Mike
Well-known member
What is the maximum number of times that the Check-Off can be collected and paid on any one animal?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Beef Check-Off Question
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
I really don't know. How many do you believe it is? I may get the facts of it, but whatever that is, my personal belief is that it should be paid every time a producer sells a critter, as we are the ones who 'own' it. Plus, there is never enough money to cover the proposals and many excellent ones are not funded. It is very obvious that consumers do not have enough information about beef, from how to decide what cuts are the best buy for their budgets to the best ways to cook it, and especially the nutritional benefits of eating it.
mjr, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I believe the beef checkoff is the biggest hoax ever thrown on producers. I believe we are paying salaries for people who are living well and hoping we never figure it out. I believe it was conceived to screw the little guy and benefit the registered guy. You explain to me how a registered outfit can sell a $450,000 bull and pay $1 and I sell 75 calves and pay $75. Sorry-I've got to have someone explain that to me. I can't see how the checkoff has benefited the beef industry. Why are we importing Brazilian beef? Have you ever seen a 'Beef' info pamphlet on an airplane? When was the last time you saw anything originating from your checkoff $$$?? Maybe it's there and I don't realize it. Sorry for the rant but the checkoff really gets my blood riled.
Mike
Well-known member
DejaVu said:How many times can an animal be bought and sold? One dollar collected every time.
Correct. If one head is owned for more than 10 days and sold, the Check-Off is due to be paid. We pay $1.50.
Organic Ranches are exempt.
NCBA: Assessments of $1 per head are collected on ALL cattle sales, including over-the-fence trades between neighbors or friends and any packers who own cattle for more than 10 days before slaughter. Failure to pay may result in legal and financial penalties: USDA can assess civil penalties of up to $7,500 per sale, plus unremitted checkoff assessments, interest and late fees
Why would organic be exempt? Doesn't seem right. Maybe the checkoff as a percentage would be more fair, per DejaVu's point. It appears that the checkoff funded MEF is doing a lot of worthwhile work, to support US beef exports and educate foreigners of the value of US beef, which is obviously different than the domestic promotions. I would like to see a lot more advertisements in the logical target markets, and I'm sure there is some that most of us aren't aware of. IMO, some of the pro-meat type shows on the food network et al, have probably done us as much good domestically as, maybe, anything.
DejaVu said:mjr, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I believe the beef checkoff is the biggest hoax ever thrown on producers. I believe we are paying salaries for people who are living well and hoping we never figure it out. I believe it was conceived to screw the little guy and benefit the registered guy. You explain to me how a registered outfit can sell a $450,000 bull and pay $1 and I sell 75 calves and pay $75. Sorry-I've got to have someone explain that to me. I can't see how the checkoff has benefited the beef industry. Why are we importing Brazilian beef? Have you ever seen a 'Beef' info pamphlet on an airplane? When was the last time you saw anything originating from your checkoff $$$?? Maybe it's there and I don't realize it. Sorry for the rant but the checkoff really gets my blood riled.
Post of the year and its getting pretty late in the year. :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree:
I was in college when it was instituted. I saw the job prospects before and since. I am in Oregon and do see a lot of advertisements. It seems she states have moved to going after social media millennials.
It may not be perfect and certainly won't please everyone. But, I am for it. The reason is, in spite of what may be viewed as flaws, we certainly are better for it than without it. If you don't like it, volunteer in your state organization to make it better.
It may not be perfect and certainly won't please everyone. But, I am for it. The reason is, in spite of what may be viewed as flaws, we certainly are better for it than without it. If you don't like it, volunteer in your state organization to make it better.
I've been involved as a cattle producer and a volunteer in both the voluntary and the mandatory Beef Check Offs since 1958. You can take it as 'gospel' that those CowBelles 'of old' took very seriously their duty of making those donated dollars go as far as possible, and do as much good as possible in reaching consumers to promote beef! The conservative and effective use of the money still is top of mind in leaders of the Beef Check-Off today.
It was not a perfect system, as there were too many who believed only 'the little guy' paid it. I know better! In fact some of the biggest ones were very generous.....as were SOME of the smallest. People are people and we sure aren't perfect, are we. And it is not any more so of the biggest ranchers than of the smallest!
