• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Any NCBA Folk Care to Interpret?

A

Anonymous

Guest
These are a couple of the policy stances NCBA has on their Capitol Concerns-- but I'm not sure what they're trying to say- especially the M-COOL one....Are they now supporting Country of Origin Labeling- or are they just going to concede it will become law and going to try to screw it up more for general principles :???:

Country-of-origin labeling: NCBA members believe implementation of the current federal country-of-origin labeling statute has the potential to place a great burden on domestic producers and disrupt the beef market, so NCBA policy directs NCBA to work with Congress and USDA to ensure that a country-of-origin labeling program offers maximum benefit and minimal market disruption to the U.S. beef industry.

This was the one on the USDA's proposed Rule 2...Now while in some news articles I saw it downplayed- the NCBA member I talked to that had been to the convention said there was a highly divided group as to whether to support the rule 2- which resulted in this....

NCBA is reviewing the proposed rule along with a detailed economic and scientific analysis developed for NCBA members as we work to shape our comments. At last week’s annual meeting in Nashville, NCBA members did not reject the USDA proposal, but adopted a policy voicing concerns about its possible impact. The interim policy adopted February 3rd demands permanent identification of all live cattle imported from Canada through harvest, and calls for USDA to develop an orderly market transition plan before expanding the scope of cattle and beef imports from Canada.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
These are a couple of the policy stances NCBA has on their Capitol Concerns-- but I'm not sure what they're trying to say- especially the M-COOL one....Are they now supporting Country of Origin Labeling- or are they just going to concede it will become law and going to try to screw it up more for general principles :???:

Country-of-origin labeling: NCBA members believe implementation of the current federal country-of-origin labeling statute has the potential to place a great burden on domestic producers and disrupt the beef market, so NCBA policy directs NCBA to work with Congress and USDA to ensure that a country-of-origin labeling program offers maximum benefit and minimal market disruption to the U.S. beef industry.

This was the one on the USDA's proposed Rule 2...Now while in some news articles I saw it downplayed- the NCBA member I talked to that had been to the convention said there was a highly divided group as to whether to support the rule 2- which resulted in this....

NCBA is reviewing the proposed rule along with a detailed economic and scientific analysis developed for NCBA members as we work to shape our comments. At last week’s annual meeting in Nashville, NCBA members did not reject the USDA proposal, but adopted a policy voicing concerns about its possible impact. The interim policy adopted February 3rd demands permanent identification of all live cattle imported from Canada through harvest, and calls for USDA to develop an orderly market transition plan before expanding the scope of cattle and beef imports from Canada.

Maxine-- Since I see your back -- maybe you will interpret this M-COOL policy for us....Is NCBA now supporting M-COOL or what?

What was the reaction to the USDA poll of 92% of checkoff payers wanting their money spent to promote born, raised, and slaughtered in the USA Beef?
 

Brad S

Well-known member
As for the poll question regarding checkoff monies promoting which beef, the data or poll is incomplete without the following question: how much checkoff money should be spent to distinguisn a marginal amount of foreign product?

In my business, sometimes you gotta let a few pennies get away to catch the dollars. The fact lays inescapable - beef checkoff funds have been a great investiment - even with a little free riding foreign beef.


As for COOL, I think NCBA members have been divided with the prevailing belief that it will be part of product ID.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Brad S said:
As for the poll question regarding checkoff monies promoting which beef, the data or poll is incomplete without the following question: how much checkoff money should be spent to distinguisn a marginal amount of foreign product?

In my business, sometimes you gotta let a few pennies get away to catch the dollars. The fact lays inescapable - beef checkoff funds have been a great investiment - even with a little free riding foreign beef.


As for COOL, I think NCBA members have been divided with the prevailing belief that it will be part of product ID.

In my business, you've got to identify trends and potential problems and plan accordingly. I see more foreign beef hitting our shores. What appears to be marginal today looks to be much more than that tomorrow.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Brad S said:
As for the poll question regarding checkoff monies promoting which beef, the data or poll is incomplete without the following question: how much checkoff money should be spent to distinguisn a marginal amount of foreign product?

