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

Checkoff poll for USA ranchers only

Checkoff raise it or keep it the same.

  • Keep it like it is now.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Raise the beef checkoff.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Tommy

Well-known member
Checkoff poll for USA ranchers only.

There is talk that it will be put to a vote on whether the beef checkoff should be raised or not. Give me your opinions one way or the other as to how much it should be raised or not at all please.
 

Clarence

Well-known member
I say leave it like it is. While I do favor the checkoff, there is no sound evidence that it has really helped the producer. Of course the media tells us it has helped, but they favor it as it provides more money for advertising. Beef demand has increased but it is hard to give the checkoff much credit for it. Consumers have found that removing red meat from the diet didn't work, so now that fad has ended. Also earning for consumers have increased have increased in the last few years, people have more money to spend for the things they like best. I think a close hard look at where and how the checkoff dollars are spent might better serve the producer.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Clarence said:
I say leave it like it is. While I do favor the checkoff, there is no sound evidence that it has really helped the producer. Of course the media tells us it has helped, but they favor it as it provides more money for advertising. Beef demand has increased but it is hard to give the checkoff much credit for it. Consumers have found that removing red meat from the diet didn't work, so now that fad has ended. Also earning for consumers have increased have increased in the last few years, people have more money to spend for the things they like best. I think a close hard look at where and how the checkoff dollars are spent might better serve the producer.

Amen.

If anyone has a link to Dr. Ron Ward's actual study on the checkoff, please let me have it. It is the most widely cited study of the efficacy of the program but the study itself seems to be hard to find.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Clarence said:
I say leave it like it is. While I do favor the checkoff, there is no sound evidence that it has really helped the producer. Of course the media tells us it has helped, but they favor it as it provides more money for advertising. Beef demand has increased but it is hard to give the checkoff much credit for it. Consumers have found that removing red meat from the diet didn't work, so now that fad has ended. Also earning for consumers have increased have increased in the last few years, people have more money to spend for the things they like best. I think a close hard look at where and how the checkoff dollars are spent might better serve the producer.

I'm with Clarence. It would be very premature to talk about putting more money into a program that can obviously be improved upon. I'm sure it's helped demand, but we don't even know if were getting our money's worth at a buck. I say let's tune it up first and see how it runs before putting on new paint.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Guys, while I totally support the Beef Checkoff concept, I'm not certain I want to increase it. Definitely before we see how the new efforts to change it shake out.

In a perfect world, only those who support it would benefit. Personally, we are supporting the NCBA PAC and other efforts as well as paying the Beef Checkoff. We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.

Interestingly, leaders of both R-CALF and LMA must have agreed with the premise that the Beef Checkoff HAS helped raise beef demand and is a good thing to support according to recent news stories in ag media.

Clarence, you CAN get your "close hard look" at checkoff spending! It is as near as www.beefboard.org. Or you can email [email protected] and ask whatever you want to know. Certainly your state beef council would provide you an in-depth look at the subject.

Also, the amount spent on advertising with checkoff dollars has shrunk dramatically since other projects and research are taking many of those dollars formerly spent on advertising.

And, there STILL are many people touting the health need to cut red meat and we need to counter their often less than accurate propaganda with facts about the nutrients in beef. It may well become accepted as the health food many of us have long understood it to be, and we had to find and disseminate the research to prove our point.

Granted, consumer incomes have helped consumption, but anti-beef "news" stories abound to turn them to other protein sources, too.

Sandhusker, I do hope you study the checkoff a bit more and find out ALL the good things it has done/is doing for cattle producers before claiming we may not be getting our moneys' worth from it! Not the least of which is the stellar accomplishments in getting people in related businesses and other segments of the cattle/beef industry to pony up something around $60.00 of THEIR money for every Checkoff $ on many cooperative projects.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If US beef were identified and labeled and all the added checkoff funding was used to advertise and promote USA- RAISED BEEF thruout the world- I'd gladly increase the checkoff by another $1- maybe even more...

