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

Cattlemen seek checkoff changes

T99

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
105
Location
the ranch
Cattlemen seek checkoff changes
By NATE JENKINS Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press - Friday, December 21, 2007

LINCOLN, Neb.

Cattle producers in Nebraska and other states are pushing for what would be the first significant changes to the national beef checkoff program since it started more than 20 years ago.

It's the program behind the popular "Beef, It's What's for Dinner" ads that feature the distinctive voice of actor Sam Elliott. At a dollar a head, the checkoff fee pools about $80 million annually for beef promotion, research and education, among other things.

But more than two decades of inflation have decreased the buying power of that dollar, say checkoff supporters. Some want to raise the checkoff to $2 and make other changes to the program, which remains much the same since Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture to start in the mid-1980s, said Don Ricketts of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

The Colorado-based group administers many of the beef checkoff dollars.

"There are so many more issues today, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to," Ricketts said.

Some state chapters of the association want Congress to hike the checkoff to $2, while others want producers who pay the checkoff to vote on whether it should rise.

Ricketts said that under one proposal, future hikes in the checkoff would require only a vote of those who pay the checkoff and not approval from Congress.

The association will meet in February to vote on checkoff proposals and then lobby Congress to approve the changes.

"Whatever happens, Congress has got to deal with it, anyway," said Wade Moser, executive vice president of the North Dakota Stockmen's Association. "If the industry wants to make any changes, we go to Congress and get those changes made and then there is a requirement that the producers vote on it."

Moser said TV commercials have become too expensive. "We can't get into that market anymore," he said. More money also is needed for research, he said.

North Dakota Stockmen's Association members have discussed the idea of raising the checkoff, Moser said.

"The feedback we have been getting is they really want to know where that additional dollar is going to be spent. In most cases, if it's going to research and promotion and not adding staff members, they're fairly comfortable with it," he said.

The Nebraska Cattlemen, which is affiliated with National Cattlemen's Beef Association, has not recommended the checkoff increase or that the checkoff be ditched altogether. But the organization is backing changes that would make it easier to do both.

"These changes, either one or all of them, would be far and away the biggest changes to the beef checkoff since it was created," said Michael Kelsey of Nebraska Cattlemen.

Competition for grocery buyers' dollars has stiffened because there are more non-beef products at the stores, said Kelsey. That requires more money to develop new beef products and advertise them, said Kelsey. He also said consumers are looking for more assurances that what they eat is safe.

"It's beef, it's what's for dinner because it's good for you and it's safe," Kelsey said, giving an example of how the cattle producers' message could be expanded with more checkoff dollars.

Under the changes backed by the Nebraska Cattlemen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would help petition for two votes by people who pay the checkoff.

One vote would be on whether to increase the checkoff and would be held if the USDA and others were able to gather enough petition signatures. Producers have no vote now.

The Nebraska group also wants to make it easier to hold a national producers' referendum on whether to keep the checkoff program at all.

Referendums are possible now, but aren't conducted because of what Kelsey said is a vague, difficult process whereby producers can organize petition drives but without help from the USDA.

Under the new proposal, producers would have the opportunity to regularly vote - maybe every five years or so - on whether to keep the checkoff program.

Some Montana ranchers challenged the constitutionality of the checkoff program several years ago. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government can force producers to pay the fee, and new efforts to change the checkoff began.

Other recommended changes to the checkoff include allowing dollars it generates to be used to promote U.S. beef. Currently no country can be specified in the promotion efforts.

About 10 percent of the $80 million checkoff fund comes from foreign producers who export beef to the U.S.
 
Sandhusker said:
If you're getting poor mileage, I don't think adding an extra tank is the first thing to do...

It probably would have helped if there was a little more research into what their competitors (chicken and pork) were doing might have helped them in formulating strategies to keep more of the money generated by the industry instead of having to give it all to packers.

I bet Dr. Taylor could have given them some tips on that.
 
If more producers could see an actual benefit to the check off dollar it might not have to manditory. In my opinion it should be a choice just like belonging to the various cattle organizations. The check off and organizations have better luck with people not minding reaching into their wallets when they actually see benefits.
 
CattleArmy said:
If more producers could see an actual benefit to the check off dollar it might not have to manditory. In my opinion it should be a choice just like belonging to the various cattle organizations. The check off and organizations have better luck with people not minding reaching into their wallets when they actually see benefits.

NCBA/AMI/USDA- by refusing to negotiate on the control/use of the Checkoff has taken it from a user controlled payment to a tax- by the ruling they asked for out of the Supreme Court--like it or not.... :(

Instead of being a producer driven/controlled promotion the NCBA turned it into just another added tax for producers- that has to go thru Congress to do anything !!!!!
 
