A
Anonymous
Guest
Your mother apparently didn't tell you about the consequences of lying and spreading misinformation with no facts to support it.
~SH~
~SH~
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.
Checkoff, doctors, beef, & whatever!
- Thread starter fedup2
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
~SH~ said:Your mother apparently didn't tell you about the consequences of lying and spreading misinformation with no facts to support it.
~SH~
Coming from you, that is another one of those things that just gives me a kick. I'll take the bait, what are they?
A
Anonymous
Guest
If you don't know the consequences for lying and spreading misinformation, I am not going to waste my time lecturing an idiot.
~SH~
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Econ101 said:~SH~ said:Your mother apparently didn't tell you about the consequences of lying and spreading misinformation with no facts to support it.
~SH~
Coming from you, that is another one of those things that just gives me a kick. I'll take the bait, what are they?
Losing $100 comes to mind........... :wink:
fedup2 said:One more question about the checkoff MRJ. During this Canadian strike, I'm reading where X number of thousand head per week are being sent to the U.S. for processing. I went to the checkoff site to see if $1 per head was being paid to the checkoff. I see that packers pay $1 to the CBB, but if they process the cattle in 10 days, no money is paid to the checkoff here. Am I reading this correctly & if I am, does the checkoff board have any numbers on how many head are coming into this country without paying checkoff? I am talking about all imported cattle, Canada, Mexico etc. Thanks for reading.[/quote
That ten day rule is in the checkoff law. I could be wrong, but believe it was insisted upon by the aution market owners, cattle traders, and others who buy and sell cattle, usually holding them for very short time periods. I am not in agreement with it because there are plenty of times when those are the only ones making money on cattle, but "my side" did not win that point.
I do not know if records are kept on that, or who would have them. You could check with [email protected] if you want to find out. If CBB doesn't have the info, he could probably tell you who might have it.
MRJ
Sandhusker said:Econ101 said:~SH~ said:Your mother apparently didn't tell you about the consequences of lying and spreading misinformation with no facts to support it.
~SH~
Coming from you, that is another one of those things that just gives me a kick. I'll take the bait, what are they?
Losing $100 comes to mind........... :wink:
Naaaahhhhhh, that's more likely the consequence of gambling and being foolish enough to trust a deceiver!
MRJ
Thanks for the response MRJ. When beef is attacked by veggies and animal rights terrorists, I don't have a problem with defending all beef. This seems like a sizeable loophole though. The checkoff could be missing out on hundreds of thousands of dollars & I believe all being defended & promoted should pay.
I still haven't found any problems with the checkoff. I was a little shocked when I saw $50,000 was paid out to the winner of a beef cook off until I saw it was all paid for by sponsors. No checkoff money was used. I don't know how it can be used any better or wiser than this. I am not done researching yet, but I have not found any waste of money. The main complaint seems to be its association with the NCBA. I am going to stay away from the political BS as there are enough views of that already.
I do know that I would hate to be a volunteer and do things like that cook off that I previously mentioned and then be called a crook for it. That would have to hurt. As far as your work with the check off I'll have to say, good job & thank you. (if I find anything legitimate to complain about, I will let you know that also!) LOL
My disclaimer: Put the branding irons away. This post is about the checkoff only! LOL!
I still haven't found any problems with the checkoff. I was a little shocked when I saw $50,000 was paid out to the winner of a beef cook off until I saw it was all paid for by sponsors. No checkoff money was used. I don't know how it can be used any better or wiser than this. I am not done researching yet, but I have not found any waste of money. The main complaint seems to be its association with the NCBA. I am going to stay away from the political BS as there are enough views of that already.
I do know that I would hate to be a volunteer and do things like that cook off that I previously mentioned and then be called a crook for it. That would have to hurt. As far as your work with the check off I'll have to say, good job & thank you. (if I find anything legitimate to complain about, I will let you know that also!) LOL
My disclaimer: Put the branding irons away. This post is about the checkoff only! LOL!
fedup2 said:Thanks for the response MRJ. When beef is attacked by veggies and animal rights terrorists, I don't have a problem with defending all beef. This seems like a sizeable loophole though. The checkoff could be missing out on hundreds of thousands of dollars & I believe all being defended & promoted should pay.
