|
| Author |
Message |
Mike
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 16951
Location: Montgomery, Al
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:43 pm Post subject: Check-Off Question |
 |
|
Does anyone know how many dollars per year TOTAL is paid into the Beef Check-Off?
All states portions included?
It has to be an astronomical number because a Check-Off is sometimes paid 3-4 times on each head of cattle through the supply chain.
Just wondering..............................
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tommy
Member
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 755
Location: South East Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike, the last I read it is around 76 million dollars. Half of that goes to the state beef councils and half goes to the CBB.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3363
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike, the amount depends on how many cattle are sold in a year, how many sellers cheat and do not pay, and how many cattle, or equivalent weights are imported from other nations, etc.
Best way to find out may be to check at www.beefboard.org.
I believe some packers voluntarily pay some money to the beef checkoff, or did in the past, after the mandatory checkoff was voted in, as they had done previously. I don't know details of that situation.
mrj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18244
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I know the packers benefit a heck of a lot more than what they pay for. THEY are the biggest winners from the checkoff.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Big Muddy rancher
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 15725
Location: Big Muddy valley
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| I know the packers benefit a heck of a lot more than what they pay for. THEY are the biggest winners from the checkoff. |
How is that?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 2172
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| I know the packers benefit a heck of a lot more than what they pay for. THEY are the biggest winners from the checkoff. |
How is that? |
Without any pass through to producers, packers get to pocket any benefits of increased demand.
In addition, it gives them a "producer" group to make arguments for them on Capitol Hill to give congressmen a chance to support meat packer goals masquerading as checkoff producer goals so they can collect meat packer campaign money without taking a hit on the PR front to further meat packer frauds. Plain old bribing of congress with a little spin.
It isn't that hard to figure out, BMR.
Tex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Texan
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2925
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:35 pm Post subject: Re: Check-Off Question |
|
|
| Mike wrote: |
Does anyone know how many dollars per year TOTAL is paid into the Beef Check-Off?
All states portions included?
It has to be an astronomical number because a Check-Off is sometimes paid 3-4 times on each head of cattle through the supply chain.
Just wondering.............................. |
Mike, I checked out the CBB Annual Report for 2010:
http://www.beefboard.org/library/files/FINAL%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%20pdf%202010.pdf
It shows "Total Assessment Revenues" for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010 to be:
$42,136,014
Page 16 down toward the bottom of the report shows a breakdown by state.
The revenue from states with "Qualified State Beef Councils" is:
$35,720,777
Since those states with State Beef Councils retained half of their remittances, when you add that number back into the total of $42,136,014, it should make the total paid in:
$77,856,791
That's a little higher than last year (also shown on the same report) and is pretty close to what Tommy posted.
It also shows the amount assessed to "Importers" of $6,378,595 - I assume that means packers.
Anyway, it's an interesting report. Everybody should take the time to look it over.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mike
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 16951
Location: Montgomery, Al
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks. That is interesting.
That's a lot of money to buy a few "Eat More Beef" truck tags and bill boards.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Big Muddy rancher
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 15725
Location: Big Muddy valley
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tex wrote: |
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| I know the packers benefit a heck of a lot more than what they pay for. THEY are the biggest winners from the checkoff. |
How is that? |
Without any pass through to producers, packers get to pocket any benefits of increased demand.
In addition, it gives them a "producer" group to make arguments for them on Capitol Hill to give congressmen a chance to support meat packer goals masquerading as checkoff producer goals so they can collect meat packer campaign money without taking a hit on the PR front to further meat packer frauds. Plain old bribing of congress with a little spin.
It isn't that hard to figure out, BMR.
Tex |
Since your Sandhuskers new mouth I will ask you.
Does demand have nothing to do with the price of cattle?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 2172
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Tex wrote: |
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| I know the packers benefit a heck of a lot more than what they pay for. THEY are the biggest winners from the checkoff. |
How is that? |
Without any pass through to producers, packers get to pocket any benefits of increased demand.
In addition, it gives them a "producer" group to make arguments for them on Capitol Hill to give congressmen a chance to support meat packer goals masquerading as checkoff producer goals so they can collect meat packer campaign money without taking a hit on the PR front to further meat packer frauds. Plain old bribing of congress with a little spin.
It isn't that hard to figure out, BMR.
Tex |
Since your Sandhuskers new mouth I will ask you.
Does demand have nothing to do with the price of cattle? |
Sorry, didn't mean to answer Sandhusker's question, but since you asked......
The intersection between demand and supply curves is the price. Those with market power get to play all sorts of games with this scenario since they have so much market power that they can determine the details. It is one reason the Packers and Stockyards Act dictates prohibitions of certain meat packer actions that allow them to capture more of the revenue via profits or market share. Remember, market share is also delayed value, especially if you just knocked off one of your competitors who don't play the game you are dictating. That is what happened with Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride in the poultry market.