Don't kid yourself, Checkoff=Tax. You will add another dollar and it will disapear into a black hole. In 3 or 4 years they will come back and say they are not effective anymore so we need another raise.
 
Typical of you, OT, and also of those who don't want to pay their share to benefit their business.

Do you truly fail to understand that control of the national half of the Beef Checkoff is by CBB, comprised of cattle producers from virtually ALL cattle producer organizations in the nation?

Or that the majority of CBB members are cattle producers? Or that CONTRACTS must be approved by CBB?

Or that the contracts are paid on a cost recovery ONLY basis, which means that unless expenses are approved, they are not paid, and that there is NO 'extra' money for the contracting agency 'built in' to those contrcts?

per, CattleArmy, and Tex, do any of you check what is being done on the website of CBB or ask any of your state beef council directors how your money is used?

Or are you all just sour grapes because the election making the Beef Checkoff mandatory passed by a 79.+% yes vote, of cattle producers voting on it, nationwide?

Claims of failure and no achievements are just not accurate as anyone wanting to check on it can verify.

mrj
 
mrj said:
Typical of you, OT, and also of those who don't want to pay their share to benefit their business.

mrj

And where did I say that Maxine ?

Advertising to sell Mexican, Canuck, Aussie, South American beef does not benefit my business.... :shock: :???:

Are you just molty because I mentioned how your beloved NCBA got the Supreme Court ruling they wanted-- but in doing so the Supreme Court ruled that the checkoff fee is nothing but a "government tax"...

That one- forcing another government tax down folks throat- lost the NCBA many a conservative member.... :wink: :lol:

I've told you a million times Maxine- I have supported/do support the checkoff-- but also believe times have changed in the 20+ years since the checkoff was started- and that it needs to change with those changing times...
Personally I would vote to increase the checkoff to $2-- if all that additional dollar HAD to be used to promote/advertise USA Born, Raised, and Slaughtered BEEF only.....I also believe they need a national vote on the checkoff and the direction producers want it to go- every 5-7 years....
 
OT, what do you think "and also of those who don't want to pay their share....." means?

Importers pay into the checkoff. Would you rather they did not and had that many millions of dollars MORE to advertise their beef to US consumers???

Checkoff advertising and promotion generally is aimed at consumers age 25 to 54, and, if I'm current on this, to people of upper middle incomes who want high quality beef. I believe that is most likely NOT the imported beef.

Shorting research and other needed areas of checkoff uses to focus too much on advertising is short sighted, IMO.

Actually, OT, what NCBA wanted was to save the checkoff to continue the ONLY true self help program for the cattle industry.

What about the checkoff changed after our Supreme Court win? It is still the same checkoff. Cattle producers from virtually all statewide cattlemens organizations STILL run it. It is STILL promoting beef through research, education, in-store promotions, and advertising. US beef STILL is advertised, in that something less than 20% of beef sold in the USA is imported, so at least 80% of the advertising budget is advertising USA beef.

OT, if you think the management and leadership of the Beef Checkoff has not changed with the times, as well as changed the programs/projects to fit the times, it just may be that YOU have not kept up with the checkoff .activities!!!!

I'm not necessarily opposed to a periodic vote on the checkoff.......but do realize that anti-beef forces and anti-NCBA forces will take advantage of the opportunity to attempt to end it. I suspect there might be more money spent promoting a "no" vote than is collected by the checkoff in some areas.

mrj
 
Maxine
OT, if you think the management and leadership of the Beef Checkoff has not changed with the times, as well as changed the programs/projects to fit the times, it just may be that YOU have not kept up with the checkoff .activities!!!!

Maxine- 92% of the checkoff payers surveyed by the USDA said they wanted a portion of their checkoff funds to go to promote/advertise USA BEEF only.....Also a major majority wanted/want periodic votes...

Could it be that you and your beloved cult leadership have not kept up with the producer of today :???: :wink: :lol:
 
MRJ, "Importers pay into the checkoff. Would you rather they did not and had that many millions of dollars MORE to advertise their beef to US consumers???"

I understand they pay roughly 10% of what US producers pay. That means we can buy $9 of advertising for every $1 they buy. 9 to 1, I think those are fairly favorable odds for us.

You also need to ask if the importers would even invest what they are being forced to now. From what I have been told by a beef board member, they're not exactly entheused about paying what they are paying now.

If having them along is stopping us from promoting only US product, which is what the overwhelming majority of producers want, I'd say they are more a hinderance than a help. Cut 'em loose and let's get serious about selling our product.
 
