Cattlemen in Louisiana Target NCBA

[Tex]

Cattle Producers of Louisiana
PO Box 886  Prairieville, LA 70769

Toll Free: 888-528-6999
Web: www.lacattle.org




March 1, 2011





The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Secretary
United States Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20250



Dear Mr. Secretary:

The Beef Checkoff is broken.

Many cattle producers have realized for a long time that there is a problem within the checkoff. Others have just had this situation revealed to them. While there are still other individuals that for various reasons including monetary interest, political expediency, organizational jealousy, misplaced loyalty, and "we have always done it this way", who refuse to admit that anything is wrong.

While the magnitude of this problem has recently been graphically revealed, the problem did not just occur and has festered for many years while being ignored by anyone who possessed the power to rectify it.

The Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) appears to have abdicated their fiduciary responsibility for checkoff funds. This was evidenced by the reported response of the Beef Board to the results of the Clifton Gunderson Agreed Upon Procedures Examination of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA).
The Honorable Tom Vilsack
March 1, 2011
Page 2

Incredibly, CBB members were apparently more upset with their Executive Committee for having the blatant misappropriation of checkoff funds by NCBA discovered and revealed than they were with NCBA for committing the misappropriation of the funds. This reaction was highly questionable and very frightening and can only suggest misplaced loyalty and abandoned responsibility.

Historically, government oversight has appeared to exist only as a concept rather that an operational reality. The apparent government response to the Clifton Gunderson AUP exam was to instruct the CBB and the NCBA to "get together and work things out and we will signoff on it". Not unlike parents telling children to "go and play nicely together". This benevolent approach of parental tolerance is insufficient to dutifully address problems of significant magnitude which this examination indicated exist.

In 2005 the United States Supreme Court in Johanns v Livestock Marketing Association decreed that the checkoff was "government speech" and thus immune to legal objection from those who pay for it. Effectively a "beef tax" was judicially created. Livestock producers covered by the Beef Promotion and Research Act and Order have no viable recourse but to pay despite any disagreement with the message or the method. At best, they can only hope that their government will ensure that the expenditure of their mandatory payments will be properly administered and ethically spent.

The 1996 merger of the National Livestock and Meat Board, of which the Beef Industry Council was a part, with NCA to create what is now known as NCBA should never have been permitted to occur by the USDA. The Beef Industry Council became NCBA, internally designated as the "Federation", a distinction without difference. By virtue of this merger, NCBA was assured of at least ten seats, of the twenty available, on the Beef Promotion Operating Committee which selects and oversees CBB contractors. In what public procurement process financed with "taxpayer" funds is the primary, practically exclusive, contractor allowed to participate as a part of the selection and management committee? (According to the CBB Annual Report, NCBA received 98.7% of total contractor funds in 2009 and 98.6% in 2010.)





The Honorable Tom Vilsack
March 1, 2011
Page 3

While it is difficult to believe that such an ethically dismal situation as exist with the current checkoff operation could be made worse, consider the high profile involvement of NCBA in the recent congressional elections. Apparently exercising their newly given rights to fund political ads from "the company treasury" under Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, NCBA was active in the election sponsoring political advertisements for and against would be members of congress. The ability of NCBA to engage in such partisan politics is obviously greatly enhanced by the contribution of checkoff dollars to their treasury acquired through massive supplanting.

According to their Form 990's filed with the Internal Revenue Service by NCBA for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008 over eighty per cent (80%) of NCBA income is checkoff funds received from either the CBB or the "Federation". Those same reports show that less than six per cent (6%) of NCBA revenue comes from membership dues. There is no question that without checkoff funds paid by the nation's cattle producers, NCBA would be a shadow of its current self with political and policy activity affected likewise.

Control of the expenditure of these massive amounts of checkoff funds by NCBA allows them the undue benefits of economic and political influence as well as editorial goodwill disproportionate with other organizations that do not enjoy checkoff bloated coffers. For any national cattle organization to claim that they speak for all United States cattle producers demonstrates gross arrogance and monumental misrepresentation.

