Checkoff Survey- But Will CBB listen to it!!!

[Anonymous]

CN_Today 1/26/2007 9:02:00 AM


USDA Announces Results Of Nationwide Beef Checkoff Survey

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25, 2007 - Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the results of the Beef Checkoff Survey, which was conducted recently among beef, dairy, and veal producers nationwide.

From Oct. 4 through Nov. 21, 2006, the Gallup Organization, with oversight by USDA, interviewed 8,002 beef, dairy and veal producers across the nation to measure their attitudes regarding the Beef Checkoff Program. This program assesses $1-per-head on all cattle sold in the United States and $1-per-head equivalent on imported cattle, beef and beef products, to invest in programs aimed at increasing demand for beef and improving profit opportunities for cattle producers and importers who pay into the program. USDA oversees the program, which is administered by the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Cattlemen's Beef Board).

The survey was conducted in response to a settlement agreement between Cattlemen's Beef Board and the Livestock Marketing Association as a result of a May 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which ruled the Beef Promotion and Research Act constitutional. Checkoff dollars funded the survey and the dissemination of its results. Representatives of the USDA, Cattlemen's Beef Board, the Livestock Marketing Association, and the Federation of State Beef Councils worked together to develop the survey questions. Some highlights of the survey results are:

Seventy two (72) percent of those surveyed either strongly approved or somewhat approved of the Beef Checkoff Program. In a question on changes or improvements to the program, some respondents noted that they would like to see more advertising and more information about how checkoff funds are spent.

Sixty-six (66) percent of those surveyed would strongly approve or somewhat approve of the Cattlemen's Beef Board contracting directly "with any entity, including businesses, university researchers, advertising and marketing agencies, and other consultants." Less than 25 percent would disapprove of this move. Currently, the Beef Promotion and Research Act requires that the Cattlemen's Beef Board contract only with "established national nonprofit industry-governed organizations … to implement programs of promotion, research, consumer information and industry information."

Eighty two (82) percent of those surveyed would strongly approve or somewhat approve of "voting periodically on the continuation of the Beef Checkoff Program."

Ninety-two (92) percent of those surveyed would strongly agree or somewhat agree that "if it were possible, all or at least some portion of the Beef Checkoff dollars should be used to promote only U.S. born and raised beef." Currently, the program promotes beef, in general, and importers also pay into the program at $1-per-head on live animal imports and a $1-per-head equivalent on beef products. Even if promoting only U.S. born and raised beef meant canceling the checkoff assessment on imported beef and beef products, 75.4 percent of the survey respondents still strongly or somewhat agree that a portion of the checkoff dollars should be used to promote only U.S. beef. Currently, about $8 million or 10 percent of the total assessments collected comes from imports.

The results of the survey will be discussed in more detail during each of the respective group's 2007 annual meetings. For more information about the date and time the report will be discussed during these annual meetings, contact the Cattlemen's Beef Board at 1-800-388-2333, Livestock Marketing Association at 1-800-821-2048, or the Federation of State Beef Councils (National Cattlemen's Beef Association) at 303-694-0305. The final report will be available on USDA's web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/rp-beef.htm on Jan. 25, 2007.

 

[Anonymous]

Ninety-two (92) percent of those surveyed would strongly agree or somewhat agree that "if it were possible, all or at least some portion of the Beef Checkoff dollars should be used to promote only U.S. born and raised beef."

I think right there sums up the biggest disagreement most have with the NCBA and the Checkoff...I have found this is the concensus of my part of the country anyway...

I wonder if 92% is enough to get the NCBA and CBB to wake up and take notice... :???:

 

[mrj]

OT......does that mean you want the importers to take the money, ten percent of the total checkoff dollars, and glamorize and advertise their imported beef?

Maybe you should think about that a bit and consider New Zealand lamb, and other import success stories!

It might be good for us all to consider: those who are managing the beef checkoff dollars are representatives from all cattle organizations in the country who choose to participate, and their major goal is to make the cattle business better for us all.