In my business, sometimes you gotta let a few pennies get away to catch the dollars. The fact lays inescapable - beef checkoff funds have been a great investiment - even with a little free riding foreign beef.


As for COOL, I think NCBA members have been divided with the prevailing belief that it will be part of product ID.

Brad, two years ago, my football team won three games...and we got blown out of some of them.

Last year, we won three games...but didn't get blown out of any and several came down to the last play.

If next year, we win 6-7 games, we will be getting a return on our "great investment" in a new coach.

The beef industry has lost market share...even after the start of the check-off. Where is the regained market share that would be a return on our investment?

And you know supply/demand is a balance beam and it only takes a feather to get a balanced beam out of balance...not a brick! If you accept the idea that retail prices are near maximum, the only place packers can improve their margins is by reducing the price they pay for the 120,000 head they kill daily. Increasing supply is a tool for doing that.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Yes, I'm back, but definitely not up to speed! Having fun is such hard work!

Travel was fine, convention was another "Best Ever!", and biggest ever, too. Great workshops, reports on past year of checkoff research, etc,. good discussion groups on both Policy and Checkoff division committees.

More about that later after deciphering my notes. Any groups I participated in or heard about from others on policy issues had productive discussion resulting in fewer contested resolutions than I can recall.

OT, What is hard to understand about "directs NCBA to work with Congress and USDA to ensure that a country-of-origin labeling program offers maximum benefit and minimal market disruption to the U.S. beef industry."?

Obviously,if the law is implemented as currently written, there will be problems. NCBA members want USDA to take steps to minimize those problems that will, one way or another, affect cattle producers.

I'm pretty sure NCBA members strongly prefer the market driven, voluntary means of identifying beef, right down to the ranch it was raised on which is NOT included in your COOL law.

Re. Rule 2, you say "....in some news articles I saw it downplayed....". How am I to know what that means? Was that in NCBA press releases? Was it a news story by a reporter using facts supplied by, or from memory of statements by NCBA? I was not in the committee where that was discussed, and my opinion is that people recognize this is a complex issue and members will have varying opinions on it.......so.......most members probably agree that it needs to be watched, and our leaders need to tell USDA and gov't. leaders that we are concerned, pretty much as the story you quote states.

Everything thing I've read about that were from NCBA stating what took place at convention is very much in tune with what we (three family members, one serving on committees and the board) saw and heard in person.

Does your problem with understanding what is written by NCBA about convention actions come from your apparent distrust of those statements being what members actually mandated at convention? If not, please enlighten me. I spent more time in Checkoff/CBB and Joint committees on research than in Policy division meetings, but other family members were in Policy more.

RobertMac, It is pretty clear that the cattle producers voting on the Beef Checkoff projects do not necessarily agree with you. There is a rigorous process of determining which projects appear to be more valuable to increase consumption, and the money goes only so far. After priorities were set at convention, the Operating committee members will make the final decisions on which projects get the money to carry them through.

I regret that there will be less money for projects now that CBB made the decision to move to separate quarters at much greater cost due to perceptions of being too close with NCBA. Caving to such foolishness costs money better spent on research or consumers.

Your "loss of market share" mantra can be interpreted in different ways.

Are we selling all the beef we produce, or aren't we.

Is high quality beef selling for more money?

It seems logical to me that we need a fairly wide level of prices for beef. We can look at some of the ads Macon runs on this site and see beef for sale at well over $100.00 per pound! Not many people can pay that, but some will. I see beef selling for not much over $1.00 per pound in Rapid City or Pierre, SD and more people will buy at that price, if they can cook it properly so it makes a satisfying meal. Checkoff dollars are helping them to learn to do that.

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "After priorities were set at convention, the Operating committee members will make the final decisions on which projects get the money to carry them through."

If the checkoff is seperate from NCBA, why are they given priorities at the NCBA convention? I thought the NCBA was supposed to be just a contractor? If NCBA is both setting priorities and contracting, that is a conflict of interest.