It is unknown what the political preferences and policy desires are of the ninety per cent (90%) plus of nationally unaffiliated cattle producers who pay the mandatory checkoff. However, it is reasonable to believe that those individuals would like to make policy and political decisions that involves their money for themselves and not have those decisions made for them by an organization that they have avoided by not choosing to join.

It is now well past the time that USDA should have acted to restore the operational integrity of the Beef Checkoff, but it is certainly not too late. Cattle producers who pay these checkoff dollars, under penalty of law should they refuse to do so, have no one else to which to turn for help.


The Honorable Tom Vilsack
March 1, 2011
Page 4

They should be able to expect that their government will act to address an ethically challenged situation and restore integrity to a program in which the law requires their mandatory participation.

Mr. Secretary, please fix the Beef Checkoff.

Thank you.

Sincerely,



Dave Foster
CEO
Cattle Producers of Louisiana
PO Box 886
Prairieville, LA 70769




C: Phyllis K. Fong
Inspector General
PO Box 23399
Washington, DC 20026-3399

Tex

 

[Sandhusker]

:clap:

 

[Tommy]

According to the NCBA's Internal Revenue Service Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, or Form 990, NCBA's revenue in 2008, the latest filing available, equaled $55.6 million of which $46.1 million, or 83 percent, were checkoff dollars.

Even more shocking is the Form 990 revelation that NCBA collected a meager $3.4 million in total membership dues. That means less than six percent of its 2008 revenue came from people who chose to join.

Dig deeper into the 990—and you can; the 31-page filing and the Louisiana letter it prompted reveals that NCBA's top 14 officials earned a combined $2.7 million in salaries and benefits in 2008.

Overall, that means four out of five dues dollars collected by NCBA went to just 14 of its 193 employees.

 

[Sandhusker]

And now we give the floor to SH and MRJ for rebuttle.....

 

[Tex]

According to the NCBA's Internal Revenue Service Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, or Form 990, NCBA's revenue in 2008, the latest filing available, equaled $55.6 million of which $46.1 million, or 83 percent, were checkoff dollars.

Even more shocking is the Form 990 revelation that NCBA collected a meager $3.4 million in total membership dues. That means less than six percent of its 2008 revenue came from people who chose to join.

Dig deeper into the 990—and you can; the 31-page filing and the Louisiana letter it prompted reveals that NCBA's top 14 officials earned a combined $2.7 million in salaries and benefits in 2008.

Overall, that means four out of five dues dollars collected by NCBA went to just 14 of its 193 employees.

IT IS A PYRAMID SCHEME!!!!!

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

According to the NCBA's Internal Revenue Service Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, or Form 990, NCBA's revenue in 2008, the latest filing available, equaled $55.6 million of which $46.1 million, or 83 percent, were checkoff dollars.

Even more shocking is the Form 990 revelation that NCBA collected a meager $3.4 million in total membership dues. That means less than six percent of its 2008 revenue came from people who chose to join.

Dig deeper into the 990—and you can; the 31-page filing and the Louisiana letter it prompted reveals that NCBA's top 14 officials earned a combined $2.7 million in salaries and benefits in 2008.

Overall, that means four out of five dues dollars collected by NCBA went to just 14 of its 193 employees.

IT IS A PYRAMID SCHEME!!!!!

Tex

People that were willing to look- and listen have known it for years...A total ripoff of our beef tax dollars....

 

[Faster horses]

Total ripoff?
I guess I've never felt totally ripped off.
Have you looked in women's magazines where there are
beef ads? Listened to beef ads on the radio?
There are many good ones where there didn't used to be
any.

I volunteered to help get the check-off going those many years
ago, and I know what was happening before the check-off.
If there was anything, it was NEGATIVE.

So, no, I don't feel totally ripped off. I think that was an
overstatment.