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "Importers pay into the checkoff. Would you rather they did not and had that many millions of dollars MORE to advertise their beef to US consumers???"

I understand they pay roughly 10% of what US producers pay. That means we can buy $9 of advertising for every $1 they buy. 9 to 1, I think those are fairly favorable odds for us.

You also need to ask if the importers would even invest what they are being forced to now. From what I have been told by a beef board member, they're not exactly entheused about paying what they are paying now.

If having them along is stopping us from promoting only US product, which is what the overwhelming majority of producers want, I'd say they are more a hinderance than a help. Cut 'em loose and let's get serious about selling our product.

mrj can not support beef adds that support beef over the competitors, chicken or pork, nor can she support adds of U.S. beef over foreign beef because that is not what the packers want.

You aren't going to change her mind even though it is in the cattleman's interest. She is for supporting her beloved NCBA instead of really getting things done or improving beef demand over chicken or pork, or foreign beef. She doesn't mind not being held accountable for results as RM points out--just don't talk bad about the NCBA because they have given her an award.

Packers love mrj, because she parrots their interests, not the U.S. cattleman's.
 
Oldtimer said:
Maxine
OT, if you think the management and leadership of the Beef Checkoff has not changed with the times, as well as changed the programs/projects to fit the times, it just may be that YOU have not kept up with the checkoff .activities!!!!

Maxine- 92% of the checkoff payers surveyed by the USDA said they wanted a portion of their checkoff funds to go to promote/advertise USA BEEF only.....Also a major majority wanted/want periodic votes...

Could it be that you and your beloved cult leadership have not kept up with the producer of today :???: :wink: :lol:

A R-Klanner denouncing something as CULT leadership??????

That's too funny! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
DITTO;I would vote to increase the checkoff to $2-- if all that additional dollar HAD to be used to promote/advertise USA Born, Raised, and Slaughtered BEEF only.....
 
First, just off the cuff, the question of whether to advertise USA BEEF ONLY, sounds great, as does a periodic vote on keeping the Checkoff or not. The devil is in the details.

Was there anything in that survey to determine what those answering it KNEW about the checkoff? Or to tell them what it would involve?

Did they, for instance, know that to make such major changes, the Act and Order would have to be opened up to whatever extraneous tinkering Congressmen might decide to do to it, not simply to make a couple of changes in it?

OT, you confuse NCBA with the CBB and they most certainly are two separate organizations. The CBB runs the Beef Checkoff and that board has cattle producers as the majority. CBB directors may serve only two consecutive three year terms, so the board turns over frequently. Generally speaking those directors are nominated by cattle producer organizations in their state, then placed on the CBB by the Sec. of Ag.

To say that they "have not kept up with the producer of today" as you did, is ludicrous, at best. They ARE "producers of today" and they darn sure listen to their peers (cattle producers) in their home states and act and vote accordingly.

My opinion and observation is that the combined knowledge and determination to listen to their peers in the cattle industry by the CBBoard of cattlemen from cross the nation trumps YOUR 'knowledge' of what 'cattlemen' want....any way you want to measure it!

What makes you so certain that the CBB does NOT want to make those changes..........and simply feel they cannot risk opening the law to the wiles of a shoot from the hip Congress (which we certainly have at present)?

mrj
 
Sandhusker...If having them along is stopping us from promoting only US product, which is what the overwhelming majority of producers want, I'd say they are more a hinderance than a help. Cut 'em loose and let's get serious about selling our product.


I agree Sandhusker, but Oldtimer says we need to make them pay their share and separate the money and advertise USA beef. I am for advertising USA beef, whichever route we take.


MJ...Did they, for instance, know that to make such major changes, the Act and Order would have to be opened up to whatever extraneous tinkering Congressmen might decide to do to it, not simply to make a couple of changes in it?

Then why in the heck is the NCBA trying to make a major change by increasing the checkoff to two dollars mj? It would have to be opened up to do that also.
 
MRJ, "To say that they "have not kept up with the producer of today" as you did, is ludicrous, at best. They ARE "producers of today" and they darn sure listen to their peers (cattle producers) in their home states and act and vote accordingly. "

Producers have overwhelmingly said they want advertising on US product only. As of today, the beef board has NOT acted accordingly. WHY?
 
MJ...Did they, for instance, know that to make such major changes, the Act and Order would have to be opened up to whatever extraneous tinkering Congressmen might decide to do to it, not simply to make a couple of changes in it?


Why didn't they think of this before they made it a tax? Before it just needed to come to vote. Guess they got more than they asked for or did they?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top