MRJ, "I regret that there will be less money for projects now that CBB made the decision to move to separate quarters at much greater cost due to perceptions of being too close with NCBA. Caving to such foolishness costs money better spent on research or consumers."

Read your previous paragraph and you'll understand that perception a little better.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "After priorities were set at convention, the Operating committee members will make the final decisions on which projects get the money to carry them through."

If the checkoff is seperate from NCBA, why are they given priorities at the NCBA convention? I thought the NCBA was supposed to be just a contractor? If NCBA is both setting priorities and contracting, that is a conflict of interest.

MRJ, "I regret that there will be less money for projects now that CBB made the decision to move to separate quarters at much greater cost due to perceptions of being too close with NCBA. Caving to such foolishness costs money better spent on research or consumers."

Read your previous paragraph and you'll understand that perception a little better.




Sandhusker, do you really believe what you wrote?

I have outlined this structure and process multiple times on this site. You make it a difficult to believe that you are interested in understanding the structure when you make so many opportunities to mis-understand it!

"NCBA" is comprised of two SEPARATE sub-groups, the Federation of State Beef Councils, and the Policy/Dues Paying Membership division. The CBB has shared office space, paying for the space they need.

The Federation Division is the contracting agency, not the Policy/Membership division.

The Federation is comprised of representatives of each state Beef Council who are members of ALL beef groups, not just NCBA. This is where states sending part of their share of the checkoff dollar to the CBB gain members on the board.

All three groups, CBB, Federation div. and Policy div. of NCBA conduct their annual and mid-year meetings together. That is how they ALL save money on travel, speakers, and rates for the facilities. There is verifiable separation of what needs to be separate......finances......votes, etc. There is joint discussion where anyone who attends may contribute, but only verified committee members can vote.

The "priorities" are set by committee members from the Federation and CBB of the committees pertaining to the checkoff. Not all committees do. Policies are not set by CBB or the Federation div., but ONLY by the members of NCBA.

MRJ
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
MRJ,

How many of the CBB verified committee members that vote are non-NCBA members?

It's not until my team starts winning games against the competition that we are making progress against the competition.

Same with the check-off,,,until we start regaining market share, we aren't making progress against the competition.
 

Jason

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
It's not until my team starts winning games against the competition that we are making progress against the competition.

Same with the check-off,,,until we start regaining market share, we aren't making progress against the competition.

Robert, I have a couple questions.

Is selling beef like your game analogy win or lose, or more like Nascar where points are awarded for finishing?

Just because consumers eat more pounds of chicken, are beef producers out of business?

Should we stop using advertising just because we are in second place?

Agman has given you numbers where NEW spending for meat was mostly for beef. Doesn't the check of get any credit for that?

I just don't get the thinking that because we got passed we should slow down more.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Jason, like many, you seem to have taken criticism as opposition...not the case. And then you use extremism in rebuttal...

Jason said:
Just because consumers eat more pounds of chicken, are beef producers out of business?

Should we stop using advertising just because we are in second place?

Yes, the check-off has done some good things...convenience products, muscle profiling, BQA...,but taking market share from our competition is how I measure progress. Maintaining what we have and not falling farther behind should not be satisfactory results to any cattle producer!

You got to accept facts...what has been done, isn't changing market share. I would suggest surveying the consumers that DON'T eat beef to understand their perceptions...and then address them!

Jason said:
I just don't get the thinking that because we got passed we should slow down more.

I don't get what you are implying here...could you explain?
 

Jason

Well-known member
Robert the way your posts sound is that you are against the check off because beef is in second place compared to chicken.

I am asking why criticize the check off because it hasn't prevented chicken from being more popular?

Years ago when beef regularly had an inch of back fat at retail, was it good for people?

I know your view that animal fat isn't bad, and I agree to an extent.

30% of a person's caloric intake should be from fat. If beef in normal portions was supplying all 30% or a significant portion of that, it needed to be leaned down.

With the leaner beef we lost taste from marbling. As usual fads taken to the extreme.

