Econ101 said:
Are you saying only packers benefit from the current checkoff?
Obviously, if they were the only ones paying it, they would then be the only ones deciding how it was spent, so, conceivably they THEN would be the only ones benefitting, but certainly are not now.
MRJ
A
Anonymous
Guest
Nobody has more incentive to pay the checkoff than the producer does because the buck stops here. The packer is a margin operator.
I also find it hypocritical that the R-CULT checkoff critics suggest that only the packer benefits from the checkoff while they want to use checkoff dollars to promote "USA RAISED BEEF". Another of R-CULT's many conflicting arguments.
~SH~
RobertMac
Well-known member
agman said:RobertMac said:Econ101 said:
I think you have identified why the checkoff has been ineffective and why it never will be effective!!!!!!
You know better than to make that statement RM.
OK, that was a little over the top...but you know the ckeckoff has not been effective in growing market share. I don't have 2004 data or 2005 projections, but over the last ten years, the trend is sideways. The underlying reason is health concerns. It doesn't matter how good it taste, how convenient it is, or even how cheap it is, if the consumer perceives eating beef to be harmful to their health, they aren't going to buy it. And we have to change the minds of these people to expand market share. The issues that have to be addressed are fat, hormones, antibiotic, and disease issues. The beef industry must make positive and PUBLIC changes to dig us out of the hole beef recalls put us in.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Robert Mac,
You really should serve on the Beef Council. Your health concerns and fat concerns regarding beef certainly have merit. I'm serious, you are passionate and knowledgeble about THAT issue and should pursue it. I don't think you could do too much damage. Hahaha! Just kidding. You'd get my vote if there was a vote. I also liked Cattle Co.'s Nascar sponsorship idea. That is some of the best advertising available.
"Around corner number 2 in third place we have Robert Mac's "SATURATED FAT JOHN DEERE GREEN NASCAR"."
~SH~
You really should serve on the Beef Council. Your health concerns and fat concerns regarding beef certainly have merit. I'm serious, you are passionate and knowledgeble about THAT issue and should pursue it. I don't think you could do too much damage. Hahaha! Just kidding. You'd get my vote if there was a vote. I also liked Cattle Co.'s Nascar sponsorship idea. That is some of the best advertising available.
"Around corner number 2 in third place we have Robert Mac's "SATURATED FAT JOHN DEERE GREEN NASCAR"."
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
"I also find it hypocritical that the R-CULT checkoff critics suggest that only the packer benefits from the checkoff while they want to use checkoff dollars to promote "USA RAISED BEEF". Another of R-CULT's many conflicting arguments. "
No, SH, this is another of your inaccuracies. R-CALF's only position on the checkoff is that is should be voted on periodically. Is that loathing for lies and deception reserved only for others and not yourself? Oh, I forgot. NCBA members don't lie or deceive, they are only "mistaken" or "don't know what they're talking about". :roll:
No, SH, this is another of your inaccuracies. R-CALF's only position on the checkoff is that is should be voted on periodically. Is that loathing for lies and deception reserved only for others and not yourself? Oh, I forgot. NCBA members don't lie or deceive, they are only "mistaken" or "don't know what they're talking about". :roll:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yeh and you are the one who said R-CULT wasn't against Mandatory ID either until they took a vote. Leo and Bullard may claim to not take a position on the checkoff while one of their directors, Herman Schumacher, was on the front lines of the Checkoff constitutionality challenge. Until they take a position on the checkoff officially, I'll believe what their supporters are telling me about how the checkoff only benefits the packing industry while they are contradicting themselves with the promotion of USA RAISED BEEF.
You got nothing here either.