That also holds true of people who work at non-ranch/farm jobs. It is highly inaccurate and even insulting to imply that those who work for the Beef Check-Off are "living well and hoping we never figure it out. I've met many of them over the years and they are honest, mostly young, hardworking people who work at most likely lower wages than they could get in other jobs because they grew up in, or just admire the cattle business.
When it became clear that we needed to do more to promote beef than those ranch wives were able to do as volunteers, and the voluntary National Livestock and Meat Board didn't seem adequate, some leaders across the cattle industry spearheaded by the National Cattlemens Assoc. and National CattleWomen , volunteers.worked to implement the current Beef Check-Off. It wasn't an easy decision and going the route of a mandatory system was arrived at after diligent study. Obviously, there were other ag organizations who did not support the idea. In fact, they fought it with all they had. But the voting supported implementation of the current Beef Check-Off with a high percent of 'yes' votes from cattle producers who believed we needed to tell consumers the benefits of beef, since we clearly could not depend upon others to do it for us, nor should we. The old mantra of "pity the poor farmer" was wearing thin with consumers as food prices rose, and improved variety and quality didn't impress those consumers enough anymore.
I don't know all the 'how and why' of settling upon the dollar per head instead of a percentage basis for the fee, but a good guess may be that it is simple and uncomplicated. Many sale barn operators already were just about foaming at the mouth over having to collect and remit the money. Never mind, that, at that time, interest rates were higher, and some of them already were holding the voluntary check off money for months "as a matter of convenience" for themselves. I do believe that even with todays finances, one dollar per head isn't going to put anyone out of the cattle business, and it is demonstrated to have a good rate of return on investment for cattlemen, even if it doesn't show up directly on our balance sheet.
I'm sorry you can't see benefit of the Beef Check-Off. Are you checking with your state Beef Council office? Or the Federation of State Beef Councils, since you obviously don't trust NCBA. They are not the same, you know. And I believe about every Beef related ag group has representation in check-off leadership, including some who have and do word against it.
So far as benefits of the check-off to us as producers, can't you see the value to beef sales in showing food service industries and restaurants how to make use of more tender, less costly cuts of beef to add some lower priced meals to their menu? There have been, maybe still are, work-shops for consumers to help them understand the terms used in beef sales and how to choose beef to fit their needs whatever their budget may be. There is research in so many areas, and I haven't kept up with it well the past couple of years, so hesitate to mention specifics. Some cattlemen don't think that benefits us, but many of us do believe it. Everything that helps more people eat beef does help, imo. I do believe the Brazilian beef imports is more political than practical or wise, given the dangers of their FMD situation.
So far as advertising beef on airplanes, I haven't been on a plane in several years after three trips in a row having problems with connections resulting in ridiculous long lay-overs. Getting old and having family who would rather the 'old folks' not work as much does give us time to travel by car, which is more fun as we enjoy scenery no matter where we go, excepting in large cities! Or high mountains for me. That not working so much isn't working well this fall, tho. The 80 year old senior member is helping with fall cattle work today, after several 4:AM to well toward evening days this month. We all are thankful he still is able to put in those long days. He does prefer more of it be horseback, but is nearly fanatic about managing the vaccine and keeping everything proper temperature and very particular about doing injections properly, so often does at least filling the guns himself. But he does have a 'trainee' coming up in a few years: our four year old great grand girl watches him like a hawk and asks LOTS of questions about the 'why's of what he is doing.
Point: there are more effective ways to 'advertise' beef than old familiar ads, tho I loved seeing and hearing those when they were in use!
The advertising has changed a lot over the years, since there are ways to very accurately learn how much benefit an ad has to the product. There are more direct in-store promotions where the store actually funds a considerable part of the program. Those are very popular with consumers, and I believe sometimes there are still "CowBelles"present to help, though we now are "CattleWomen. The consumers seem to like the interaction of 'real ranchers' so much that some more rural states like SD send Beef Council members to more populated states like New York for the state fair to have 'real cowboys/girls' promoting beef. After all, we do produce far more beef here than our population could possibly eat!
