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

Check-Off Question

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Does anyone know how many dollars per year TOTAL is paid into the Beef Check-Off?

All states portions included?

It has to be an astronomical number because a Check-Off is sometimes paid 3-4 times on each head of cattle through the supply chain.

Just wondering..............................
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Mike, the last I read it is around 76 million dollars. Half of that goes to the state beef councils and half goes to the CBB.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Mike, the amount depends on how many cattle are sold in a year, how many sellers cheat and do not pay, and how many cattle, or equivalent weights are imported from other nations, etc.

Best way to find out may be to check at www.beefboard.org.

I believe some packers voluntarily pay some money to the beef checkoff, or did in the past, after the mandatory checkoff was voted in, as they had done previously. I don't know details of that situation.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I know the packers benefit a heck of a lot more than what they pay for. THEY are the biggest winners from the checkoff.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
I know the packers benefit a heck of a lot more than what they pay for. THEY are the biggest winners from the checkoff.

How is that?

Without any pass through to producers, packers get to pocket any benefits of increased demand.

In addition, it gives them a "producer" group to make arguments for them on Capitol Hill to give congressmen a chance to support meat packer goals masquerading as checkoff producer goals so they can collect meat packer campaign money without taking a hit on the PR front to further meat packer frauds. Plain old bribing of congress with a little spin.


It isn't that hard to figure out, BMR.

Tex
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,194
Reaction score
84
Location
Texas
Mike said:
Does anyone know how many dollars per year TOTAL is paid into the Beef Check-Off?

All states portions included?

It has to be an astronomical number because a Check-Off is sometimes paid 3-4 times on each head of cattle through the supply chain.

Just wondering..............................
Mike, I checked out the CBB Annual Report for 2010:

http://www.beefboard.org/library/files/FINAL%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%20pdf%202010.pdf


It shows "Total Assessment Revenues" for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010 to be:

$42,136,014

Page 16 down toward the bottom of the report shows a breakdown by state.

The revenue from states with "Qualified State Beef Councils" is:

$35,720,777

Since those states with State Beef Councils retained half of their remittances, when you add that number back into the total of $42,136,014, it should make the total paid in:

$77,856,791

That's a little higher than last year (also shown on the same report) and is pretty close to what Tommy posted.

It also shows the amount assessed to "Importers" of $6,378,595 - I assume that means packers.

Anyway, it's an interesting report. Everybody should take the time to look it over.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Thanks. That is interesting.

That's a lot of money to buy a few "Eat More Beef" truck tags and bill boards.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Reaction score
441
Location
Big Muddy valley
Tex said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
I know the packers benefit a heck of a lot more than what they pay for. THEY are the biggest winners from the checkoff.

How is that?

Without any pass through to producers, packers get to pocket any benefits of increased demand.

In addition, it gives them a "producer" group to make arguments for them on Capitol Hill to give congressmen a chance to support meat packer goals masquerading as checkoff producer goals so they can collect meat packer campaign money without taking a hit on the PR front to further meat packer frauds. Plain old bribing of congress with a little spin.


It isn't that hard to figure out, BMR.

Tex


Since your Sandhuskers new mouth I will ask you.

Does demand have nothing to do with the price of cattle?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Big Muddy rancher said:
Tex said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
How is that?

Without any pass through to producers, packers get to pocket any benefits of increased demand.

In addition, it gives them a "producer" group to make arguments for them on Capitol Hill to give congressmen a chance to support meat packer goals masquerading as checkoff producer goals so they can collect meat packer campaign money without taking a hit on the PR front to further meat packer frauds. Plain old bribing of congress with a little spin.


It isn't that hard to figure out, BMR.

Tex


Since your Sandhuskers new mouth I will ask you.

Does demand have nothing to do with the price of cattle?


Sorry, didn't mean to answer Sandhusker's question, but since you asked......


The intersection between demand and supply curves is the price. Those with market power get to play all sorts of games with this scenario since they have so much market power that they can determine the details. It is one reason the Packers and Stockyards Act dictates prohibitions of certain meat packer actions that allow them to capture more of the revenue via profits or market share. Remember, market share is also delayed value, especially if you just knocked off one of your competitors who don't play the game you are dictating. That is what happened with Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride in the poultry market.