If demand increases at the consumer level and all of the increase of demand is captured by the meat packers or some other middleman like Walmart and Sam's, then the increase in demand didn't really help the producers (all other things equal) did it? It was pocketed by someone higher up in the marketing channel. This has been the problem in the meats industry and why so many producers have exited while the industry has become more concentrated and it is the problem with the NCBA's focus only on demand, not what the producers get out of it. Of course it would be interesting to see how many top NCBA people have been getting premiums that others have not been getting for the same quality of animal. We know that meat packers will adjust their formula pricing to benefit those who are supporting them, even if it is economic fraud prohibited by the Packers and Stockyards Act. Then they play the legal game.
Tex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Big Muddy rancher
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 15725
Location: Big Muddy valley
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tex wrote: |
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Tex wrote: |
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| I know the packers benefit a heck of a lot more than what they pay for. THEY are the biggest winners from the checkoff. |
How is that? |
Without any pass through to producers, packers get to pocket any benefits of increased demand.
In addition, it gives them a "producer" group to make arguments for them on Capitol Hill to give congressmen a chance to support meat packer goals masquerading as checkoff producer goals so they can collect meat packer campaign money without taking a hit on the PR front to further meat packer frauds. Plain old bribing of congress with a little spin.
It isn't that hard to figure out, BMR.
Tex |
Since your Sandhuskers new mouth I will ask you.
Does demand have nothing to do with the price of cattle? |
Sorry, didn't mean to answer Sandhusker's question, but since you asked......
The intersection between demand and supply curves is the price. Those with market power get to play all sorts of games with this scenario since they have so much market power that they can determine the details. It is one reason the Packers and Stockyards Act dictates prohibitions of certain meat packer actions that allow them to capture more of the revenue via profits or market share. Remember, market share is also delayed value, especially if you just knocked off one of your competitors who don't play the game you are dictating. That is what happened with Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride in the poultry market.
If demand increases at the consumer level and all of the increase of demand is captured by the meat packers or some other middleman like Walmart and Sam's, then the increase in demand didn't really help the producers (all other things equal) did it? It was pocketed by someone higher up in the marketing channel. This has been the problem in the meats industry and why so many producers have exited while the industry has become more concentrated and it is the problem with the NCBA's focus only on demand, not what the producers get out of it. Of course it would be interesting to see how many top NCBA people have been getting premiums that others have not been getting for the same quality of animal. We know that meat packers will adjust their formula pricing to benefit those who are supporting them, even if it is economic fraud prohibited by the Packers and Stockyards Act. Then they play the legal game.
Tex |
So improved markets are just a act of good will?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 2172
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Tex wrote: |
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Tex wrote: |
| Big Muddy rancher wrote: |
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| I know the packers benefit a heck of a lot more than what they pay for. THEY are the biggest winners from the checkoff. |
How is that? |
Without any pass through to producers, packers get to pocket any benefits of increased demand.
In addition, it gives them a "producer" group to make arguments for them on Capitol Hill to give congressmen a chance to support meat packer goals masquerading as checkoff producer goals so they can collect meat packer campaign money without taking a hit on the PR front to further meat packer frauds. Plain old bribing of congress with a little spin.
It isn't that hard to figure out, BMR.
Tex |
Since your Sandhuskers new mouth I will ask you.
Does demand have nothing to do with the price of cattle? |
Sorry, didn't mean to answer Sandhusker's question, but since you asked......
The intersection between demand and supply curves is the price. Those with market power get to play all sorts of games with this scenario since they have so much market power that they can determine the details. It is one reason the Packers and Stockyards Act dictates prohibitions of certain meat packer actions that allow them to capture more of the revenue via profits or market share. Remember, market share is also delayed value, especially if you just knocked off one of your competitors who don't play the game you are dictating. That is what happened with Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride in the poultry market.
If demand increases at the consumer level and all of the increase of demand is captured by the meat packers or some other middleman like Walmart and Sam's, then the increase in demand didn't really help the producers (all other things equal) did it? It was pocketed by someone higher up in the marketing channel. This has been the problem in the meats industry and why so many producers have exited while the industry has become more concentrated and it is the problem with the NCBA's focus only on demand, not what the producers get out of it. Of course it would be interesting to see how many top NCBA people have been getting premiums that others have not been getting for the same quality of animal. We know that meat packers will adjust their formula pricing to benefit those who are supporting them, even if it is economic fraud prohibited by the Packers and Stockyards Act. Then they play the legal game.
Tex |
So improved markets are just a act of good will? |
For Tyson and the other substitute meat players we know that they will
"improve" the factors of good markets for some through their pricing at the expense of others so they don't have to pay the full cost.
I wouldn't call that good will.
Don't get like sh here. Meat packers (and retailers) want to increase the spread between what they pay you for cattle and what they get from the market. Sometimes they take actions that are specifically prohibited in the Packers and Stockyards Act to do it. Sometimes they don't. It all depends on the facts of what actually happened. These broad generalizations are pretty useless when it comes to the facts. Facts trump broad generalizations any day.
Wasn't it Phil Gramm who said Wall Street and banking firms wouldn't engage in risky behavior because it would be against their business interests (that they would go out of biz)?
Facts trump generalizations every time.
Tex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