So far as volunteers, there is some expense money paid for Beef Council members and also for the Beef Board members. I also know that it doesn't cover the costs, but makes them bearable. It is no gravy train! Nor should it be. I appreciate those who continue volunteer work after their terms are over, and there are term limits, too. I believe it still is two three year terms.
mrj
It was not a perfect system, as there were too many who believed only 'the little guy' paid it. I know better! In fact some of the biggest ones were very generous.....as were SOME of the smallest. People are people and we sure aren't perfect, are we. And it is not any more so of the biggest ranchers than of the smallest!
That also holds true of people who work at non-ranch/farm jobs. It is highly inaccurate and even insulting to imply that those who work for the Beef Check-Off are "living well and hoping we never figure it out. I've met many of them over the years and they are honest, mostly young, hardworking people who work at most likely lower wages than they could get in other jobs because they grew up in, or just admire the cattle business.
When it became clear that we needed to do more to promote beef than those ranch wives were able to do as volunteers, and the voluntary National Livestock and Meat Board didn't seem adequate, some leaders across the cattle industry spearheaded by the National Cattlemens Assoc. and National CattleWomen , volunteers.worked to implement the current Beef Check-Off. It wasn't an easy decision and going the route of a mandatory system was arrived at after diligent study. Obviously, there were other ag organizations who did not support the idea. In fact, they fought it with all they had. But the voting supported implementation of the current Beef Check-Off with a high percent of 'yes' votes from cattle producers who believed we needed to tell consumers the benefits of beef, since we clearly could not depend upon others to do it for us, nor should we. The old mantra of "pity the poor farmer" was wearing thin with consumers as food prices rose, and improved variety and quality didn't impress those consumers enough anymore.
I don't know all the 'how and why' of settling upon the dollar per head instead of a percentage basis for the fee, but a good guess may be that it is simple and uncomplicated. Many sale barn operators already were just about foaming at the mouth over having to collect and remit the money. Never mind, that, at that time, interest rates were higher, and some of them already were holding the voluntary check off money for months "as a matter of convenience" for themselves. I do believe that even with todays finances, one dollar per head isn't going to put anyone out of the cattle business, and it is demonstrated to have a good rate of return on investment for cattlemen, even if it doesn't show up directly on our balance sheet.
I'm sorry you can't see benefit of the Beef Check-Off. Are you checking with your state Beef Council office? Or the Federation of State Beef Councils, since you obviously don't trust NCBA. They are not the same, you know. And I believe about every Beef related ag group has representation in check-off leadership, including some who have and do word against it.
So far as benefits of the check-off to us as producers, can't you see the value to beef sales in showing food service industries and restaurants how to make use of more tender, less costly cuts of beef to add some lower priced meals to their menu? There have been, maybe still are, work-shops for consumers to help them understand the terms used in beef sales and how to choose beef to fit their needs whatever their budget may be. There is research in so many areas, and I haven't kept up with it well the past couple of years, so hesitate to mention specifics. Some cattlemen don't think that benefits us, but many of us do believe it. Everything that helps more people eat beef does help, imo. I do believe the Brazilian beef imports is more political than practical or wise, given the dangers of their FMD situation.
So far as advertising beef on airplanes, I haven't been on a plane in several years after three trips in a row having problems with connections resulting in ridiculous long lay-overs. Getting old and having family who would rather the 'old folks' not work as much does give us time to travel by car, which is more fun as we enjoy scenery no matter where we go, excepting in large cities! Or high mountains for me. That not working so much isn't working well this fall, tho. The 80 year old senior member is helping with fall cattle work today, after several 4:AM to well toward evening days this month. We all are thankful he still is able to put in those long days. He does prefer more of it be horseback, but is nearly fanatic about managing the vaccine and keeping everything proper temperature and very particular about doing injections properly, so often does at least filling the guns himself. But he does have a 'trainee' coming up in a few years: our four year old great grand girl watches him like a hawk and asks LOTS of questions about the 'why's of what he is doing.
Point: there are more effective ways to 'advertise' beef than old familiar ads, tho I loved seeing and hearing those when they were in use!
The advertising has changed a lot over the years, since there are ways to very accurately learn how much benefit an ad has to the product. There are more direct in-store promotions where the store actually funds a considerable part of the program. Those are very popular with consumers, and I believe sometimes there are still "CowBelles"present to help, though we now are "CattleWomen. The consumers seem to like the interaction of 'real ranchers' so much that some more rural states like SD send Beef Council members to more populated states like New York for the state fair to have 'real cowboys/girls' promoting beef. After all, we do produce far more beef here than our population could possibly eat!