I still haven't found any problems with the checkoff. I was a little shocked when I saw $50,000 was paid out to the winner of a beef cook off until I saw it was all paid for by sponsors. No checkoff money was used. I don't know how it can be used any better or wiser than this. I am not done researching yet, but I have not found any waste of money. The main complaint seems to be its association with the NCBA. I am going to stay away from the political BS as there are enough views of that already.
I do know that I would hate to be a volunteer and do things like that cook off that I previously mentioned and then be called a crook for it. That would have to hurt. As far as your work with the check off I'll have to say, good job & thank you. (if I find anything legitimate to complain about, I will let you know that also!) LOL
My disclaimer: Put the branding irons away. This post is about the checkoff only! LOL!
Fedup2, Good points.
MRJ and Fedup2, it is not my position that everyone in the NCBA is "crooked". Even in the worst bunch of people (and I do not have the experience to base a judgement on except a few conversations with NCBA leadership I have already mentioned) you will find some good ones and in the best bunch you will find some bad ones. This is even the case with Tyson.
When I criticize the NCBA (and I have not done this specifically), it is not the worker bees who are to be criticized. It is the strategic decision makers that make the policies that are not in the best interest of those who they are supposed to represent; the producers. Too often the interests of the packers are represented on the strategic level. Many times the producers will not even know about this level of thought. I do have problems with the influence the packers have at GIPSA and the USDA and their oversight of checkoff dollars. It is only my intention to point out these concerns.
Thanks for your research into the spending of the checkoff money. I sure don't have the time to chase that calf.
Thank you Econ. It is great that you voice your concerns. Thats what a forum is all about. I have done very little research on the NCBA or R-Calf at this time. I do read the point-counter point posts on this forum. (the informative ones) I feel all organizations should be questioned or kept in check to keep representing their members wishes.
I watched the NRA 'top brass' make decisions that went against their members because they felt their members were uninformed and they knew better. It cost them thousands of members. This was many years ago.
I read a couple of sites which blasted the checkoff but did not validate anything. I will keep reading. What I have found so far has been good. I am not on a witch hunt nor do I want to get sent to the 'nicey nicey' forum! LOL! I will keep searching and reading as time permits. Also thank you for taking the time for posting your thoughts. I may not agree with them all, but I do read them.
I watched the NRA 'top brass' make decisions that went against their members because they felt their members were uninformed and they knew better. It cost them thousands of members. This was many years ago.
I read a couple of sites which blasted the checkoff but did not validate anything. I will keep reading. What I have found so far has been good. I am not on a witch hunt nor do I want to get sent to the 'nicey nicey' forum! LOL! I will keep searching and reading as time permits. Also thank you for taking the time for posting your thoughts. I may not agree with them all, but I do read them.
Econ 101, thanks for sharing your thoughts re. the "ten day rule" excluding cattle traders and others from paying the checkoff on cattle owned for the short period. I'm still not sure if it is ten or fourteen days, BTW. I could look it up, but that could take all day. Will try to remember to "ask a friend" when visiting with someone who might know.
Sure, it might bring in more money.It is possible the donations of some packers, order buyers, and others into various checkoff projects is a good trade-off, too. It is interesting that those people, and my understanding is that it was the auction market owners and order buyers more than the packer/feeders who got the exclusion in the law, had the power to do that while dairy people did not have the power to exclude baby calves sometimes owned for only hours or days before being sold, unless I've been mis-informed by what I have read on that aspect.