 

[Anonymous]

Total ripoff?
I guess I've never felt totally ripped off.
Have you looked in women's magazines where there are
beef ads? Listened to beef ads on the radio?
There are many good ones where there didn't used to be
any.

I volunteered to help get the check-off going those many years
ago, and I know what was happening before the check-off.
If there was anything, it was NEGATIVE.

So, no, I don't feel totally ripped off. I think that was an
overstatment.

Do you really support using our cattle tax dollars to pay NCBA officials salaries- and for their wives and families to travel to Hawaii with them- or for private golf tournaments?? To use it to support political efforts that are anti to many cattle producers that pay into that tax... To me that is rip off....

I have always believed in the principle of the checkoff-- but the way it ended up being set up so that NCBA had dictatorial control of it - and being the only one that could utilyze/control the money is wrong....
Especially since the NCBA argued for and got the checkoff made mandatory- and the SCOTUS ruled that it is a tax....

It needs to be opened up to where NCBA (as the middle man taking their rake) is removed-- and the CBB is a stand alone organization- separated completely from ANY cattlemans/packer/feeder organizations control-and that does its own beef ads contracting directly with the PR firms that do it now...As far as the ads why should we pay NCBA a percentage just to contract with a PR firm or other organization ?
Reminds me of the old time Mafia-- that needs to get their cut of all the action for actually doing nothing.....

 

[Faster horses]

You said,
"A total ripoff of our beef tax dollars...."
to which I replied that it wasn't a total ripoff, and it isn't.

 

[Tex]

You said,
"A total ripoff of our beef tax dollars...."
to which I replied that it wasn't a total ripoff, and it isn't.

Faster horses, I thought the checkoff program was a good idea too.

I don't think the NCBA trying to get rid of MCOOL, the new GIPSA rules, or misrepresenting the new rules is in any way a good thing.

Sometimes a good thing can turn bad. That doesn't mean that the good thing wasn't good, or that some good things don't come out of it.

The people controlling this industry know how to leverage. I believe the meat packers have leveraged the NCBA for meatpacker interests, not cattleman's interests and there are a lot of people who just don't realize it.

This group from Louisiana sure sees it.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

You said,
"A total ripoff of our beef tax dollars...."
to which I replied that it wasn't a total ripoff, and it isn't.

Faster horses, I thought the checkoff program was a good idea too.

I don't think the NCBA trying to get rid of MCOOL, the new GIPSA rules, or misrepresenting the new rules is in any way a good thing.

Sometimes a good thing can turn bad. That doesn't mean that the good thing wasn't good, or that some good things don't come out of it.

The people controlling this industry know how to leverage. I believe the meat packers have leveraged the NCBA for meatpacker interests, not cattleman's interests and there are a lot of people who just don't realize it.

This group from Louisiana sure sees it.

Tex

And was shown by the USDA's contracted survey of Checkoff payers-- NCBA doesn't represent the feelings of the majority of Checkoff payers who support M-COOL and using all or a major portion of the Checkoff funding promoting Born, Raised, and Slaughtered in the USA Beef....

Nor the cattlemans opposition to mandatory ID....

As a former NCBA officer told me- NCBA does not represent the cow/calf sector of the industry....

 

[mrj]

So much 'mis-information' (to be VERY kind!), so little time!

Cherry-picking numbers from documents often is manipulative in intent. What is omitted, what is mis-interpreted?

For one thing, money from the Beef Checkoff to NCBA is on a reimbursement of costs only basis. What do you fail to understand about that? It is NOT income that can be spent however the organization wishes. It is repayment of money spent on specific projects approved by the CBB, all with full accounting of staff time and all other costs. ALL on the checkoff side the 'firewall' separating checkoff and Policy activities. Policy or Issues expenses are NOT paid for with checkoff dollars. Period.