So far as volunteers, there is some expense money paid for Beef Council members and also for the Beef Board members. I also know that it doesn't cover the costs, but makes them bearable. It is no gravy train! Nor should it be. I appreciate those who continue volunteer work after their terms are over, and there are term limits, too. I believe it still is two three year terms.
mrj
Faster horses
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 30,241
- Reaction score
- 1,423
I was one of those who worked to get the check-off in place. I've been a CowBelle (or CattleWoman) in 2 states. I believe strongly in that organization. We do a lot of things that promote beef. Is your wife a CattleWoman? If she is, then she knows a lot of what the Check-off does.
I can tell you for sure, that before the Check-off there was no money spent advertising in women's magazines and therefore, beef took it in the neck in many articles in those publications. It happened in just about every issue, it seemed. When the Check-off started buying ad space, those articles happened much less and there were positive things printed about beef. They weren't going to insult someone paying for ad space plus the Beef Board supplied them with good info about consuming meat.
The Beef Check-off has been very positive for our industry. If they had more money to work with, they could do more but so far that isn't what is asked. Advertising costs are a lot more than people realize. The Check-off works in a lot of different ways to promote beef.
You might be able to request a refund of your Check-off dollars. I know you could at one time, not sure if that is possible any longer, but you could check.
I will leave you with this final thought: If we don't do our part to promote our product, who will?
I can tell you for sure, that before the Check-off there was no money spent advertising in women's magazines and therefore, beef took it in the neck in many articles in those publications. It happened in just about every issue, it seemed. When the Check-off started buying ad space, those articles happened much less and there were positive things printed about beef. They weren't going to insult someone paying for ad space plus the Beef Board supplied them with good info about consuming meat.
The Beef Check-off has been very positive for our industry. If they had more money to work with, they could do more but so far that isn't what is asked. Advertising costs are a lot more than people realize. The Check-off works in a lot of different ways to promote beef.
You might be able to request a refund of your Check-off dollars. I know you could at one time, not sure if that is possible any longer, but you could check.
I will leave you with this final thought: If we don't do our part to promote our product, who will?
http://competitivemarkets.com/ncba-files-to-keep-up-the-cover-up-of-abuses-of-beef-checkoff-funds/
The fact is, NCBA votes itself the lion's share of the producer mandated checkoff funds which they then use to build their political power in Washington, D.C. and in state capitols. They use this ill-gotten influence to promote the interests of global meat packers and big retailers against the interests of Checkoff-paying cattlemen. "It's now time to bring this regretful affair to light," explained Stokes. "OCM is confident the records we have fought long for will clearly demonstrate that NCBA has played fast and loose with U.S. cattlemen's money," he said.
"NCBA's action on Tuesday clearly demonstrates they know the truth, they have abused the beef checkoff funds and they will do anything to keep the cattlemen in the dark." explained OCM President Mike Weaver. "You have to wonder what they have to hide if they are willing to go to these extremes. It is just a shame that they are more than likely using checkoff funds to file this motion which is against the very people who are forced to pay the funds." concluded OCM President Mike Weaver.
The fact is, NCBA votes itself the lion's share of the producer mandated checkoff funds which they then use to build their political power in Washington, D.C. and in state capitols. They use this ill-gotten influence to promote the interests of global meat packers and big retailers against the interests of Checkoff-paying cattlemen. "It's now time to bring this regretful affair to light," explained Stokes. "OCM is confident the records we have fought long for will clearly demonstrate that NCBA has played fast and loose with U.S. cattlemen's money," he said.
"NCBA's action on Tuesday clearly demonstrates they know the truth, they have abused the beef checkoff funds and they will do anything to keep the cattlemen in the dark." explained OCM President Mike Weaver. "You have to wonder what they have to hide if they are willing to go to these extremes. It is just a shame that they are more than likely using checkoff funds to file this motion which is against the very people who are forced to pay the funds." concluded OCM President Mike Weaver.
littlejoe
Well-known member
I wouldn't care if they raised it several dollars----IF I could say who got the $$.
