Promoting superior nutrition of beef.

[mrj]

Beef Checkoff Programs are moving from emphasis simply on the enjoyment of beef as the major reason for eating it, to focus on the fantastic nutritional values of beef, according to Jay O'Brien, chair of the Cattlemens Beef Board, governing body of the national share of the Beef Checkoff dollar.

Having seen exciting results from research conducted the past few years proving that great nutrition we have long 'known' was in beef, it is gratifying that we can now advertise and educate consumers of the facts.

It has been fun to see ads pointing out that maybe 10 or 11 chicken breasts would have to be eaten to gain the same nutrients as one 3 ounce piece of beef contains, but actually showing consumers the full nutrient profile and the great recipes in "The Healthy Beef Cookbook" will doubtless gain more beef sales.

Consumers currently are on a health kick, more often searching for foods with good nutrient profiles for their families rather than simply cutting calories, starting with beef.

The Beef Checkoff has also capitalized on partnering with food service businesses. Between 2001 and 2006, the checkoff spent $2.5 million, with foodservice partners investing $138.6 million of their own money to promote new beef dishes on the menu.

One more recent of those partnerships, with Boston Market, introduced new beef menu items to their previously featured mostly rotisserie chicken, quite a coup for the beef industry.

MRJ

[Clarencen]

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.

[mrj]

[Clarencen]

MRJ:

I think you have got me wrong. I am not a pessimist. I have lived all my life on a farm or ranch, and have been in business for myself for more than a half century. I must be some sort of an optimist. still we have to look at reallity. I have supported the beef checkoff, and I still do, but it is not a cure all. Really we have not made that much progress in per- capita comsumpion of beef. Beef consumption has increased because of an increase in population. The check off has done some things that I really appreciate, but most of us counter this with the effect on our bottom line. Cattle prices are good now, maybe we have something to crow about, but that may be short lived, who knows?

I don't believe there is any problem with the producer not seeing what the checkoff and other efforts have done, this information is out there. We can either accept it or not. The real problem is making the consumers trust us. When the consumers don't trust us it creates doubt even amoung ourselves. Look at the tobacco industry, they lied and did everything to make tobacco more addictive and more attractive. We don't want our industry to look the same to them. I am not saying we are being dishonest, I just think we need to be careful how we present the facts to them. Many still believe the things they were told so overwhelmingly back in the late 1960's, and since.

Take a close look at this NCBA-RCalf tug-a-war. What causes it? Isn't a lot of it mistrust? Neither can we overlook greed, or the desire to dominate, or the power to look down on someone. I suppose that will always be with us, human nature I guess.

Part of the problem is ourselves. Sometimes we do not know when enough is enough. We see it all the time. Often, if we have the means or the money we will outbid our neighbors, then console ourselves by saying he was inefficient, or use some other excuse.

[mrj]

Clarence, sorry if I misunderstood your pessimism/optimism. It seemed to me you were feeling like it is pretty hopeless to try to show consumers that beef is a beneficial food.

I've been in meetings with consumer focus groups, at conventions and they sure seem friendly to ranchers and favorable to beef, along with frustrated that there are not more beef convenience products, and something to compete with chicken nuggets, etc.

The people invited, almost off the streets, for these meetings have been a pretty broad range of income, social strata, etc. Think the Checkoff staff have gone to various grocery stores to invite the consumers.

Anyway, it has been interesting. Sometimes questionnaires to find knowledge about beef have been handed out to both the consumers and the beef producers. Neither group has been stellar in their knowledge!!!

There has been good exchange of ideas, desires for the product, wish for more improvement in tenderness, uniformity, easier preparation, etc.

The checkoff has made use of the information from consumers.

As to the 'war' between NCBA and R-CALF, I collected a lot of information from ag papers, attending meetings, etc. during the period just preceding foundation of R-CALF

It's my firm conviction and many wiser than I agree, but most feel it's useless to pursue the point, that a few people angry at not prevailing in issues in NCBA decided to 'go after' them.

Pat Goggins, then pres. of Livestock Marketing Assoc. was a leader, along with his buddy, Leo McDonald and were, or are, they cohorts in the Midlands Bull Test Station?) attended and addressed many "informational meetings" set up by/at local auction markets where "facts" about "NCBA living off your Beef Checkoff" were revealed.

That was all fiction, but angry ranchers who had no knowledge of the facts were all too eager to believe it. Thus, the 'petition drive' to end the Beef Checkoff was begun, and as Herman Schumacher of SD stated, "we had to go after the Beef Checkoff to stop NCBA".

It failed badly, and 'they' refused to believe that, claiming it was scuttled by USDA. Using that as more 'fodder' to feed the unrest in cattle country, (I may not have the sequence exact here).

Somewhere along the way, R-CALF was born. Stopping imports from Canada and elsewhere were also involved, and that may have been the issue that NCBA members refusal to support which sort of began the whole thing. The fact that Pat G. wanted to be pres. of NCBA and was turned down did not improve matters, either.

Aside from the tragedy of truth being trampled so often by the group, I've no problem with another cattle org for people who only want to sell cattle, not beef, and such, but their handing over money by the bushel to lawyers seems a tragic waste with so much of it coming from ranchers who will be hard-pressed to stay in business when times get tougher.

It seems the issue of R-CALF using major media to sow the seeds of fear in consumers over beef safety is the only thing, other than defending itself from their attacks, that NCBA has had made any public statement regarding R-CALF over in public, so the fuss seems quite one-sided. It will work itself out, eventually.

I realize the beef checkoff isn't a cure all. It couldn't be. It was designed to do some things to improve the sale of beef that no one else was doing, especially to prove that the health benefits were not properly recognized. I truly believe that will be the biggest benefit to all of us in the cattle/beef business in the near future.

Also, having the documentation for our animal welfare, safety, nutritient profile, etc. will be extremely beneficial in countering attacks on our industry by those who would end animal agriculture, for one.

Do you, by the way, have any of your plant books for sale?

Wishing you a blessed 2007.

Maxine Jones

[Sandhusker]

Tell me, MRJ, if the NCBA lost their contracts with the beef board, what would happen to their staffing levels?

[mrj]

[Sandhusker]

A better question would be "why didn't you answer the question"?

[Big Muddy rancher]

MRJ in Sask. we pay a checkoff to promote beef thru the Beef Information Center. (BIC). Money well spent in my opinion.
I am involved in Sask Prairie Conservation Action Plan. The conservation community in Sask is very Pro ranching as the feel it is very environmentaly friendly.

[mrj]

[fedup2]

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.

[~SH~]

Fedup,

Can you provide one example of misuse of beef checkoff funds?

If not, what's your problem this time?

Must be the letters NCBA huh? Can't think for yourself again huh?


~SH~