How many know that the audit for the previous year showed that NCBA was short-changed $360,000.00 by CBB??? It is understandable, by those who are NOT looking for a molehill to turn into a mountain, that such errors in attribution of funds in a system designed to be complex in order to be scrupulously fair and accurate will happen. Interesting is that the percentage of beef checkoff dollars in question, AND SOLVED PROPERLY, was very small, about ONE percent of checkoff income. NONE of the checkoff money was 'lost'. The firewall was NOT "breached".

Tex, Isn't it interesting that a few people accuse any and every 'big' or 'corporate' business of being crooked? And they are certain that anyone in the organizations they distrust are being duped. When you accuse NCBA members, of being duped, just consider that MANY of the leaders and members, operating all sizes of ranches with some success, are not likely to ALL be duped by the 'evil' packers. Maybe, when pointing the finger of guilt at the 'criminally dishonest packer', they have four fingers pointing back at themselves!!!!

Tex, and OT, not ALL cow calf producers believe that we need government to 'help' us more and more! In fact, many of us see government over-regulation as one of our more burdensome costs. GIPSA is just one example. Many have, or plan to use some of the practices which you naysayers fear gives us an edge for producing better cattle, or load lot quantities. BTW, isn't your buddy the 'former' NCBA officer man enough to let you share his name??? You proudly 'outed' me on this website years ago, tho I never tried to hide my identity, so why the reluctance to share your friends name and let him make his own accusation instead of hiding behind you to do it?


OT, those accusations against NCBA have been refuted, and accepted by the oversight guru's. Read again my comments re. checkoff funds and the audits. Verify them with CBB, if you have the courage. And tell us which national cattle organizations CBB members actually belong to. Do you have proof NCBA members are the majority? How many states have BIC's comprised of ALL state cattle groups, and nominate CBB candidates from ALL of them, to be named to CBB by USDA. Very few times has USDA overridden the state BIC nominees, (tho in SD it has been done by Dem. Administrations). Point, if organizational rotations are not followed, it may not be the fault of your state. And, at times, it is unfortunate that "majority rules" when results are underhanded.

The reason CBB was NOT designed as a "stand alone organization" is that it is a coalition of all cattle organizations, NOT a new organization. It was designed that way to eliminate problems some other commodity checkoffs has experienced, to keep it accountable to producers, and avoid excessive overhead. You are ill-informed about what NCBA does and does not do to serve the CBB contracts. You forget that there are several other contractors. NCBA simply happens to have built the most expertise into their staff and to excell at working with others, especially at the research level of the best universities.

BTW, Tommy, have you ever heard of trade show revenues, or Allied Industry members (businesses who pay a fee to NCBA to access our members in order to solicit business selling us their wares more efficiently than simply advertising). That is a large part of NCBA revenues. If NCBA members choose to pay top staff members what it takes to get people with their credentials to do the top jobs, and other staff according to their abilities and job requirements, how is that wrong??? Are you one of those who believes that all should receive some sort of equal "living wage", whatever that means? Shouldn't a highly skilled surgeon be paid more than the less educated family doc? Shouldn't pay have some relationship to accomplishment? Except for family farmers, of course. Few will work so hard for so little in return.

mrj

 

[Tex]

Tex, and OT, not ALL cow calf producers believe that we need government to 'help' us more and more! In fact, many of us see government over-regulation as one of our more burdensome costs. GIPSA is just one example. Many have, or plan to use some of the practices which you naysayers fear gives us an edge for producing better cattle, or load lot quantities. BTW, isn't your buddy the 'former' NCBA officer man enough to let you share his name??? You proudly 'outed' me on this website years ago, tho I never tried to hide my identity, so why the reluctance to share your friends name and let him make his own accusation instead of hiding behind you to do it?

mrj, you must be talking to OT about all this outing stuff as I have no idea what you are talking about.

mrj, do you even know the GIPSA regulations regarding this issue?

Your post seems to suggest that you don't.