J.Johnson
Member
One reason some of us don't regularly see checkoff dollars in action locally may be due to how they are distributed. The way I understand it is check off "rich" states like Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, etc. send check off dollars to "poor" states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. Basically, these "poor" states need more dollars for promoting beef because they have very high populations with very, very small amounts of check off dollars collected.
I feel like this is a good bang for our buck because we are exposing potentially 10s of thousands in New York City vs a few dozen in a small grocery store in rural Kansas.
I guess I should also mention, I am a pro check off guy.
I feel like this is a good bang for our buck because we are exposing potentially 10s of thousands in New York City vs a few dozen in a small grocery store in rural Kansas.
I guess I should also mention, I am a pro check off guy.
Brad S
Well-known member
I've been pro check off since before it became law. Perhaps 10 years ago there was a forensic accounting study performed that found each check off dollar was returning $17 - that's a good investment. You can argue methodology, but I think it was a legit study.
When the check off began, turnover was something near 5x per head, now it's around 1.5x. This was a big peev to the sale barns, a beef quality study said excess turnover was costing producers money (but making sale barns money) . The cattle industry was going to cut out the excess turnover no matter what because pigs and feathered lizards are intense competitors, but the sale barns all hate the check off (blaming it for fewer turns).
Think about this: fewer cattle raising more beef, being turned over fewer times. But salaries and media and everything is much more expensive. Check off funding is thus reduced. 17/1 is a very sound investment. We have fierce competition from pigs and poultry and even minor players like bison and tilapia - and they are getting leaner and tougher everyday. And beef has an unresolved speed bump with regards to price discovery and marketing.
I used to hear check off dollars promoting k state sporting events - that's sure as hell preaching to the choir. Most tater listeners have at least a side of beef in the freezer. Advertise beef when Rutgers plays Syracuse - I think check off is doing a better job targeting potential customers than earlier.
When the check off began, turnover was something near 5x per head, now it's around 1.5x. This was a big peev to the sale barns, a beef quality study said excess turnover was costing producers money (but making sale barns money) . The cattle industry was going to cut out the excess turnover no matter what because pigs and feathered lizards are intense competitors, but the sale barns all hate the check off (blaming it for fewer turns).
Think about this: fewer cattle raising more beef, being turned over fewer times. But salaries and media and everything is much more expensive. Check off funding is thus reduced. 17/1 is a very sound investment. We have fierce competition from pigs and poultry and even minor players like bison and tilapia - and they are getting leaner and tougher everyday. And beef has an unresolved speed bump with regards to price discovery and marketing.
I used to hear check off dollars promoting k state sporting events - that's sure as hell preaching to the choir. Most tater listeners have at least a side of beef in the freezer. Advertise beef when Rutgers plays Syracuse - I think check off is doing a better job targeting potential customers than earlier.
DejaVu, I'd like to be able to say you just don't understand the Beef Check-Off law, and maybe you do not, but you seem to be supporting the OCM, which has always fought against the Beef Check-Off. It's board is heavy with people who are directors of various state Farmers Union groups, also against the check off from first attempts at having one. They are at best careless with facts about NCBA and the Beef Check-Off.
Partly because other organizations besides NCBA worked to implement the Beef Check-Off, mechanisms were put into the law to assure no one group alone could control or 'own' it. Many routine and called outside audits have proven time after time that, with exception of a few quickly corrected errors, the finances have been protected by a strong fire-wall of separation from NCBA's membership division funding. There is a complex system where employees account for their time according to projects they work on in 15 minute increments. Errors do happen, but are corrected diligently. I have heard that there have been more times the mistakes have hurt NCBA than helped. Certainly, there has been NO intentional diversion of funds to NCBA membership/policy division.
For the record, any cattle related group with a history of time serving the cattle industry can bid on projects for the Beef Check-Off. One reason not many do so is that those contracts are paid for on a cost recovery only basis. NO profit is allowed from Beef Check-Off contracts! NONE. I don't know how many groups have had contracts, but do know that NCBA is not the only one.