If demand increases at the consumer level and all of the increase of demand is captured by the meat packers or some other middleman like Walmart and Sam's, then the increase in demand didn't really help the producers (all other things equal) did it? It was pocketed by someone higher up in the marketing channel. This has been the problem in the meats industry and why so many producers have exited while the industry has become more concentrated and it is the problem with the NCBA's focus only on demand, not what the producers get out of it. Of course it would be interesting to see how many top NCBA people have been getting premiums that others have not been getting for the same quality of animal. We know that meat packers will adjust their formula pricing to benefit those who are supporting them, even if it is economic fraud prohibited by the Packers and Stockyards Act. Then they play the legal game.

Tex
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Reaction score
441
Location
Big Muddy valley
Tex said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Tex said:
Without any pass through to producers, packers get to pocket any benefits of increased demand.

In addition, it gives them a "producer" group to make arguments for them on Capitol Hill to give congressmen a chance to support meat packer goals masquerading as checkoff producer goals so they can collect meat packer campaign money without taking a hit on the PR front to further meat packer frauds. Plain old bribing of congress with a little spin.


It isn't that hard to figure out, BMR.

Tex


Since your Sandhuskers new mouth I will ask you.

Does demand have nothing to do with the price of cattle?


Sorry, didn't mean to answer Sandhusker's question, but since you asked......


The intersection between demand and supply curves is the price. Those with market power get to play all sorts of games with this scenario since they have so much market power that they can determine the details. It is one reason the Packers and Stockyards Act dictates prohibitions of certain meat packer actions that allow them to capture more of the revenue via profits or market share. Remember, market share is also delayed value, especially if you just knocked off one of your competitors who don't play the game you are dictating. That is what happened with Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride in the poultry market.

If demand increases at the consumer level and all of the increase of demand is captured by the meat packers or some other middleman like Walmart and Sam's, then the increase in demand didn't really help the producers (all other things equal) did it? It was pocketed by someone higher up in the marketing channel. This has been the problem in the meats industry and why so many producers have exited while the industry has become more concentrated and it is the problem with the NCBA's focus only on demand, not what the producers get out of it. Of course it would be interesting to see how many top NCBA people have been getting premiums that others have not been getting for the same quality of animal. We know that meat packers will adjust their formula pricing to benefit those who are supporting them, even if it is economic fraud prohibited by the Packers and Stockyards Act. Then they play the legal game.

Tex



So improved markets are just a act of good will?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Big Muddy rancher said:
Tex said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Since your Sandhuskers new mouth I will ask you.

Does demand have nothing to do with the price of cattle?


Sorry, didn't mean to answer Sandhusker's question, but since you asked......


The intersection between demand and supply curves is the price. Those with market power get to play all sorts of games with this scenario since they have so much market power that they can determine the details. It is one reason the Packers and Stockyards Act dictates prohibitions of certain meat packer actions that allow them to capture more of the revenue via profits or market share. Remember, market share is also delayed value, especially if you just knocked off one of your competitors who don't play the game you are dictating. That is what happened with Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride in the poultry market.

If demand increases at the consumer level and all of the increase of demand is captured by the meat packers or some other middleman like Walmart and Sam's, then the increase in demand didn't really help the producers (all other things equal) did it? It was pocketed by someone higher up in the marketing channel. This has been the problem in the meats industry and why so many producers have exited while the industry has become more concentrated and it is the problem with the NCBA's focus only on demand, not what the producers get out of it. Of course it would be interesting to see how many top NCBA people have been getting premiums that others have not been getting for the same quality of animal. We know that meat packers will adjust their formula pricing to benefit those who are supporting them, even if it is economic fraud prohibited by the Packers and Stockyards Act. Then they play the legal game.

Tex



So improved markets are just a act of good will?

For Tyson and the other substitute meat players we know that they will
"improve" the factors of good markets for some through their pricing at the expense of others so they don't have to pay the full cost.

I wouldn't call that good will.

Don't get like sh here. Meat packers (and retailers) want to increase the spread between what they pay you for cattle and what they get from the market. Sometimes they take actions that are specifically prohibited in the Packers and Stockyards Act to do it. Sometimes they don't. It all depends on the facts of what actually happened. These broad generalizations are pretty useless when it comes to the facts. Facts trump broad generalizations any day.