There are no regulations against load lot quantities, unless they are only given to a select few (or possibly dealings between packers themselves). If load lot quantity premiums are available, they just must be available to all. Do you understand the GIPSA rules to say anything different than this? These rules are intended to make sweetheart deals available to everyone, not just a select few. Do you understand the rules to be anything different than this? Are you personally getting a sweetheart deal that isn't available to others?

Tex

 

[mrj]

Tex, don't forget that I could have more knowledge than you believe I do. I was talking to both of you in part of that paragraph, and to OT when mentioning the fact that he 'exposed' what my initials stood for, in case some did not know by my comments, intending harm to me or a business in which my family has an interest.....years back, and I wondered why he was protecting the identity of his oft quoted "friend, the 'former' NCBA officer" when making claims that we can't verify and he uses the title to make appear ever so factual.

Do you have any idea what the cost of JUSTIFYING why packers do what they do regarding premiums paid, in order to comply with the proposed rules might be? I believe that, typically of such regulation, cost of compliance will make it LIKELY that packers will take the line of least cost, most profit and fail to pay premiums for both the quality of cattle produced by SOME, and any other things for which premiums are currently paid. Can't you just see the detail required in PROVING that someones' carcass is really not grading as high as that producer 'knows' it would....after the hide is removed....justifying the conditions in the decision, and on and on????

This is simply one organizations' attempt to gain benefits for themselves available already to producers who join in alliances such as CAB or others, or who produce to specifications of a packer and can deliver in a timely manner to keep the plant moving at speed. Apparently protagonists of the rules changes want government to assure everyone is paid equally, or they could form or join an alliance and be paid for whatever quality their cattle dress out and grade to. They also refused mandatory trace-back to the producer to verify age and source, which also has value to packers.

mrj

 

[Tex]

Tex, don't forget that I could have more knowledge than you believe I do. I was talking to both of you in part of that paragraph, and to OT when mentioning the fact that he 'exposed' what my initials stood for, in case some did not know by my comments, intending harm to me or a business in which my family has an interest.....years back, and I wondered why he was protecting the identity of his oft quoted "friend, the 'former' NCBA officer" when making claims that we can't verify and he uses the title to make appear ever so factual.

Do you have any idea what the cost of JUSTIFYING why packers do what they do regarding premiums paid, in order to comply with the proposed rules might be? I believe that, typically of such regulation, cost of compliance will make it LIKELY that packers will take the line of least cost, most profit and fail to pay premiums for both the quality of cattle produced by SOME, and any other things for which premiums are currently paid. Can't you just see the detail required in PROVING that someones' carcass is really not grading as high as that producer 'knows' it would....after the hide is removed....justifying the conditions in the decision, and on and on????

This is simply one organizations' attempt to gain benefits for themselves available already to producers who join in alliances such as CAB or others, or who produce to specifications of a packer and can deliver in a timely manner to keep the plant moving at speed. Apparently protagonists of the rules changes want government to assure everyone is paid equally, or they could form or join an alliance and be paid for whatever quality their cattle dress out and grade to. They also refused mandatory trace-back to the producer to verify age and source, which also has value to packers.

mrj

With all due respect, mrj, I disagree with you. Meat packers are saying they will back away from paying premiums because that is their current game plan and they can get people like you to make the kind of arguments you make for them. The grid pays premiums but they aren't likely to back away from that. Prime pays higher than choice and choice higher than select, etc. Higher cut out carcasses with more meat will still have a justifiable higher price. If bone meal and hides went sky high through the roof and the other things stayed the same, the reverse might be true.



All of these rules are not meant to make it harder to pay premiums that can be justified. They are meant to make it harder to pay premiums to manipulate the markets. Meat packers just don't want that kind of thing hanging over their head because they will have to justify it in writing and can't make up something else because it fits better later.

If a premium is warranted, it should be paid. If it isn't, then it shouldn't.