Australia's checkoff is now $5 and most is being used to promote Australian beef- unlike our checkoff that promotes generic beef ( which includes Australias)......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "Sandhusker, I do hope you study the checkoff a bit more and find out ALL the good things it has done/is doing for cattle producers before claiming we may not be getting our moneys' worth from it! Not the least of which is the stellar accomplishments in getting people in related businesses and other segments of the cattle/beef industry to pony up something around $60.00 of THEIR money for every Checkoff $ on many cooperative projects"

We may not be getting our bucks worth. It's hard to say. It seems to me that beef consumption has decreased more years than it has increased since the check-off has been in existance. It's hard for me to heap too much praise on it because of that alone. I'd also venture that Atkins did more for consumption than the checkoff has. Maybe the best use of checkoff dollars would of been to buy a few million Atkins books and distribute them for free.

Regardless, it is assinine to have a policy of US producers footing most of the bill on a program that gives their competitor's products equal billing. Absolutely rediculous. What other industry does that? Doesn't that tell you something? If you would change this alone, a huge chunk of the opposition would quiet down.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Guys, while I totally support the Beef Checkoff concept, I'm not certain I want to increase it. Definitely before we see how the new efforts to change it shake out.

In a perfect world, only those who support it would benefit. Personally, we are supporting the NCBA PAC and other efforts as well as paying the Beef Checkoff. We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.

Interestingly, leaders of both R-CALF and LMA must have agreed with the premise that the Beef Checkoff HAS helped raise beef demand and is a good thing to support according to recent news stories in ag media.

Clarence, you CAN get your "close hard look" at checkoff spending! It is as near as www.beefboard.org. Or you can email [email protected] and ask whatever you want to know. Certainly your state beef council would provide you an in-depth look at the subject.

Also, the amount spent on advertising with checkoff dollars has shrunk dramatically since other projects and research are taking many of those dollars formerly spent on advertising.

And, there STILL are many people touting the health need to cut red meat and we need to counter their often less than accurate propaganda with facts about the nutrients in beef. It may well become accepted as the health food many of us have long understood it to be, and we had to find and disseminate the research to prove our point.

Granted, consumer incomes have helped consumption, but anti-beef "news" stories abound to turn them to other protein sources, too.

Sandhusker, I do hope you study the checkoff a bit more and find out ALL the good things it has done/is doing for cattle producers before claiming we may not be getting our moneys' worth from it! Not the least of which is the stellar accomplishments in getting people in related businesses and other segments of the cattle/beef industry to pony up something around $60.00 of THEIR money for every Checkoff $ on many cooperative projects.

MRJ

MRJ, that is about the best post I believe I have read from you. Kudos for recognizing that spending more money in more populated states than just your own will benefit you greater than money spent in just your state.

Now you are starting to think.

If you have it, I would still like to look at Dr. Ron Ward's study that is quoted by the NCBA, and other organizations as the definitive study on the beef checkoff return on investement.

Without peer review (actually, real advertisers get better information than this when analyizing their advertising dollar ROI), we can not even tell of Dr. Ron Ward's research of the subject is viable and what part of checkoff dollars gets the most bang for the buck.

His studies should be out on the net for all to see including data sources, methodology, etc.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.


Well said MRJ, I call it preaching to the choir. here's an example that torments me. On K State broadcasts, you'll hear plenty of checkoff adds, but on Kansas broadcasts, no adds. Like accessing oakley and Elkhardt and Great Bend is more fruitful than metro KC and Wichita.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Producers certainly don't need to waste any more money on a program that will only be marginally effective at best with their current PR direction.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Guys, while I totally support the Beef Checkoff concept, I'm not certain I want to increase it. Definitely before we see how the new efforts to change it shake out.

In a perfect world, only those who support it would benefit. Personally, we are supporting the NCBA PAC and other efforts as well as paying the Beef Checkoff. We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.

Interestingly, leaders of both R-CALF and LMA must have agreed with the premise that the Beef Checkoff HAS helped raise beef demand and is a good thing to support according to recent news stories in ag media.