BTW, the volunteers from SD who helped with the cook-off have all been very up-beat about the experience. Most have pointed out the value to our industry of not only the publicity, but the good relationships with media and other entities. You just cannot buy the value of personal relationships that can give reporters and other professionals an accurate glimpse at the beef industry and the families involved in it. I also hear it was very good for the potential of future SD tourism, judging by the comments of many people in the state for the first time. I just wish we had tried harder to make time to help with it. We had lost one helper to college, one to high school, and one to a different job, so were feeling particularly pinched for getting haying finished and starting fall cattle work.......and still are.......so maybe it wouldn't have made much difference if we were a few more days behind in the work.
Econ, I would remind you that the NCBA leadership is not static. It changes. Presidency is normally one year. Directors come and go. The nomination committee interviews and discussion before electing officers is rigorous and serious business involving different people serving on that committee each year. Personally, we like that system because it prevents "bureaucratic" type entrenched leadership. There have been some excellent leaders we hated to lose, but there is opportunity for more people to share their skills and even develop in the process of moving up the line. And it has the benefit that if a "dud" does get through the process, we are not stuck with him for long!
Your comment about "strategic decision makers that make the policies...." Specifically what do you mean? I have seen leaders and staff who are called upon to answer questions and give opinions, but in the end it is the members who vote on the actions/decisions to be taken, with very little left to the board members and other leaders, ultimately. If you see it differently, I sure would be interested in hearing you version, clearly, not in innuendo........I need direct statements because anything else leaves room for mistakes in understanding!
I would also like to hear detail of your claim of a "strategic level", and specifically how "too often the interests of the packers are represented on the strategic level". Same with "influence the packers have at GIPSA and USDA and their oversight of checkoff dollars". How can anything be done if we do not have specific details on these claims?
I believe the function of the USDA oversight is to assure adherence to the law and rules governing the checkoff, as well as finances. I suppose there have been things they did not allow, but the only one I can recall at the moment is an ad that seemed a little silly to me which was anti-poultry. They did allow the one comparing nutrients very favorably with chicken, spinach, and other foods often considered "health foods". Do you know of other problems there? I'm interested in learning of them.
So far as my research into the spending of checkoff money.......I strongly believe ALL cattle producers should, and I know they could quite easily via internet and phone, learn all they can about the workings of the checkoff, the leaders, and the effect of their dollars, then get to work and influence the spending of checkoff dollars in ways to improve upon the present actions. Sure, it does have to fit within the law, but working with it has had some real benefits, and that is more effective than complaining about things for which it cannot be used. Lobbying comes quickly to mind!
fedup2, Is the NRA you reference the National Rifle Assoc.? Just want to be sure what you mean.
BTW, that situation is probably the major reason a category for Producer Information is included in the checkoff law and budget. The sad thing is that you cannot force-feed the information to people who do not want to bother to read/hear it, or worse, who refuse to believe it because they hate the program and the people involved in if for whatever reasons they dream up.
MRJ
Sure, it might bring in more money.It is possible the donations of some packers, order buyers, and others into various checkoff projects is a good trade-off, too. It is interesting that those people, and my understanding is that it was the auction market owners and order buyers more than the packer/feeders who got the exclusion in the law, had the power to do that while dairy people did not have the power to exclude baby calves sometimes owned for only hours or days before being sold, unless I've been mis-informed by what I have read on that aspect.
BTW, the volunteers from SD who helped with the cook-off have all been very up-beat about the experience. Most have pointed out the value to our industry of not only the publicity, but the good relationships with media and other entities. You just cannot buy the value of personal relationships that can give reporters and other professionals an accurate glimpse at the beef industry and the families involved in it. I also hear it was very good for the potential of future SD tourism, judging by the comments of many people in the state for the first time. I just wish we had tried harder to make time to help with it. We had lost one helper to college, one to high school, and one to a different job, so were feeling particularly pinched for getting haying finished and starting fall cattle work.......and still are.......so maybe it wouldn't have made much difference if we were a few more days behind in the work.