The real value to meat packers or any firm, is what they are willing to pay for the marginal product. If they can get it cheaper by cheating the markets, they will, and they will use that to compete other firms out of the market or make higher profits. Some of these rules will stop that kind of the price discrimination in the market for the same quality of product. It will then make them compete on their part of the business instead of which packer can cheat the suppliers the most.

Don't believe half of what meat packers tell you. They "are the most regulated" as they like to say because they deserve it, not because they have been in any way the most honest of businessmen. They have concentrated the markets by cheating suppliers, cheating their labor, cheating the consumers, and buying off politicians to get away with it.

I will agree with you that poorly enforced regulations are about as bad as no regulation, which is about where this industry has been because we have the best political and judicial system money can buy.



Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex, don't forget that I could have more knowledge than you believe I do. I was talking to both of you in part of that paragraph, and to OT when mentioning the fact that he 'exposed' what my initials stood for, in case some did not know by my comments, intending harm to me or a business in which my family has an interest.....years back, and I wondered why he was protecting the identity of his oft quoted "friend, the 'former' NCBA officer" when making claims that we can't verify and he uses the title to make appear ever so factual.



mrj

You're flat wrong again Maxine-- it wasn't me that "exposed" you- as I had no idea who you were- or what those initials stood for..... As I remember it- It was some of your SD neighbors that disagreed with your cultist following of the NCBA .....

I had no idea who or what you are--until those that knew you posted it....Sorry to bust your ego bubble-- but I had never heard of you before you posted here- and those who know you- and disagree with your beliefs- outed you..... And then shortly after it you confirmed it with the posting of some of the political/cultist backing letters you had sent....

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "And now we give the floor to SH and MRJ for rebuttle....."

Why thank you Sandhusker.

I support full checkoff program accountability and transparency for every dollar being spent so that anyone paying into the checkoff can see that their dollars are going for beef research, promotion, and education as intended.

Since my views on the beef checkoff were assumed to be a "rebuttle", am I to assume that you do not support checkoff accountability and transparency?

I think everyone should have the right to make sure their beef checkoff dollars are not being spent to support some communist legislation to socialize fat cattle marketing to save the feeding industry from themselves (ie GIPSA rules) or support some frivilous lawsuit against packers because the LMA, assuming the role of spokespersons for the cattle industry, needs something to blame for lower cattle prices because they fail to understand market fundamentals. Rather, I believe beef checkoff dollars need to be spent on beef research, promotion, and education as intended.

Do you disagree?

I had to laugh once when I heard a packer blamer like you state that checkoff dollars going to beef research, promotion, and education were only serving the packing industry while they were promoting the flawed "M"COOL law as if that would benefit the livestock producers. Haha!

I often wonder how many packer blamers ever stop to think how often their positions contradict themselves.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "I don't think the NCBA trying to get rid of MCOOL, the new GIPSA rules, or misrepresenting the new rules is in any way a good thing."

I fully supported NCBA's position on "M"COOL. NCBA understood the beef industry enough to know what a joke "M"COOL would be and we now have the "CAN-MEX-USA" labels as proof to their initial concerns. Anyone that knew what percent of our beef at the retail level was foreign beef knew what a joke this was EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN ENFORCEABLE, which it's not.

With that said, I don't support checkoff dollars being spent in any manner to promote any political agenda even if I happen to agree with it. Those funds are for beef research, promotion, and education based on the understanding that the beef industry drives the cattle industry not to support or oppose legislation to isolate a sliver of foreign beef at the retail counter as a novelty item.

In fairness I believe the "firewalls" between NCBA politics and the beef checkoff need to be very clear and defined the same way I would have concerns if R-CALF was using checkoff dollars to support their baseless packer blaming agenda.

I also fully support NCBA's position on the new GIPSA rules which are based on arrogantly trying to save the feeding industry from their own marketing alternatives. The GIPSA rules stand in the way of the free enterprise system and are based on an unfounded and unproven belief that packers are using grid pricing to manipulate the markets as if there wasn't numerous packers and numerous marketing options with most of these packers to choose from.

