Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (106422)	6/23/2005 1:23:36 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You would have benefited from reading that entire article, or perhaps not because you eat organic beef, but much of the article included details about what calves in America eat, and the general risk of mad cow. Since I assume most Feelies readers are still eating regular beef from our supermarkets, I feel like posting articles about its dangers are a public service of sorts. Since you asked, here is more detail specifically about the market for beef in America, from the article under discussion: "The beef industry says more beef is being eaten now than ever. But that's a function of a growing population. Most Americans eat less beef than in 1970; per capita consumption of beef has fallen 11 percent, while chicken consumption has gone up 68 percent, and turkey demand has gone up 74 percent. - Judd Slivka. From "Ranchers a dying breed: West's once-thriving cattle industry suffering." The Arizona Republic (July 15, 2002). The Beef Industry agrees with this assessment, and provides the motivation for Bu$hCo's actions: Beef's marketplace dominance in virtually every measurable statistical category has fallen off dramatically since 1975. At the same time, beef's center-of-the-plate competition has wasted no time seizing market share we once held. The net result? Analysts say that ours is a mature and declining business - and the statistics seem to bear this out. For the better part of 25 years, the beef industry's share of the consumer meat market has been eroding ... and unless something is done to reverse this trend the industry stands to continue its downward slide. Beef's loss of market share means less profit opportunity for producers. Only through increased consumer expenditures will the flow of dollars increase in the beef system and enhance producer profit opportunities. An 11.9 percent loss of market share since 1980 resulted in a $12.84 billion cost to the industry in 1996 alone. Recovery of half of this lost market share would have meant an increase of $9 per hundredweight in the price of a fed steer in 1996. One problem is that we need to make money on the whole carcass. Middle meats are increasing in value, but they only comprise 25 percent of the carcass. Trimmings and cuts from the chuck and round, on the other hand, have decreased dramatically in value over the past five years, while making up 66 percent of carcass weight. theleftcoaster.com

To: The Philosopher who wrote (106422)	6/23/2005 1:33:24 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I have mentioned before that I really wish you wouldn't just cut and paste whole articles and expect busy people to wade through them trying to find what you think is relevant to the issue, but would quote the paragraph or two that supports your point, and cite to the article so readers who are so inclined can read more to see whether the quotes are in context. Now, there's a novel thought. Mayhaps the reason your suggestion has not been adopted is that it would require the poster to actually dig through the article to find and identify those portions that support his or her position. Too radical. It's much easier to post a 2,000 word article, without link, and ask the readers here to read the entire article and ferret out those portions that may be relevant.