Clarence, you CAN get your "close hard look" at checkoff spending! It is as near as www.beefboard.org. Or you can email [email protected] and ask whatever you want to know. Certainly your state beef council would provide you an in-depth look at the subject.

Also, the amount spent on advertising with checkoff dollars has shrunk dramatically since other projects and research are taking many of those dollars formerly spent on advertising.

And, there STILL are many people touting the health need to cut red meat and we need to counter their often less than accurate propaganda with facts about the nutrients in beef. It may well become accepted as the health food many of us have long understood it to be, and we had to find and disseminate the research to prove our point.

Granted, consumer incomes have helped consumption, but anti-beef "news" stories abound to turn them to other protein sources, too.

Sandhusker, I do hope you study the checkoff a bit more and find out ALL the good things it has done/is doing for cattle producers before claiming we may not be getting our moneys' worth from it! Not the least of which is the stellar accomplishments in getting people in related businesses and other segments of the cattle/beef industry to pony up something around $60.00 of THEIR money for every Checkoff $ on many cooperative projects.

MRJ

MRJ, that is about the best post I believe I have read from you. Kudos for recognizing that spending more money in more populated states than just your own will benefit you greater than money spent in just your state.

Now you are starting to think.

If you have it, I would still like to look at Dr. Ron Ward's study that is quoted by the NCBA, and other organizations as the definitive study on the beef checkoff return on investement.

Without peer review (actually, real advertisers get better information than this when analyizing their advertising dollar ROI), we can not even tell of Dr. Ron Ward's research of the subject is viable and what part of checkoff dollars gets the most bang for the buck.

His studies should be out on the net for all to see including data sources, methodology, etc.

Golly gee, Econ, I guess I should be suitably impressed to be praised by the sellf-proclaimed most educated of us all!

Fact is, I've probably been "thinking" since long before you were born! The simple fact that you do not like my line of thought has nothing to do with the quality of my thoughts, contrary to your apparent belief.

Actually, I advocated and supported efforts to spend more money where more consumers live a very long time ago. Beef Checkoff leaders realize it does pay off. The problem is getting some state leaders to 'see the light' rather than spending state share of checkoff dollars 'building castles' at home.

Re. Dr. Ron Wards' study, have you asked the CBB for it? It was done a long time ago and I don't know if it has been updated, and have probably forgotten most of what I learned from it when it was current. You, if staying true to your usual mode want it only to tear down Beef Checkoff leadership and/or NCBA. Obviously, those cattle producers in leadership positions used the best person they could afford, to do the work they believed was needed in order to best serve their duties for the checkoff.


Sandhusker, you would do your rancher customers a better service if you would learn the real competitors for beef producers. It is competing proteins, not other beef! I don't favor changing good procedures to cater to people holding false beliefs, but won't be surprised if that change is made for just that reason, unfounded though it is.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Brad S said:
We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.


Well said MRJ, I call it preaching to the choir. here's an example that torments me. On K State broadcasts, you'll hear plenty of checkoff adds, but on Kansas broadcasts, no adds. Like accessing oakley and Elkhardt and Great Bend is more fruitful than metro KC and Wichita.

Brad, have you asked your checkoff leaders what the deal is? I know part of the reason for ads in producer publications, etc. is to show producers what is being done, and it is pretty low budget stuff.

RobertMac, which program are you referring to? How do you know it "will only be marginally effective? What is the PR direction with which you disagree? Have you discussed this with your state Beef Council type group? Have you emailed CBB ? You could ask Monte Reese, or Diane Henderson, and my guess is you would get a prompt reply. [email protected] or [email protected]

MRJ
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Thanks to all who participated in the poll. It is still a large majority that do not want it raised.
The reason the CBB and other industry groups are willing to bring it to the table to change some things in the checkoff is that they want to raise it. That is it, cut and dried.
Let your national and state associations know how you feel about this.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Guys, while I totally support the Beef Checkoff concept, I'm not certain I want to increase it. Definitely before we see how the new efforts to change it shake out.