As if I need you Tex, and those who believe like you, to tell me how to market my fat cattle. The GIPSA rules are based on arrogance and ignorance of fat cattle marketing beyond the imagination of those who truly understand fat cattle marketing.

Again, this issue should have nothing to do with the beef checkoff dollars and the lines between the two need to be clear and defined. Checkoff dollars should not be used to support or oppose socialistic cattle marketing laws in an attempt to save cattle feeders from themselves.

Tex: "I believe the meat packers have leveraged the NCBA for meatpacker interests, not cattleman's interests and there are a lot of people who just don't realize it."

It doesn't matter what you WANT TO BELIEVE. All that matters is what you can prove which is very little.

NCBA works with the packing industry on the promotion of beef and new beef products because they realize that beef prices affect cattle prices. That's where the lines between the CBB and NCBA can become fuzzy in contrast to the political beliefs of blame driven organizations like R-CALF or OCM that operate on emotion rather than fact in their pursuit of someone or something to blame for that which they fail to understand. Blame driven organizations would rather see those dollars spent on baseless lawsuits against the packing industry.

Yes, political agendas and the beef checkoff need to be kept at arms length from eachother. If I knew checkoff dollars were being spent to promote the flawed "M"COOL law or GIPSA rules to socialize cattle marketing and create disincentives for providing higher quality cattle, I'd be up in arms too.

~SH~

 

[mrj]

OT, I appologize for mistakenly thinking you were the guilty party, using 'information' from others to do so. You are the one who persists in using my given name, which made it easy to think it was you. One area where my 'ego' might come in is that I'm definitely NOT a 'follower' at NCBA. Various members of my family have been actively involved in setting policy of that and ALL the predecessor cattlemen groups since the late 1890's, and continuing today. It is interesting you use the term "cultist" for NCBA. A cult is ruled from the top down, doesn't change leadership, doesn't accept science, etc. We have seen all those 'traits' in R-CALf, the original division, that is. Same old directors, same old need to have a 'crisis' of the moment to generate funds, same old 'litigate our way to prosperity' attitude, same old fearmongering, from BSE to e Coli, dangerous alliances with groups working to end beef production.

As for my "ego"......what people outside my immediate family and closest friends think of me has no effect on me and is not my problem. I do have concerns for what such hatred as expressed often on this site could lead to. Bullying is definitely not 'fashionable' right now, and I believe it should not be tolerated in any form.

Tex, try as I might, the phrase "with all due respect" can't come above the fact that it implies little to no respect, but thanks for the comment, FWIW. Nor can I muster much respect for one who uses biased judgment and opinion rather than facts to malign whole categories of businesses related to cattle and beef processing. Science and education may lead to mistakes occasionally, but they usually get corrected relatively soon. So overall they remain a pretty reliable base for decisions in many industries, from cattle production to creating new recipes using beef, to learning what consumers want concerning their food. Too many people and organizations having biases and agendas disdain modern beef production, processing, and marketing sciences.

And thanks for your little 'tutorial' on beef grades. I was aware of the differences, plus the high and low Choice, for example, Rib Eye size, Shear tests, and more. Another variable is the fact that grading is an imperfect system, an opinion I share with many wiser cattle and meat marketers than myself.

Recently marbling and tenderness and genetic ability of some cattle to gain well on less feed have become more important, both in cow and bull genetics as well as in fed cattle and beef sales.

A potload of cattle, going to either a feeder or packer, which truly are "like peas in a pod" for most of the factors involved in producing the highest qualiy steaks, has to rate a very good premium, in a perfect world.

I would say that dealing with someone who is infallibly honest, delivers a high quality product which is just as he says it is, and at the time he is expected, has to rate high, too. It sure does for us when we buy cattle.
But how is a packer to document that as a legitimate reason for giving a premium.