Wasn't it Phil Gramm who said Wall Street and banking firms wouldn't engage in risky behavior because it would be against their business interests (that they would go out of biz)?

Facts trump generalizations every time.

Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
Don't get like sh here. Meat packers (and retailers) want to increase the spread between what they pay you for cattle and what they get from the market. Sometimes they take actions that are specifically prohibited in the Packers and Stockyards Act to do it. Sometimes they don't. It all depends on the facts of what actually happened. These broad generalizations are pretty useless when it comes to the facts. Facts trump broad generalizations any day.


Tex

Aren't you talking about a couple of different "markets"? In the situation you have described, the rancher does not have access to the market that includes the retailer.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
Don't get like sh here. Meat packers (and retailers) want to increase the spread between what they pay you for cattle and what they get from the market. Sometimes they take actions that are specifically prohibited in the Packers and Stockyards Act to do it. Sometimes they don't. It all depends on the facts of what actually happened. These broad generalizations are pretty useless when it comes to the facts. Facts trump broad generalizations any day.


Tex

Aren't you talking about a couple of different "markets"? In the situation you have described, the rancher does not have access to the market that includes the retailer.

Yes, of course. That is why we have the prohibitions on meat packers from doing certain things. They can capture the value that producers have brought to the market with their market pricing and keep it for themselves or use it to consolidate the markets further, giving them more market power to do even worse things. Competition keeps them in check if there is any real competition. We have seen meat packers collude in their illegal activities, pay off politicians to get away with it, and hire the most connected law firms money can buy (filled with ex congressmen and officials who can game the system the best).



Tex
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Reaction score
441
Location
Big Muddy valley
Tex said:
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
Don't get like sh here. Meat packers (and retailers) want to increase the spread between what they pay you for cattle and what they get from the market. Sometimes they take actions that are specifically prohibited in the Packers and Stockyards Act to do it. Sometimes they don't. It all depends on the facts of what actually happened. These broad generalizations are pretty useless when it comes to the facts. Facts trump broad generalizations any day.


Tex

Aren't you talking about a couple of different "markets"? In the situation you have described, the rancher does not have access to the market that includes the retailer.

Yes, of course. That is why we have the prohibitions on meat packers from doing certain things. They can capture the value that producers have brought to the market with their market pricing and keep it for themselves or use it to consolidate the markets further, giving them more market power to do even worse things. Competition keeps them in check if there is any real competition. We have seen meat packers collude in their illegal activities, pay off politicians to get away with it, and hire the most connected law firms money can buy (filled with ex congressmen and officials who can game the system the best).



Tex


If they are breaking the current laws what good does it do to make more laws/

Shouldn't the original ones just be enforced?
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
416
Reaction score
0
Location
north eastern new mexico
BMR, Thats what the more goverment will save me types like TEX dont get or dont want to focus on is that before making new rules they need to make sure the current ones are enforced and used.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
nenmrancher said:
BMR, Thats what the more goverment will save me types like TEX dont get or dont want to focus on is that before making new rules they need to make sure the current ones are enforced and used.

There is a long story on this, nemrancher, that you have no idea about.

You can find the details in the actual GIPSA proposed regulations that work to stop the federal courts when they ignore the plain language in the law and the Bush and Obama USDA briefs in the case.

I agree the problem is with not enforcing the rules already on the books. To fix that one, we have to take a few federal judges off the bench who are doing the ignoring and the dirty work in their decisions.

Of course this dirty work can be traced all the way back to the members of the Judiciary Committee in the United States who are allowing this to happen on their watch and getting paid to do it through the myriad of campaign donations.

The rules are meant to correct these errant judges and their decisions.

I personally think the judges should be fired for throwing cases but the big money is against that in serious ways.

Tex
 

Ben H

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
1,738
Reaction score
0
Location
Gorham, ME
Article I section VIII of the constitution, the commerce clause as well as the 10th amendment. If animals don't cross state lines like the Montana raised label ( or whatever they call it) it is intrastate commerce not interstate, therefore the federal law requiring the checkoff can't apply.
 

Latest posts

Top