In a perfect world, only those who support it would benefit. Personally, we are supporting the NCBA PAC and other efforts as well as paying the Beef Checkoff. We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.

Interestingly, leaders of both R-CALF and LMA must have agreed with the premise that the Beef Checkoff HAS helped raise beef demand and is a good thing to support according to recent news stories in ag media.

Clarence, you CAN get your "close hard look" at checkoff spending! It is as near as www.beefboard.org. Or you can email [email protected] and ask whatever you want to know. Certainly your state beef council would provide you an in-depth look at the subject.

Also, the amount spent on advertising with checkoff dollars has shrunk dramatically since other projects and research are taking many of those dollars formerly spent on advertising.

And, there STILL are many people touting the health need to cut red meat and we need to counter their often less than accurate propaganda with facts about the nutrients in beef. It may well become accepted as the health food many of us have long understood it to be, and we had to find and disseminate the research to prove our point.

Granted, consumer incomes have helped consumption, but anti-beef "news" stories abound to turn them to other protein sources, too.

Sandhusker, I do hope you study the checkoff a bit more and find out ALL the good things it has done/is doing for cattle producers before claiming we may not be getting our moneys' worth from it! Not the least of which is the stellar accomplishments in getting people in related businesses and other segments of the cattle/beef industry to pony up something around $60.00 of THEIR money for every Checkoff $ on many cooperative projects.

MRJ

MRJ, that is about the best post I believe I have read from you. Kudos for recognizing that spending more money in more populated states than just your own will benefit you greater than money spent in just your state.

Now you are starting to think.

If you have it, I would still like to look at Dr. Ron Ward's study that is quoted by the NCBA, and other organizations as the definitive study on the beef checkoff return on investement.

Without peer review (actually, real advertisers get better information than this when analyizing their advertising dollar ROI), we can not even tell of Dr. Ron Ward's research of the subject is viable and what part of checkoff dollars gets the most bang for the buck.

His studies should be out on the net for all to see including data sources, methodology, etc.


Econ, have you checked www.beefboard.org to read the studies by Dr. Ward? My understanding is that they have been on the website from the time they were finished.

MRJ
 

CattleRMe

Well-known member
I'm for leaving it the same. Who likes to be told to right a check that is manditory wether you believe in the program or not?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Guys, while I totally support the Beef Checkoff concept, I'm not certain I want to increase it. Definitely before we see how the new efforts to change it shake out.

In a perfect world, only those who support it would benefit. Personally, we are supporting the NCBA PAC and other efforts as well as paying the Beef Checkoff. We feel too much of the state share is being spent within SD, which has far fewer people to eat our beef than more populous states with little checkoff money available. That SD money sent to the Federation of State Beef Councils can do double duty.....secure more directors from SD (therefore more control by SD of national projects) AND put more info about beef into the hands of more consumers who reasonably would have less knowledge of beef benefits than do the people of SD.

Interestingly, leaders of both R-CALF and LMA must have agreed with the premise that the Beef Checkoff HAS helped raise beef demand and is a good thing to support according to recent news stories in ag media.

Clarence, you CAN get your "close hard look" at checkoff spending! It is as near as www.beefboard.org. Or you can email [email protected] and ask whatever you want to know. Certainly your state beef council would provide you an in-depth look at the subject.

Also, the amount spent on advertising with checkoff dollars has shrunk dramatically since other projects and research are taking many of those dollars formerly spent on advertising.

And, there STILL are many people touting the health need to cut red meat and we need to counter their often less than accurate propaganda with facts about the nutrients in beef. It may well become accepted as the health food many of us have long understood it to be, and we had to find and disseminate the research to prove our point.

Granted, consumer incomes have helped consumption, but anti-beef "news" stories abound to turn them to other protein sources, too.

Sandhusker, I do hope you study the checkoff a bit more and find out ALL the good things it has done/is doing for cattle producers before claiming we may not be getting our moneys' worth from it! Not the least of which is the stellar accomplishments in getting people in related businesses and other segments of the cattle/beef industry to pony up something around $60.00 of THEIR money for every Checkoff $ on many cooperative projects.