A quick look at the website for OCM shows they are allies of several groups which work against cattle producers. First and foremost is HSUS, the money supplier for the OCM lawsuit against NCBA and the Beef Check-Off! HSUS may tell you they support 'family ranchers', but their founding members set the mold for that organization as doing everything they can to eliminate all uses of animals, whether as pets or food. That goal simply does not work for people making a living raising beef cattle!
That Water Watch is no friend of cattle producers, either!
mrj
Partly because other organizations besides NCBA worked to implement the Beef Check-Off, mechanisms were put into the law to assure no one group alone could control or 'own' it. Many routine and called outside audits have proven time after time that, with exception of a few quickly corrected errors, the finances have been protected by a strong fire-wall of separation from NCBA's membership division funding. There is a complex system where employees account for their time according to projects they work on in 15 minute increments. Errors do happen, but are corrected diligently. I have heard that there have been more times the mistakes have hurt NCBA than helped. Certainly, there has been NO intentional diversion of funds to NCBA membership/policy division.
For the record, any cattle related group with a history of time serving the cattle industry can bid on projects for the Beef Check-Off. One reason not many do so is that those contracts are paid for on a cost recovery only basis. NO profit is allowed from Beef Check-Off contracts! NONE. I don't know how many groups have had contracts, but do know that NCBA is not the only one.
A quick look at the website for OCM shows they are allies of several groups which work against cattle producers. First and foremost is HSUS, the money supplier for the OCM lawsuit against NCBA and the Beef Check-Off! HSUS may tell you they support 'family ranchers', but their founding members set the mold for that organization as doing everything they can to eliminate all uses of animals, whether as pets or food. That goal simply does not work for people making a living raising beef cattle!
That Water Watch is no friend of cattle producers, either!
mrj
Faster horses
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 30,241
- Reaction score
- 1,423
mrj said:DejaVu, I'd like to be able to say you just don't understand the Beef Check-Off law, and maybe you do not, but you seem to be supporting the OCM, which has always fought against the Beef Check-Off. It's board is heavy with people who are directors of various state Farmers Union groups, also against the check off from first attempts at having one. They are at best careless with facts about NCBA and the Beef Check-Off.
Partly because other organizations besides NCBA worked to implement the Beef Check-Off, mechanisms were put into the law to assure no one group alone could control or 'own' it. Many routine and called outside audits have proven time after time that, with exception of a few quickly corrected errors, the finances have been protected by a strong fire-wall of separation from NCBA's membership division funding. There is a complex system where employees account for their time according to projects they work on in 15 minute increments. Errors do happen, but are corrected diligently. I have heard that there have been more times the mistakes have hurt NCBA than helped. Certainly, there has been NO intentional diversion of funds to NCBA membership/policy division.
For the record, any cattle related group with a history of time serving the cattle industry can bid on projects for the Beef Check-Off. One reason not many do so is that those contracts are paid for on a cost recovery only basis. NO profit is allowed from Beef Check-Off contracts! NONE. I don't know how many groups have had contracts, but do know that NCBA is not the only one.
A quick look at the website for OCM shows they are allies of several groups which work against cattle producers. First and foremost is HSUS, the money supplier for the OCM lawsuit against NCBA and the Beef Check-Off! HSUS may tell you they support 'family ranchers', but their founding members set the mold for that organization as doing everything they can to eliminate all uses of animals, whether as pets or food. That goal simply does not work for people making a living raising beef cattle!
That Water Watch is no friend of cattle producers, either!
mrj
:agree:
leanin' H
Well-known member
For ANYONE to say that our beef check off dollars aren't being spent well and don't make a huge difference in marketing BEEF is almost laughable! Do some research that isn't completely biased and look at all the way that money reaches consumers and prospective consumers. From the BEEF, its what for dinner ad to the chef program that teaches them about all the cuts of beef and takes them on tours of feedlots, ranches and processing facilities, our check off dollars make a difference. State beef councils spend their state money in many diverse and neat ways. Go join your state council and have a voice on how the money is spent.
As far as the argument that registered folks don't pay their share, I question how that is relevant? $450,000 bulls don't make steer calves very often. And how many registered calves find their way into the food chain? Culled bull calves do and they pay the check off. But the check off is there to help market BEEF! As in steaks and roasts. $450000 bulls end up as burger after standing at stud and they pay another dollar in check off. I see registered vs commercial as apples and oranges. Maybe you can explain it different but I don't follow your argument.