Econ, I would remind you that the NCBA leadership is not static. It changes. Presidency is normally one year. Directors come and go. The nomination committee interviews and discussion before electing officers is rigorous and serious business involving different people serving on that committee each year. Personally, we like that system because it prevents "bureaucratic" type entrenched leadership. There have been some excellent leaders we hated to lose, but there is opportunity for more people to share their skills and even develop in the process of moving up the line. And it has the benefit that if a "dud" does get through the process, we are not stuck with him for long!
Your comment about "strategic decision makers that make the policies...." Specifically what do you mean? I have seen leaders and staff who are called upon to answer questions and give opinions, but in the end it is the members who vote on the actions/decisions to be taken, with very little left to the board members and other leaders, ultimately. If you see it differently, I sure would be interested in hearing you version, clearly, not in innuendo........I need direct statements because anything else leaves room for mistakes in understanding!
I would also like to hear detail of your claim of a "strategic level", and specifically how "too often the interests of the packers are represented on the strategic level". Same with "influence the packers have at GIPSA and USDA and their oversight of checkoff dollars". How can anything be done if we do not have specific details on these claims?
I believe the function of the USDA oversight is to assure adherence to the law and rules governing the checkoff, as well as finances. I suppose there have been things they did not allow, but the only one I can recall at the moment is an ad that seemed a little silly to me which was anti-poultry. They did allow the one comparing nutrients very favorably with chicken, spinach, and other foods often considered "health foods". Do you know of other problems there? I'm interested in learning of them.
So far as my research into the spending of checkoff money.......I strongly believe ALL cattle producers should, and I know they could quite easily via internet and phone, learn all they can about the workings of the checkoff, the leaders, and the effect of their dollars, then get to work and influence the spending of checkoff dollars in ways to improve upon the present actions. Sure, it does have to fit within the law, but working with it has had some real benefits, and that is more effective than complaining about things for which it cannot be used. Lobbying comes quickly to mind!
fedup2, Is the NRA you reference the National Rifle Assoc.? Just want to be sure what you mean.
BTW, that situation is probably the major reason a category for Producer Information is included in the checkoff law and budget. The sad thing is that you cannot force-feed the information to people who do not want to bother to read/hear it, or worse, who refuse to believe it because they hate the program and the people involved in if for whatever reasons they dream up.
MRJ
S.S.A.P.
Well-known member
Econ101 said:Fedup2, Good points.
MRJ and Fedup2, it is not my position that everyone in the NCBA is "crooked". Even in the worst bunch of people (and I do not have the experience to base a judgement on except a few conversations with NCBA leadership I have already mentioned) you will find some good ones and in the best bunch you will find some bad ones. This is even the case with Tyson.
When I criticize the NCBA (and I have not done this specifically), it is not the worker bees who are to be criticized. It is the strategic decision makers that make the policies that are not in the best interest of those who they are supposed to represent; the producers. Too often the interests of the packers are represented on the strategic level. Many times the producers will not even know about this level of thought. I do have problems with the influence the packers have at GIPSA and the USDA and their oversight of checkoff dollars. It is only my intention to point out these concerns.
Thanks for your research into the spending of the checkoff money. I sure don't have the time to chase that calf.
Econ101 - since you brought up the subject :
....it is not the worker bees who are to be criticized. It is the strategic decision makers that make the policies that are not in the best interest of those who they are supposed to represent; the producers......
....It is only my intention to point out these concerns.
Could you please copy and paste those NCBA, GIPSA & USDA policies here (the ones not in the best interest of the producer) - so I can put them into perspective as to how these (policies) may also be found in our Canadian system ..... I'm looking to see if the packers have infiltrated (sp) my producer organizations to the degree you say they have in the US industry.
MRJ,
If a calf gets sold 5 times are there 5 checkoff dollars collected? It seems to me that the boxed beef is only sold once from the packer's door. Wouldn't this be an easier way to get the checkoff dollar? In addition to the live cattle having this "advertising tax" you would catch foreign sources of beef that is benefitting from U.S. advertising.
