more than an extension of his crafty marketing by playing off the perceived understanding that the genotypes of composites (Beefmaster, Brangus, etc.) are in fact Stabilized. 

The term composite identifies a breed whose makeup comes from a fixed number of breeds with a certain percentage of genetic material from each breed.

The term Synthetic identifies a population whose makeup comes from an infinite number of breeds with randomized percentages of genetic material.  The fact that this open ending breeding concept has no fixed percentages and allows new synthetics and/or breeds to be added at any time excludes it from ever being considered a breed.

 

[knabe]

Knabe, I seriously doubt the Leachman operation cares one way or another who you'd rather buy bulls from.

Or anyone else for that matter.

In general, I care far more about the animal than the breeder.

 

[Tallcool1]

Knabe, I seriously doubt the Leachman operation cares one way or another who you'd rather buy bulls from.

Or anyone else for that matter.

In general, I care far more about the animal than the breeder.

.............and the producer cares far more about his customer than his critics.

 

[RyanChandler]

Had you said that the way that Leachman defines and presents their particular product lines can be cause for great confusion among those of us that understand the difference between these different blood lines.......completely different conversation.

Yea, that's definitely a bit more tactful but I don't know that it would have necessarily highlighted the level of trickery at play here.  He DELIBERATELY uses these inexactitudes in order to capitalize on the 'laymans' casual understanding and I don't like it; it's just not right.  Legitimate products don't have to rely on this type of marketing.