|
| Author |
Message |
fedup2 Member

Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 794
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~ Rancher

Joined: 14 Feb 2005 Posts: 5426 Location: South Western SD
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
See what I mean F'ed up?
You can't even comprehend the simplest of statements.
| Quote: |
| MRJ says: "My point is, NCBA is not going to disappear if the checkoff ends, or is "taken away from NCBA"........and will probably get even bigger and better" |
To which you respond........
| Quote: |
| Fed up: "If the NCBA could get bigger & better at representing the cattle producer by getting rid of the check off,(getting rid of it by letting someone else take it over) why do they want it? If you are constrained by the checkoff and could do a better job by getting rid of that constraint, why wouldn't you?" |
Nowhere did MRJ say that the NCBA would get bigger and better AS A RESULT OF NOT HAVING THE CHECKOFF OR THAT THEY WERE CONSTRAINED BY IT. That was your spin job again. She simply suggested that the NCBA wasn't dependant on the checkoff for their survival.
You always have to put your deceptive spin on anything that's stated. Typical deceptive blamer!
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
fedup2 Member

Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 794
|
|
| Back to top |
|
~SH~ Rancher

Joined: 14 Feb 2005 Posts: 5426 Location: South Western SD
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MRJ did not say that the NCBA would get bigger and better as a result of getting rid of the checkoff.
You put your own spin on it.
Yes, you are that stupid if you don't think anyone is going to pick up on your deception.
~SH~
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ben Roberts Member

Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 644 Location: Pomeroy, Washington
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Evolution of the Check-Off-Dollars
In the mid 1950's, The National Livestock and Meat Board, which is packer owned and controlled, appointed a National Meat Promotion Committee to coordinate beef,pork and lamb promotions. This program did not set well with cattlemen.
When Jay Taylor became president of American National Cattlemen's Association in 1954, he called on the National Livestock and Meat Board to set-up beef promotion. He was unsuccessful, even though Jay Taylor had been Chairman of the National Livestock and Meat Board from 1951 to 1953. the National Livestock and Meat Board held to its multi-species approach of promoting all red meat. At this point, cattlemen decided to form The National Beef Council that was to be funded by a nationally legislated check-off but was never passed. Jay Taylor was so impressed with the newly formed National Beef Council that he brought R.C. Pollock, then general manager of the National Livestock and Meat Board, to the convention to talk about a beef promotion program. Cattlemen had suffered from the second worst drought in history and severely depressed cattle prices. Inspired by R.C. Pollock, they enthusiastically picked up the beef promotion program of the National livestock and Meat Board.
The National Livestock and Meat Board responded by appointing a Program and Policy Study Committee, headed by John Marble and directed by Harrel DeGraff of Cornell University. Cornell University has receeived large contributions from the large meat packing companies of Armour,Swift,Cudahy and Wilson for many years. The committee recommended that the National Livestock and Meat Board be divided into a Beef Committee,a Lamb Committee,and a Pork Committee. This recommendation opened the door for a merger of the Beef Committee of the National Livestock and Meat Board and the National Beef Council.
In 1963, the National Beef Council and the National Livestock and Meat Board formed the National Beef Industry Council. The National Beef Industry Council was funded by voluntary check-off funds at that time; then voluntary funds went to an automatic deduction from the sales of cattle collected by auction yards and commission firms at the terminal markets. If you did not want to give a contribution you could make a written request and your deduction would be returned to you.
The National Livestock and Meat Board, which is packer owned and controlled, collected funds in the amount one cent per head on all livestock sold at the large terminal markets. This money was used for the promotion of meat. The one cent per head rate continued from 1922 until 1953. In 1953, it was increased to two cents per head, and in 1961, it was increased to three cents per head. That worked very well for the big packers. Then, with the reduction of livestock being shipped to the large terminal markets in the late 1960's, there was also a reduction of money collected for the big packers. So they had to devise a new way to collect large amounts of advertising and research funds.
By 1977, the packers had developed a strong working relationship with the American National Cattlemen's Association, which had evolved from the American National Livestock Association in 1951. In 1977, the American National Cattlemen's Association became the National Cattlemen's Association. At that time, the National Cattlemen's Association was financed by its membership dues and by collecting funds from cattle producers on a voluntary check-off for the promotion of beef. Not until the packers had this strong working relationship with the National Cattlemen's Association did the check-off-dollars become mandatory, by legislation in the 1985 Farm Bill, when Joann Smith was president. Then in 1995, the packers took over the National Cattlemen's Association, with the merger of the National Cattlemen's Association and the National Livestock and Meat Board, which became the National Cattlemens Beef Association (NCBA).
Joann Smith, was the first women president of the National Cattlemen's Association in 1985. She then led a successful campaign and was the first Chairman of the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (the one who collects the check-off-dollars) Joann Smith then went on to become a board member of IBP.
Best Regards
Ben Roberts
|
|
| Back to top |
|
EJ Member

Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 211 Location: north central S Dak
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:29 am Post subject: Promoteing |
|
|
| MRJ wrote: |
| Clarencen wrote: |
I am glad to see that you are still optimistic. I hope the people out there will listen. I am not sure that they will. The past 40 years the vegetarians, food and diet promotion people, our government, and the USDA have bad mouthed beef so badly without basing anything on facts.
So many of the industries that serve agriculture are more interested in selling huge tractors and tillage equipment, chemicals, and new and restricted varieties of seed, than they are of our health, or even of enviormental things. |
Clarence, I believe one of the greatest failings of myself and others who have served on the checkoff and cattlemens' org boards is that so many producers are not well informed of what has been done with checkoff money, and funds from other sources to show consumers how good beef really is.
Part of that is because we want the most possible money spent on showing consumers, not telling producers what they should be getting from their representatives on those boards. Back when I was on the SD Beef Council, we rep's. did report back to our organizations, but we probably were not aggressive enough in seeking publicity to get the info out to producers not attending the meetings.
I'm sorry you are feeling pessimistic. Seeing the bad all the time is depressing, isn't it? How long ago have you heard USDA "bad mouth beef"? I think since USDA monitoring of the Beef Checkoff is required, the people involved have necessarily learned more facts about beef nutrients and accted accordingly.
What else could we expect from people who are either vegetarian, or are promoting odd diets or seeking headlines, though? Unfortunately, they seem so have bundles of money to spend to support their anti-meat agenda. That isn't going to change. However, our Beef Checkoff people have worked very hard, and with considerable success to get those stories either out of mainstream media, or to dilute their effectiveness with factual information stories placed in magazines, newspapers, etc.
The fact that you or I may not see such stories favorable to beef does not mean they are not out there. The consumers who purchase family proteins do not necessarily read the same things we read.
I hope you are not falling into the groups who believe all corporations are bad and greedy, out to lure us into spending money we don't need to spend to make us go broke so they can buy us out, in collusion with USDA to put farmers out of business. Believing that just seems silly, and I know you are not a silly person.
I believe it is the optimistic, excited people who can see opportunities in challenges facing them and the cattle business who are going to succeed and be the cattle industry in the future.
I hope they are taking advantage of information on the Beef Checkoff website to learn what their checkoff is doing, and be part of the action rather than part of the propaganda against it.
| Quote: |
Now, I hear Stockgrowers claim that they don't get told what the SD Beef Council is doing, and that a new member of the CBB for SD is the first person who has visited their meetings and told them anything.
Sorry, but it is the responsibility of their three representatives on the SD Beef Councils, to report to them both what the state is doing, and to report what the national CBB reps, who DO report to the SD BIC meetings, have said.
Sure, it is nice to invite the CBB directors to your meetings, but, please offer them some expense money, as state travel probably isn't covered, and of course, their time is all volunteer. |
Hearing it and knowing it are two different things MRJ. The fact is the 3 reps from the SDSGA do report back. And at the quarterly meeting in Mobridge I suggested the new appointment to the CBB be invited, being he was so close to Mobridge. We informed Allen different concerns of the SDSGA. Larry Nelson said, "He didn`t remember recently of any member of the CBB coming to a SDSGA meeting. And he really appreicated Allen and his wife takeing the time to some in." As you know they live within 15 miles of Mobridge. And it will be the intent of the SDSGA to have SD CBB members as often as we can schedule them.
As for the Federation, yes it is made up of reps from the various Beef Councils. And yes it is the checkoff side of NCBA.
Ernie J Mertz
SDSGA rep on the SDBIC
MRJ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj Rancher

Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 3363
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fedup2 wrote: |
MRJ writes: [Therefore, we probably would do our own thing, removing staff from the checkoff to work in a closed system or group of beef production and marketing alliances which would not have to observe the constraints of the current checkoff.
That would enable CATTLE PRODUCERS who are serious about selling BEEF to benefit from our efforts, and leave those who are not back in the commodity bin.
MRJ writes: [“My point is, NCBA is not going to disappear if the checkoff ends, or is "taken away from NCBA"........and will probably get even bigger and better.”]
If the NCBA could get bigger & better at representing the cattle producer by getting rid of the check off,(getting rid of it by letting someone else
take it over) why do they want it? If you are constrained by the checkoff and could do a better job by getting rid of that constraint, why wouldn't you? Aren’t cattle ‘producers’ supposed to be the people they are representing? Or have their priorities changed? Ya better straighten me out as I am confused again. |
fed......Do you, or don't you understand that NCBA is TWO groups, separate financially, but working together under one roof and one name?
Untill I know the answer to that question, it is nearly impossible to answer your question, except to say I don't see the checkoff as a "constraint" as currently managed, but if it changes to the point of uselessness to cattle producers, or is eliminated, I doubt our members would sit and whine about the loss. We would do something about it.
MRJ
MRJ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj Rancher

Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 3363
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject: Re: Promoteing |
|
|
| EJ wrote: |
| MRJ wrote: |
| Clarencen wrote: |
I am glad to see that you are still optimistic. I hope the people out there will listen. I am not sure that they will. The past 40 years the vegetarians, food and diet promotion people, our government, and the USDA have bad mouthed beef so badly without basing anything on facts.
So many of the industries that serve agriculture are more interested in selling huge tractors and tillage equipment, chemicals, and new and restricted varieties of seed, than they are of our health, or even of enviormental things. |
Clarence, I believe one of the greatest failings of myself and others who have served on the checkoff and cattlemens' org boards is that so many producers are not well informed of what has been done with checkoff money, and funds from other sources to show consumers how good beef really is.
Part of that is because we want the most possible money spent on showing consumers, not telling producers what they should be getting from their representatives on those boards. Back when I was on the SD Beef Council, we rep's. did report back to our organizations, but we probably were not aggressive enough in seeking publicity to get the info out to producers not attending the meetings.
I'm sorry you are feeling pessimistic. Seeing the bad all the time is depressing, isn't it? How long ago have you heard USDA "bad mouth beef"? I think since USDA monitoring of the Beef Checkoff is required, the people involved have necessarily learned more facts about beef nutrients and accted accordingly.
What else could we expect from people who are either vegetarian, or are promoting odd diets or seeking headlines, though? Unfortunately, they seem so have bundles of money to spend to support their anti-meat agenda. That isn't going to change. However, our Beef Checkoff people have worked very hard, and with considerable success to get those stories either out of mainstream media, or to dilute their effectiveness with factual information stories placed in magazines, newspapers, etc.
The fact that you or I may not see such stories favorable to beef does not mean they are not out there. The consumers who purchase family proteins do not necessarily read the same things we read.
I hope you are not falling into the groups who believe all corporations are bad and greedy, out to lure us into spending money we don't need to spend to make us go broke so they can buy us out, in collusion with USDA to put farmers out of business. Believing that just seems silly, and I know you are not a silly person.
I believe it is the optimistic, excited people who can see opportunities in challenges facing them and the cattle business who are going to succeed and be the cattle industry in the future.
I hope they are taking advantage of information on the Beef Checkoff website to learn what their checkoff is doing, and be part of the action rather than part of the propaganda against it.
| Quote: |
Now, I hear Stockgrowers claim that they don't get told what the SD Beef Council is doing, and that a new member of the CBB for SD is the first person who has visited their meetings and told them anything.
Sorry, but it is the responsibility of their three representatives on the SD Beef Councils, to report to them both what the state is doing, and to report what the national CBB reps, who DO report to the SD BIC meetings, have said.
Sure, it is nice to invite the CBB directors to your meetings, but, please offer them some expense money, as state travel probably isn't covered, and of course, their time is all volunteer. |
Hearing it and knowing it are two different things MRJ. The fact is the 3 reps from the SDSGA do report back. And at the quarterly meeting in Mobridge I suggested the new appointment to the CBB be invited, being he was so close to Mobridge. We informed Allen different concerns of the SDSGA. Larry Nelson said, "He didn`t remember recently of any member of the CBB coming to a SDSGA meeting. And he really appreicated Allen and his wife takeing the time to some in." As you know they live within 15 miles of Mobridge. And it will be the intent of the SDSGA to have SD CBB members as often as we can schedule them.
As for the Federation, yes it is made up of reps from the various Beef Councils. And yes it is the checkoff side of NCBA.
Ernie J Mertz
SDSGA rep on the SDBIC
MRJ |
|
How right you are Ernie, "Hearing it and knowing it ARE two different things!"
We have been reading by SDSGA leaders in the media in western SD that they were missing out on information and opportunity to be heard by CBB because no one was coming to their meetings and reporting to them.
I don't believe that is listed as one of the duties of a CBB member, but most would have cheerfully done so, had they been invited. I believe Pat Blum, recently retired as a CBB member, was probably at many of your meetings with her husband who is a SDSGA member and I know she would have reported, had she been asked.
I also know that many CBB directors have attended SDBIC meetings, often at their own expense, and reported and asked for in-put there, and those reports should have been, and yes, maybe they WERE reported back to your membership........so how do you justify these complaints of "no reports and no imputs" ?
MRJ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
EJ Member

Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 211 Location: north central S Dak
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: Promoteing |
|
|
| MRJ, when you say "no reports no input", are you referring to the CBB or the Beef Council??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj Rancher

Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 3363
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: Promoteing |
|
|
| EJ wrote: |
| MRJ, when you say "no reports no input", are you referring to the CBB or the Beef Council?? |
I refer to the CBB, however, I believe some of the 'news stories' generated by SDSGA did not differentiate, though I will accept correction on that if someone posts one of those stories showing I'm incorrect on it.
It does seem that maybe the SDBIC hasn't in the past ("past" only because I haven't been to a meeting since last fall) listened well to reports from CBB members because of continuing problems with misunderstanding or misinformation coming from some SDBIC members.
Haven't you noticed that many producers do not differentiate between the two boards, CBB and SDBIC, and don't seem to know there IS a difference?
MRJ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
EJ Member

Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 211 Location: north central S Dak
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject: Re: Promoteing |
|
|
| MRJ wrote: |
| EJ wrote: |
| MRJ, when you say "no reports no input", are you referring to the CBB or the Beef Council?? |
I refer to the CBB, however, I believe some of the 'news stories' generated by SDSGA did not differentiate, though I will accept correction on that if someone posts one of those stories showing I'm incorrect on it.
It does seem that maybe the SDBIC hasn't in the past ("past" only because I haven't been to a meeting since last fall) listened well to reports from CBB members because of continuing problems with misunderstanding or misinformation coming from some SDBIC members.
Haven't you noticed that many producers do not differentiate between the two boards, CBB and SDBIC, and don't seem to know there IS a difference?
MRJ |
I really haven`t noticed producers not knowing the difference. And haven`t seen the news release to that effect. I did call a producer and former SDBIC member from your area to see if he had seen anytbing to that affect and he hadn`t. I do find that most of the producers comeing to the quarterly meetings are quite well informed. The only exception is the producers that are not a member of any organization.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|