In answer to your question on the strategic level of policy I will use the example of the farm bureau. There are a lot of good people in the farm bureau and I know a lot of them. They do good work and their hearts and minds are in the right place. However, when talking about some of the current issues with the cheif economist at the national farm bureau in washington d.c., I was told directly that the national farm bureau does not support the producer protections of the PSA. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 is an act that is meant to protect the producer surplus from market power of processors. By not supporting the efficient enforcement of this law, they are supporting a strategic goal of the packers and big corporations instead of the individual producers. If you were on any other level at the farm bureau, you would not know or see this happening (there has been some western state uprising to the national farm bureau, however).
Even many of the state farm bureau organizations don't know what is going on in this regard. The national farm bureau has been able to sell policies down the line to people who do not understand the consequences of these strategic decisions. Not everyone thinks like an economist (I have the curse, as it is) and therefore is not aware of what is happening. This does not mean that any or all of the people at the lower levels of the farm bureau are stupid, bad, ore even incompetent. They are just being used. They are being used to support policies for a variety of little unstrategic reasons that ensure that the real money and power in the U.S. economy stays in the hands of the few. I believe this is wrong. The problem is that this money and power is very influential on our political process. If you have enough money you can "spin" reality the way you want. Most of us do not have the time to research and find the truth. We have to rely on other people to do this and tell us what is going on. Then we take positions that seem to be in our best interests because that is how they were "sold" to us. As an example, how many of you cattlemen have talked to the few industry policy makers about these issues I have mentioned in my posts on these subjects? (Johanns, Chuck Lambert, GIPSA officials, economists at the USDA, economists at the land grant universities, etc......) This is really a short list of all the people I have contacted regarding these issues.
It is too bad that this forum is continually hijacked by some who go into calling names and ranting. It allows for the coverup. There is room for disagreement on every issue and we all have our viewpoints that come from our individual experiences. I respect other people who have a disagreement and can support their views. That is how we find the common "truth" instead of it being forced on us.
That is also the process that jurors have to go through when sitting on a jury.
If a calf gets sold 5 times are there 5 checkoff dollars collected? It seems to me that the boxed beef is only sold once from the packer's door. Wouldn't this be an easier way to get the checkoff dollar? In addition to the live cattle having this "advertising tax" you would catch foreign sources of beef that is benefitting from U.S. advertising.
In answer to your question on the strategic level of policy I will use the example of the farm bureau. There are a lot of good people in the farm bureau and I know a lot of them. They do good work and their hearts and minds are in the right place. However, when talking about some of the current issues with the cheif economist at the national farm bureau in washington d.c., I was told directly that the national farm bureau does not support the producer protections of the PSA. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 is an act that is meant to protect the producer surplus from market power of processors. By not supporting the efficient enforcement of this law, they are supporting a strategic goal of the packers and big corporations instead of the individual producers. If you were on any other level at the farm bureau, you would not know or see this happening (there has been some western state uprising to the national farm bureau, however).
Even many of the state farm bureau organizations don't know what is going on in this regard. The national farm bureau has been able to sell policies down the line to people who do not understand the consequences of these strategic decisions. Not everyone thinks like an economist (I have the curse, as it is) and therefore is not aware of what is happening. This does not mean that any or all of the people at the lower levels of the farm bureau are stupid, bad, ore even incompetent. They are just being used. They are being used to support policies for a variety of little unstrategic reasons that ensure that the real money and power in the U.S. economy stays in the hands of the few. I believe this is wrong. The problem is that this money and power is very influential on our political process. If you have enough money you can "spin" reality the way you want. Most of us do not have the time to research and find the truth. We have to rely on other people to do this and tell us what is going on. Then we take positions that seem to be in our best interests because that is how they were "sold" to us. As an example, how many of you cattlemen have talked to the few industry policy makers about these issues I have mentioned in my posts on these subjects? (Johanns, Chuck Lambert, GIPSA officials, economists at the USDA, economists at the land grant universities, etc......) This is really a short list of all the people I have contacted regarding these issues.