The NCBA isn't perfect. But the good they do, vastly outweighs any faults they have. OCM has way to many red flags from the folks they are in business with for me to trust them. But I will look at their website and do my own due diligence investigating what they have to say.
As far as the argument that registered folks don't pay their share, I question how that is relevant? $450,000 bulls don't make steer calves very often. And how many registered calves find their way into the food chain? Culled bull calves do and they pay the check off. But the check off is there to help market BEEF! As in steaks and roasts. $450000 bulls end up as burger after standing at stud and they pay another dollar in check off. I see registered vs commercial as apples and oranges. Maybe you can explain it different but I don't follow your argument.
The NCBA isn't perfect. But the good they do, vastly outweighs any faults they have. OCM has way to many red flags from the folks they are in business with for me to trust them. But I will look at their website and do my own due diligence investigating what they have to say.
leanin' H said:I see registered vs commercial as apples and oranges. Maybe you can explain it different but I don't follow your argument.
I believe the thinking is a percentage of revenue is more fair. It could be argued that the expenses are higher on raising this feedstock as well. Truly, we are looking at a dollar a head though. I'm fine with $2.00 a head myself. I want to be more competitive and with fewer head and fewer "Turns of cattle", I fear we are only competitive based on the good previous promotions have built up
Amo
Well-known member
J.Johnson said:One reason some of us don't regularly see checkoff dollars in action locally may be due to how they are distributed. The way I understand it is check off "rich" states like Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, etc. send check off dollars to "poor" states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. Basically, these "poor" states need more dollars for promoting beef because they have very high populations with very, very small amounts of check off dollars collected.
I feel like this is a good bang for our buck because we are exposing potentially 10s of thousands in New York City vs a few dozen in a small grocery store in rural Kansas.
I guess I should also mention, I am a pro check off guy.
Theres some truth to that there. Personally I guess Id rather see Nebraska pay for the advertising in New York, than just give New York a check to spend how they see fit. No big deal, just my opinion.
As to the registared/comercial thought, its apples and oranges. Ya, he's making a lot off that animal. A person can split frogs hair all day arguing about it, but what he is selling really doesn't pertain towards consumer demand. When that animal is slaughtered, the check off will get collected.
Promotion is good. I think we need to promote. I think we need to use funds to educate the consumer/fight groups like HSUS. Yes if you get scientific and read all the fine print, details the beef board & NCBA are seperate. Yes any group can apply for funding from a beef board to do research etc. Yup, there are membership on state beef councils that aren't pro NCBA. My director is one of them. He ran against someone who was pro NCBA, endorsed by Nebraska Cattleman, and Nebraska Cattleman did a write up on the canadates that they endorsed. No write up about the canadates that were running against the person they endorsed. Which is fine, thats their right. Yet it kinda shows favoritism IMHO, just saying. Say, if your needing a job done. Two people apply. One is a friend/relative, the other isn't. Everything else is equal or maybe the non friend has a slightly better offer...yet your cousin is the other...who are you going to chose? Some would do the best deal, others would make sure they scratched backs...thats just life. When its all "the same house" things can get messy. That is some of the grumbling with check off dollars Ive heard over the years.
I have no problem with lobbyist groups. Im not a member of one, but if you are thats your choice. NCBA was fromed to be a lobbyist group. That is their main purpose. Guess I feel that either a group should be a lobbyist group or research/promotion group. Let people pay dues to NCBA, R-CALF, USCA, Farmers Union, etc. and let the lobbyists do what they are supposed to do. Don't let them be able to access or "contract" for check off funding. Im not positive but I think the University of Nebraska developed the flat iron steak cut for instance. Someone like that should be able to get funding. I hear more people complaining, myself included about check off dollars being spent to work against us than for us. I do think NCBA has done some good for the cow/calf guy. I don't think we are at the top of the totem pole in their prioroaties. I know a lot of people that want to promote. Its just who & how the money gets spent. Yes, everyone has an opinion on how money is to be spent & they think their way is the correct way to do it. Just how we are. I truely do think the check off would have less oposition toward the check off or an increase in the check off. Just my 2 cents.