Mistakes will be made in a producer run checkoff; producers being, for the most part, not professionally trained for that job. That is the price for producers being in control, and well worth the cost, to this point in time, an opinion I share with many other producers.

The Beef Checkoff has made great progress in improvements to our industry from dietary info, to dramatically cutting incidences of e Coli (in partnership with others in the beef industry), to new consumer friendly beef cuts and products.

People with any sense and honesty are not going to damage the BeefCheckoff, but will work together to make it even better. The 72% rate of acceptance in this survey also validates past surveys which some have challenged. It also points up something we have observed here......that producers do not know enough about what their checkoff is spent. Not a good reflection on those who are or have in the past served on the various boards......or on people's (producers back on the ranch who 'don't go to/or join meetings/groups) willingness to listen????

MRJ

 

[Mike]

......does that mean you want the importers to take the money, ten percent of the total checkoff dollars, and glamorize and advertise their imported beef?

WHY AREN'T WE TAKING 100% OF THE MONEY AND GLAMORIZING HOMEGROWN BEEF?

 

[Anonymous]

Yep- Maxine I was waiting for your take on it...Just like NCBA- you can't get it thru your head that folks don't want the US checkoff advertising any foreign beef-- they want a US checkoff used to promote US beef... Is it that hard for the NCBA to actually support their own country or country's product :???:

Did you miss this portion Maxine:

Even if promoting only U.S. born and raised beef meant canceling the checkoff assessment on imported beef and beef products, 75.4 percent of the survey respondents still strongly or somewhat agree that a portion of the checkoff dollars should be used to promote only U.S. beef.

This is about the same as what I told Monte Reese on the phone too when he said Canada and others had threatened to sue if we used the money to promote US beef...I said do it anyway- and use the import money for just generic beef education and research....If they still sue and win- tell them they don't have to pay the checkoff- and use all ours for promoting USA born, raised, and slaughtered beef....

 

[Sandhusker]

OT......does that mean you want the importers to take the money, ten percent of the total checkoff dollars, and glamorize and advertise their imported beef?

Maybe you should think about that a bit and consider New Zealand lamb, and other import success stories!

It might be good for us all to consider: those who are managing the beef checkoff dollars are representatives from all cattle organizations in the country who choose to participate, and their major goal is to make the cattle business better for us all.

Mistakes will be made in a producer run checkoff; producers being, for the most part, not professionally trained for that job. That is the price for producers being in control, and well worth the cost, to this point in time, an opinion I share with many other producers.

The Beef Checkoff has made great progress in improvements to our industry from dietary info, to dramatically cutting incidences of e Coli (in partnership with others in the beef industry), to new consumer friendly beef cuts and products.

People with any sense and honesty are not going to damage the BeefCheckoff, but will work together to make it even better. The 72% rate of acceptance in this survey also validates past surveys which some have challenged. It also points up something we have observed here......that producers do not know enough about what their checkoff is spent. Not a good reflection on those who are or have in the past served on the various boards......or on people's (producers back on the ranch who 'don't go to/or join meetings/groups) willingness to listen????

MRJ

Is this the answer you were expecting, OT?

 

[Anonymous]

OT......does that mean you want the importers to take the money, ten percent of the total checkoff dollars, and glamorize and advertise their imported beef?

Maybe you should think about that a bit and consider New Zealand lamb, and other import success stories!

It might be good for us all to consider: those who are managing the beef checkoff dollars are representatives from all cattle organizations in the country who choose to participate, and their major goal is to make the cattle business better for us all.

Mistakes will be made in a producer run checkoff; producers being, for the most part, not professionally trained for that job. That is the price for producers being in control, and well worth the cost, to this point in time, an opinion I share with many other producers.

The Beef Checkoff has made great progress in improvements to our industry from dietary info, to dramatically cutting incidences of e Coli (in partnership with others in the beef industry), to new consumer friendly beef cuts and products.