The sad thing about quality premiums, is that the 'bar' is continually raised. More people meet the target, and it moves up. Legitimately so, IMO. No one has the 'perfect' pen or truckload of animals.

Tex, I choose to believe, until they prove otherwise by their actions, that most people are basically honest and obey laws and rules. I'm sorry you believe most others are crooked and dishonest. Thinking and believing as you do has to be discouraging and can lead to a bitter soul.

mrj

 

[Tex]

OT, I appologize for mistakenly thinking you were the guilty party, using 'information' from others to do so. You are the one who persists in using my given name, which made it easy to think it was you. One area where my 'ego' might come in is that I'm definitely NOT a 'follower' at NCBA. Various members of my family have been actively involved in setting policy of that and ALL the predecessor cattlemen groups since the late 1890's, and continuing today. It is interesting you use the term "cultist" for NCBA. A cult is ruled from the top down, doesn't change leadership, doesn't accept science, etc. We have seen all those 'traits' in R-CALf, the original division, that is. Same old directors, same old need to have a 'crisis' of the moment to generate funds, same old 'litigate our way to prosperity' attitude, same old fearmongering, from BSE to e Coli, dangerous alliances with groups working to end beef production.

As for my "ego"......what people outside my immediate family and closest friends think of me has no effect on me and is not my problem. I do have concerns for what such hatred as expressed often on this site could lead to. Bullying is definitely not 'fashionable' right now, and I believe it should not be tolerated in any form.

Tex, try as I might, the phrase "with all due respect" can't come above the fact that it implies little to no respect, but thanks for the comment, FWIW. Nor can I muster much respect for one who uses biased judgment and opinion rather than facts to malign whole categories of businesses related to cattle and beef processing. Science and education may lead to mistakes occasionally, but they usually get corrected relatively soon. So overall they remain a pretty reliable base for decisions in many industries, from cattle production to creating new recipes using beef, to learning what consumers want concerning their food. Too many people and organizations having biases and agendas disdain modern beef production, processing, and marketing sciences.

And thanks for your little 'tutorial' on beef grades. I was aware of the differences, plus the high and low Choice, for example, Rib Eye size, Shear tests, and more. Another variable is the fact that grading is an imperfect system, an opinion I share with many wiser cattle and meat marketers than myself.

Recently marbling and tenderness and genetic ability of some cattle to gain well on less feed have become more important, both in cow and bull genetics as well as in fed cattle and beef sales.

A potload of cattle, going to either a feeder or packer, which truly are "like peas in a pod" for most of the factors involved in producing the highest qualiy steaks, has to rate a very good premium, in a perfect world.

I would say that dealing with someone who is infallibly honest, delivers a high quality product which is just as he says it is, and at the time he is expected, has to rate high, too. It sure does for us when we buy cattle.
But how is a packer to document that as a legitimate reason for giving a premium.

The sad thing about quality premiums, is that the 'bar' is continually raised. More people meet the target, and it moves up. Legitimately so, IMO. No one has the 'perfect' pen or truckload of animals.

Tex, I choose to believe, until they prove otherwise by their actions, that most people are basically honest and obey laws and rules. I'm sorry you believe most others are crooked and dishonest. Thinking and believing as you do has to be discouraging and can lead to a bitter soul.

mrj

So, mrj, what GIPSA rules would in any way prohibit giving legitimate premiums? You use a lot of words and came up empty here. If meat packers have a branded product based on, say, your good beef, and can package it and sell it at a higher price, then they can do it. The qualities that allow that to happen must be available to everyone.

Economies and markets should work for everyone, not just those who are connected, and not those who are helping undercut the market mechanisms of pricing so meat packers can get lower prices from other cattle providers.


Have you been getting non market premiums while meat packers have discriminated on like qualities in other markets?

None of this makes for a bitter soul. It makes for someone who wants the same treatment as anyone else and wants the rule of law to be adhered to, not the rule of gold.

If you personally don't have these attributes, it is your soul that you should be worried about, not mine.



Tex