~SH~
Sandhusker said:"I also find it hypocritical that the R-CULT checkoff critics suggest that only the packer benefits from the checkoff while they want to use checkoff dollars to promote "USA RAISED BEEF". Another of R-CULT's many conflicting arguments. "
No, SH, this is another of your inaccuracies. R-CALF's only position on the checkoff is that is should be voted on periodically. Is that loathing for lies and deception reserved only for others and not yourself? Oh, I forgot. NCBA members don't lie or deceive, they are only "mistaken" or "don't know what they're talking about". :roll:
It is very convenient for R-CALF officers to claim they are not against the checkoff because they have loyal supporters in Johnny Smith and others who almost daily tell ranchers that R-CALF is the ONLY outfit working for the cattle man, and make bogus claims against the checkoff attempting to give weight to their claims. That is ludicrous, and they know it, but perpetuate the lie to gain converts and financial support. At any rate the statement "don't forget to leave some money for R-CALF, they don't have the Checkoff to support them" always follows the pitch against the checkoff and NCBA (by implication when not stated outright, as it usually is).
The only mechanism for another vote on the checkoff was put into the law because the ranchers who brought the checkoff to life wanted an escape clause in the event it somehow failed to serve the intended purpose. That mechanism is the petition for a vote. Believing that if anything was seriously wrong with the checkoff, there would be no difficulty getting ten percent of ranchers owning at least one head of cattle the previous year to sign such a petition.
As I recall, the reasoning for NOT having periodic votes was that it would lead to political (not as in party politics, but as in organizational, such as the LMA politics we have experienced of late) manipulation and disruption of a system that had no problems that could not be resolved by other means. That is, if problems of a serious nature came up, the petitions would carry adequate signatures for a vote.
MRJ
Econ101 said:
I do disagree. Because the packers are NOT "free riders under the current setup".
Packers pay the checkoff on cattle owned more than two weeks, just like the aution market owners, traders, and other short term cattle owners are supposed to do under the law.
There are various ways the packers contribute to checkoff projects above and beyond requirements of the law, such as working with and funding efforts to end foodborne illnesses such as e coli and others, for one. I believe they put money into developing new products, too.
BTW, there is a considerable amount of soliciting funds from various businesses to partner with checkoff dollars on a variety of projects, including developing new heat and eat beef entrees for retail consumers, and introducing new beef menu items.
One recent huge success has been convincing Boston Market restaurants, previously poultry strongholds, to add a line of Sirloin steaks and roasts to their menu's.
As a general rule, the partnering businesses put in the lions share of the money, with a token amount of checkoff dollars.
MRJ
A
Anonymous
Guest
This industry is much better served by NCBA working with the major packers on issues of common concern such as increasing consumer demand for beef and tackling food safety problems as opposed to R-CULT's antagonistic conspiracy oriented battles with the packing industry. R-CULT's antics only serves to waste time and precious resources that could be used to gain more of the consumer's food dollar. R-CULT's misguided antics is the biggest threat this industry faces today.
~SH~
~SH~
RobertMac
Well-known member
S.S.A.P. said:
My belief is that if we have the medical profession telling consumers that beef is harmful to their health, we have to use checkoff dollars to correct that misinformation before we put money into R&D on new value added products. If consumers are afraid to eat beef, it doesn't matter what form it is in!
RobertMac said:
I agree RM that the number one priority at this time should be getting correct information to the medical field and consumers. When I hear "beef is bad for you" 2-3 times in a few days, I believe its time to pay attention and do something.
The discussion of how to spend checkoff money is a lot better than whether we need it or not! I believe that we have never needed it more.
As far as attacking pork and chicken, why? Isn't their enough vegitarians & animal rights groups doing that already! I don't think beef needs to be on that bandwagon.
As far as R&D, some of the best cooks and ideas come right from your ranch homes. I don't believe a great deal of money would have to be spent for recoginition of great recipes. I am not talking about funding a laboratory here, I am talking about contests that could be held for people of any age. Maybe a small scholarship or something like that for best recipe of a certain catagory. (convenience, fast food, etc.) By the way, did you see that Dominos has a new steak pizza!
I don't believe you are doing this for the packers. You are doing this to help sell the product that you raise. I also don't believe that if something helps more than one group, that doesn't make it bad! The target here is the diminishing demand for your product, not the fear that someone else might make a dollar off of your efforts. And if they do make money off of your ideas, doesn't that increase demand for your product?