It is too bad that this forum is continually hijacked by some who go into calling names and ranting. It allows for the coverup. There is room for disagreement on every issue and we all have our viewpoints that come from our individual experiences. I respect other people who have a disagreement and can support their views. That is how we find the common "truth" instead of it being forced on us.
That is also the process that jurors have to go through when sitting on a jury.
Econ101 said:MRJ,
If a calf gets sold 5 times are there 5 checkoff dollars collected? It seems to me that the boxed beef is only sold once from the packer's door. Wouldn't this be an easier way to get the checkoff dollar? In addition to the live cattle having this "advertising tax" you would catch foreign sources of beef that is benefitting from U.S. advertising.
{Good question, Econ. If the ten/fourteen day rule applies to all, not just market owners, order buyers, etc. then the calf would have to be owned the correct number of days before the Checkoff would be required. If the rule applies only to those groups, then each time a calf is sold by someone not in those groups, the checkoff would be due. Maybe we need to check on those R-CALF fundraising sales!
BTW, the checkoff is due on ALL imported beef, on the hoof or in the box, IF owned by people, businesses, or others NOT covered under the days owned rule. Boxed beef in pounds equivalent to one head of cattle owe one dollar to the checkoff. Imported beef does result in significant money coming into the checkoff coffers. MRJ}
In answer to your question on the strategic level of policy I will use the example of the farm bureau. There are a lot of good people in the farm bureau and I know a lot of them. They do good work and their hearts and minds are in the right place. However, when talking about some of the current issues with the cheif economist at the national farm bureau in washington d.c., I was told directly that the national farm bureau does not support the producer protections of the PSA. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 is an act that is meant to protect the producer surplus from market power of processors. By not supporting the efficient enforcement of this law, they are supporting a strategic goal of the packers and big corporations instead of the individual producers. If you were on any other level at the farm bureau, you would not know or see this happening (there has been some western state uprising to the national farm bureau, however).
Even many of the state farm bureau organizations don't know what is going on in this regard. The national farm bureau has been able to sell policies down the line to people who do not understand the consequences of these strategic decisions. Not everyone thinks like an economist (I have the curse, as it is) and therefore is not aware of what is happening. This does not mean that any or all of the people at the lower levels of the farm bureau are stupid, bad, ore even incompetent. They are just being used. They are being used to support policies for a variety of little unstrategic reasons that ensure that the real money and power in the U.S. economy stays in the hands of the few. I believe this is wrong. The problem is that this money and power is very influential on our political process. If you have enough money you can "spin" reality the way you want. Most of us do not have the time to research and find the truth. We have to rely on other people to do this and tell us what is going on. Then we take positions that seem to be in our best interests because that is how they were "sold" to us. As an example, how many of you cattlemen have talked to the few industry policy makers about these issues I have mentioned in my posts on these subjects? (Johanns, Chuck Lambert, GIPSA officials, economists at the USDA, economists at the land grant universities, etc......) This is really a short list of all the people I have contacted regarding these issues.
{First, I will say that Farm Bureau structure of representative governance and multi-term officers with pay, is very different from NCBA governance. Not that one is better or worse than the other, but that they are different. To each his own. We are FB members, but pretty much non-participating in the activities. We respect the organization and many of the members we know. We appreciate their willingness to work with NCBA when, where, and how it suits both groups. I'm sure you won't mind if I run your "take" on their group by some of my friends active in the group. I will reply further after doing so.
That said, are you aware that the majority of policy issues of NCBA Dues/Policy division come UP from the bottom, rather than down from the top? Members of local groups of state organizations affiliated with NCBA take their ideas and causes to their state meeting. If they can convince enough members from other locals to support them, those issues go on to the NCBA convention, going through the committee and resolutions process there, where MEMBERS from various states have their inputs and vote it up or down. If it fails, MEMBERS, again, can bring it to the floor, where the MEMBERS have the final decision on the issues that become policy of NCBA. Please also remember, it is ONLY the Dues/Policy division that sets policy. The Federation Division of NCBA is simply the national organization of the state Beef Councils and does not make and set policy on issues to be supported or opposed by lobbying by NCBA Policy Dues division.