How will/would reducing the check off help when we need to educate people about the nutritional value of beef to get them to eat it? Taste alone won't regain market share, nor will nutrition alone. A combination of the 2 with value to the consumer will.

We can't outdo the feed conversion of chickens. We can't say chicken has no value (consumers buy it and you look foolish if you badmouth a product they like).

We can promote the iron, b vitamins, the 7 leaner cuts than chicken breast, the taste and the increased convienience of many beef products. Consumers have to decide to buy beef. All those things are promoted by the beef checkoff.

Diluting beef's value by suggesting some beef is better because of where it is from, or it used fresh grass compared to dried grass to feed the rumen, just confuses consumers. A confused consumer walks away from the beef section.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Oldtimer...What was the reaction to the USDA poll of 92% of checkoff payers wanting their money spent to promote born, raised, and slaughtered in the USA Beef?


MJ did you answer this question from Oldtimer? If so I must have missed it. Can you elaborate on what you heard about this?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tommy: "What was the reaction to the USDA poll of 92% of checkoff payers wanting their money spent to promote born, raised, and slaughtered in the USA Beef?"

I can tell you what I've heard Tommy! Those who want their checkoff dollar's promoting "born, raised, and slaughtered in the US" beef are unwilling to prove it with a traceback system making it a moot point.

That's what I heard!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Tommy: "What was the reaction to the USDA poll of 92% of checkoff payers wanting their money spent to promote born, raised, and slaughtered in the USA Beef?"

I can tell you what I've heard Tommy! Those who want their checkoff dollar's promoting "born, raised, and slaughtered in the US" beef are unwilling to prove it with a traceback system making it a moot point.

That's what I heard!


~SH~

By tracking all the cattle that have come into the U.S., by default you know all of the rest of the cattle are from the U.S.

You are right that the USDA can not even adequately track foreign cattle. If they can't even get that right, how do you think they will get tracking the other 95% right? Is it that they will be right 95% of the time and that is a passing grade?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Tommy: "What was the reaction to the USDA poll of 92% of checkoff payers wanting their money spent to promote born, raised, and slaughtered in the USA Beef?"

I can tell you what I've heard Tommy! Those who want their checkoff dollar's promoting "born, raised, and slaughtered in the US" beef are unwilling to prove it with a traceback system making it a moot point.

That's what I heard!


~SH~

I can tell you what I just saw - a dance around the question.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
If the ScoringAg database system was required ,everyone would know what they eat and its source. No more tricking the consumer and producers would be proud of their products.
 

Texan

Well-known member
PORKER said:
If the ScoringAg database system was required ,everyone would know what they eat and its source. No more tricking the consumer and producers would be proud of their products.
I think most of us are getting tired of your spam, Miss Piggy. Look for life to start becoming miserable for you around here. :lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Tommy: "What was the reaction to the USDA poll of 92% of checkoff payers wanting their money spent to promote born, raised, and slaughtered in the USA Beef?"

I can tell you what I've heard Tommy! Those who want their checkoff dollar's promoting "born, raised, and slaughtered in the US" beef are unwilling to prove it with a traceback system making it a moot point.

That's what I heard!


~SH~

I can tell you what I just saw - a dance around the question.
AND YOU WOULD KNOW DANCING WOULDN"T YOU? :lol: :lol:

What makes you think anyone should answer any of the R-CALFers questions ? :lol:

If any of you want to know what the NCBA are doing JOIN Sandhusker that is what you told those wanting to know what is up with R-CALF :wink:

Funny thing is the non members seem to know more than the members when it comes to R-CALF. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Go on the sabbatical Sandhusker you need it the bank won't miss you I doubt they will even notice you're gone. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Texan said:
PORKER said:
If the ScoringAg database system was required ,everyone would know what they eat and its source. No more tricking the consumer and producers would be proud of their products.
I think most of us are getting tired of your spam, Miss Piggy. Look for life to start becoming miserable for you around here. :lol:

Maybe the next Ranchers Poll should be Do you thinks Macon should send Porker a bill for advertizing? options Yes a BIG one or Yes a HUGE one :wink:
 
Top