As always, I have way more questions than answers!
fedup2, You are totally right about not "attacking" the other substitutes but the advertising/research has to be aimed at getting that market share from the substitutes and expanding demand for all at the same time. MRJ has brought up some good examples of more ready and easier to cook beef items. Convenience is really needed but the idea of cooking a steak and enjoying the life we are given through these actions should not be given up.
The more alternative choices such as USA beef, grass fed beef, organic beef, no hormone or antibiotic beef, easy to cook beef, grain fed beef, and even Canadian beef that all have characteristics that appeal to those consumers, the more demand we will have altogether. Unfortunately, many of the items I mentioned above are counter to the packer's interests. They almost require a different processor to be able to get these items. With a higher concentrated industry some of these possibilities are reduced.
The question is who is paying for these campaigns and are the benefits going to those who are paying or being captured by someone else.
"Attacking" these substitutes will have about as much affect as SH's name calling has. Pointing out the differences and "selling" these differences as well as combating some of the "science" that produces some of the bogus reporting about beef is what is needed, which is exactly what I think you are saying.
The more alternative choices such as USA beef, grass fed beef, organic beef, no hormone or antibiotic beef, easy to cook beef, grain fed beef, and even Canadian beef that all have characteristics that appeal to those consumers, the more demand we will have altogether. Unfortunately, many of the items I mentioned above are counter to the packer's interests. They almost require a different processor to be able to get these items. With a higher concentrated industry some of these possibilities are reduced.
The question is who is paying for these campaigns and are the benefits going to those who are paying or being captured by someone else.
"Attacking" these substitutes will have about as much affect as SH's name calling has. Pointing out the differences and "selling" these differences as well as combating some of the "science" that produces some of the bogus reporting about beef is what is needed, which is exactly what I think you are saying.
A
Anonymous
Guest
John Kerry: "First I voted for it, then I voted against it.
Sound familiar?
~SH~
RobertMac
Well-known member
SH, attack is the wrong word...an aggressive campaign to inform professionals AND consumers that beef is a more nutritious and healthy alternative to pork and, the politically correct, poultry. Don't worry, CBB and NCBA don't have the balls to try and the big multi-species packers would slap them back into their place if they did. R-CALF's desire to return to the good ole days is just as futile.
RobertMac said:
SH, as you will note, the word "attacking" was in quotes in my quote. They were there for a reason and I am sorry you do not understand the reason. Words have a lot of connotation that may not exactly portray the meaning the user is trying to convey. I use quotation marks sometimes when I think this might be the case. I have to use small words for some to follow on this posts and I do not appreciate your misuse of my meaning in this context. Thank you, RobertMac.
It is funny that NCBA doesn't have the balls and Taylor was all "nuts".
Which category do you fall into, SH?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thankfully the Beef Board is comprised of those who know it's more important to point out the strengths of beef than the failures or poultry and pork. If beef promotion was left up to idiots like Econ., poultry and pork would join R-CULT in their BSE fear mongering and take U.S. beef consumption into the tank.
RM, you can dispell the myths about beef without negative campaigning against poultry and pork. When poultry, pork, and beef fight, only the vegetarians win.
~SH~
RM, you can dispell the myths about beef without negative campaigning against poultry and pork. When poultry, pork, and beef fight, only the vegetarians win.
~SH~
~SH~ said:
SH, What do you think the "research" into chicken saying it is better than beef is all about? Is it not a smooth way of "negative" campaigning? Your "vegetarians win" argument did not stop this research. You are not going to win over any vegetarians anyway. They are a small part of the potential market. That segment of the market is much more likely to purchase a high margin "quality" product where the delivery chain was "respectful" to the animals processed.
The only "idiot" on this posting is you for not understanding what I am writing and mischaracterizing it so you can "win" some silly argument about the soundness of your "opinion" of me.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Keep telling yourself that because your empty arguments certainly don't carry any weight.
~SH~