MRJ

MRJ, that is about the best post I believe I have read from you. Kudos for recognizing that spending more money in more populated states than just your own will benefit you greater than money spent in just your state.

Now you are starting to think.

If you have it, I would still like to look at Dr. Ron Ward's study that is quoted by the NCBA, and other organizations as the definitive study on the beef checkoff return on investement.

Without peer review (actually, real advertisers get better information than this when analyizing their advertising dollar ROI), we can not even tell of Dr. Ron Ward's research of the subject is viable and what part of checkoff dollars gets the most bang for the buck.

His studies should be out on the net for all to see including data sources, methodology, etc.

Golly gee, Econ, I guess I should be suitably impressed to be praised by the sellf-proclaimed most educated of us all!

Fact is, I've probably been "thinking" since long before you were born! The simple fact that you do not like my line of thought has nothing to do with the quality of my thoughts, contrary to your apparent belief.

Actually, I advocated and supported efforts to spend more money where more consumers live a very long time ago. Beef Checkoff leaders realize it does pay off. The problem is getting some state leaders to 'see the light' rather than spending state share of checkoff dollars 'building castles' at home.

Re. Dr. Ron Wards' study, have you asked the CBB for it? It was done a long time ago and I don't know if it has been updated, and have probably forgotten most of what I learned from it when it was current. You, if staying true to your usual mode want it only to tear down Beef Checkoff leadership and/or NCBA. Obviously, those cattle producers in leadership positions used the best person they could afford, to do the work they believed was needed in order to best serve their duties for the checkoff.


Sandhusker, you would do your rancher customers a better service if you would learn the real competitors for beef producers. It is competing proteins, not other beef! I don't favor changing good procedures to cater to people holding false beliefs, but won't be surprised if that change is made for just that reason, unfounded though it is.

MRJ
MRJ:"Re. Dr. Ron Wards' study, have you asked the CBB for it? It was done a long time ago and I don't know if it has been updated, and have probably forgotten most of what I learned from it when it was current. You, if staying true to your usual mode want it only to tear down Beef Checkoff leadership and/or NCBA. Obviously, those cattle producers in leadership positions used the best person they could afford, to do the work they believed was needed in order to best serve their duties for the checkoff."

MRJ, since you haven't read the OIG report PLEASE do not chide me on tearing down reports. At least I read them, understand them, and have an ability to respond to actual facts instead of just taking someone else's word for it. My criticisms to you in this regard will continue until you have shown some ability to think on your own when it comes to these type of reports.

I will look further for the report, although a report of that importance should be posted on the internet for easy access instead of just quoted by your beloved leadership. They kind of do the same thing you do, don't they?

I would not expect you to have the expertise necessary to understand the beef checkoff economic funded studies, but you should be able to apply the points that I bring up without that knowledge. For instance, on Schroeder's Beef Demand Determinants and the Pickett case, why do you allow a different "standard of proof" in the arguments in relation to the report's conclusions? Do you feel that Checkoff dollars should be given out to economists that do not know how to run tests that the courts are allowing for a legal standard?

What I want to know, is why do you continually shortchange the producers when it comes to these arguments? Is it because you just don't understand them and have to rely in the NCBA to think for you?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MJR, "Sandhusker, you would do your rancher customers a better service if you would learn the real competitors for beef producers. It is competing proteins, not other beef! I don't favor changing good procedures to cater to people holding false beliefs, but won't be surprised if that change is made for just that reason, unfounded though it is."

I'm not denying that the other proteins are big competition for beef. However, I don't see how anybody can claim foreign beef is not also competition that must be reckoned with. Anybody who tells you otherwise is not to be trusted and suggests an agenda not in your best interests.

I hope you're not claiming that lumping our competitor's beef with ours is a good procedure. If you think that differentating your product from your competitor's is a false belief, I highly suggest you get a book on marketing. You won't have to go past the first chapter to learn the concept is not "unfounded".
 
Top