You say that not everyone thinks like an economist........what I want to know is, do you believe all economists do, or should, think alike? You sound as though you are telling us that ALL economists agree with your ideas about the evil complicity of packers, corporations, "leaders" of NCBA, Farm Bureau , et al. manipulating and harming producers for the sake of corporate gain. BTW, where do you think Farmers Union or any other ag organizations stand in your theories about such complicity? MRJ}
It is too bad that this forum is continually hijacked by some who go into calling names and ranting. It allows for the coverup. There is room for disagreement on every issue and we all have our viewpoints that come from our individual experiences. I respect other people who have a disagreement and can support their views. That is how we find the common "truth" instead of it being forced on us.
That is also the process that jurors have to go through when sitting on a jury.
Good question, Econ. If the ten/fourteen day rule applies to all, not just market owners, order buyers, etc. then the calf would have to be owned the correct number of days before the Checkoff would be required. If the rule applies only to those groups, then each time a calf is sold by someone not in those groups, the checkoff would be due. Maybe we need to check on those R-CALF fundraising sales!
Might as well check out the NCBA cow or bull sales that go the the PAC while you are at it.
My main point on the beef checkoff is that in order for the producer to get any money out of it, the money must first go through the packer's hands. If the checkoff is going to allow beef to compete with chicken and pork, as most cattlemen say needs to happen, how in the world do you think you will get your hands on it? Tyson and Swift and Cargill will make us some excuse to capture that value. The packers are not required to report to GIPSA current information that would have made it easier for cattlemen to win a price manipulation case. How do you cattlemen ever think you are going to get any of that money as it comes through those hands? You people have just funded an ineffective advertising campaign as far as getting a return on investement under the current checkoff program.
Maybe you should believe SH that extra money comes back through the packers to the producers. If it does, why isn't the checkoff on boxed beef? Then you wouldn't have to make sure the money came through the packer's hands back down to you. All beef sold in the U.S. would be subject to the checkoff in that case and there would be no free foreign riders on the backs of cattle producers for the benefit of packers or other importers.
Maybe you should believe SH that extra money comes back through the packers to the producers. If it does, why isn't the checkoff on boxed beef? Then you wouldn't have to make sure the money came through the packer's hands back down to you. All beef sold in the U.S. would be subject to the checkoff in that case and there would be no free foreign riders on the backs of cattle producers for the benefit of packers or other importers.
pointrider
Well-known member
Econ 101,
If you don't mind telling us, how do you market your calves?
Thanks in advance!
If you don't mind telling us, how do you market your calves?
Thanks in advance!
pointrider said:Econ 101,
If you don't mind telling us, how do you market your calves?
Thanks in advance!
Pointrider, I have sold them at the auction, to private buyers, and through special sales. Most of the private buyers were taking them for their own use as I fed them out. I usually made my own feed mix up with the particulars of that fattening in mind. I used probably an old method-Peterson's method for making sure my feed was low cost and nutritious. Calculations done by hand. I know there are computer programs for this now, but I don't use them.
I admit I am not a large feeder and the deals I make do not make a difference on the market at all. I have an interest in making sure there is a local butcher and I know they have a hard time sometimes. The big "Walmart" packers churn out walmart quality. I have had too many examples of their quality of meat.
rancher said:Good question, Econ. If the ten/fourteen day rule applies to all, not just market owners, order buyers, etc. then the calf would have to be owned the correct number of days before the Checkoff would be required. If the rule applies only to those groups, then each time a calf is sold by someone not in those groups, the checkoff would be due. Maybe we need to check on those R-CALF fundraising sales!
Might as well check out the NCBA cow or bull sales that go the the PAC while you are at it.
rancher, it is pretty early and aches kept me awake since about 2AM, so may be a bit more dense than I should be, but I simply do not know what you mean by "NCBA cow or bull sales that go to the PAC". Can you explain what you mean?
MRJ