People with any sense and honesty are not going to damage the BeefCheckoff, but will work together to make it even better. The 72% rate of acceptance in this survey also validates past surveys which some have challenged. It also points up something we have observed here......that producers do not know enough about what their checkoff is spent. Not a good reflection on those who are or have in the past served on the various boards......or on people's (producers back on the ranch who 'don't go to/or join meetings/groups) willingness to listen????

MRJ

Is this the answer you were expecting, OT?

Pretty much- but I figured she'd have some excuse for challenging the accuracy of the survey too....Or that it has to be flawed because they didn't survey her....She disappointed me there :roll:

I don't for the life of me know why NCBA folks are so anti USA and have such a problem supporting US product- unless it is true that they have sold their souls to the multinational globalist Packers.... :wink:
NCBA is completely out of step with the majority of cattle producers anymore....

 

[nebraskadave]

"NCBA is completely out of step with the majority of cattle producers anymore...."


I'd have to agree.....it explains the growth of R-CALF

 

[MO STOCKER]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the American Lamb Board uses the lamb check-off to promote only American lamb. Anyway all the adds I see say somewhere in them 'American lamb'

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the American Lamb Board uses the lamb check-off to promote only American lamb. Anyway all the adds I see say somewhere in them 'American lamb'

From the American Lamb Board website:

The lamb checkoff now provides the US lamb industry with tools to help it reestablish American Lamb in the marketplace and in the minds of American consumers. As you look through the website, you'll see how your checkoff dollars are being spent. 75% of your checkoff dollars are invested into promotional programs aimed at increasing the demand for American Lamb through advertising, public relations, research, partnerships that leverage checkoff dollars, and more.

Your lamb checkoff works to expand the market share for American Lamb by investing your checkoff dollars to:

»Increase demand for American Lamb by getting people to ask for American Lamb all year long.
»Brand American Lamb as the preferred choice in the marketplace.
»Differentiate American Lamb from competitors with our 10,000 Miles Fresher campaign.
»Minimize volatility of seasonal product sales through targeted promotions.
»Promote to encourage use of the whole lamb – using all cuts.
»Leverage and expand ALB resources through cooperative relationships with corporate and industry partners.

Looks like you're right MO STOCKER.....Looks like the lamb industry is years ahead of the cattle industry on this issue--but they haven't been held back by the NCBA and its putting personal gain above industry needs and wishes.......

 

[Anonymous]

Ninety-two (92) percent of those surveyed would strongly agree or somewhat agree that "if it were possible, all or at least some portion of the Beef Checkoff dollars should be used to promote only U.S. born and raised beef."

OT: "I think right there sums up the biggest disagreement most have with the NCBA and the Checkoff...I have found this is the concensus of my part of the country anyway...

I wonder if 92% is enough to get the NCBA and CBB to wake up and take notice..."

Old Timer you are such a hypocrite. The only way to identify only US born and raised beef is with a traceback system WHICH YOU IMPORT BLAMERS OPPOSE.

You don't want to be burdened with traceback, REMEMEBER??

How else are you going to prove which beef is "BORN, RAISED, and PROCESSED" in the US without a traceback system???

Always blaming someone else for your own stupidity.

The only way to identify US born, raised, and processed in the US beef is with a valid traceback system on all cattle. YOU OPPOSE THAT!

All you want to do is bitch, you don't want to do what it takes to achieve what it is you bitch about.


Nebraska Dave, the growth in R-CALF is easily explained. Lies about what factors affect cattle prices have speed especially when sale barn managers are promoting those lies while giving their market reports. When producers never see the truth of these issues in contrast to the lies about NCBA, why wouldn't you see R-CALF growth?

What lies you ask?

How about the lie that NCBA is funded by the beef checkoff?
How about the lie that packer concentration, captive supplies, and imports are the reason for lower cattle prices as opposed to falling consumer demand for beef?

I challenge you NebraskaDave to think for yourself. Ask yourself one simple question, if lower cattle prices are the result of captive supplies and packer concentration, which of those two factors changed to allow for the highest feeder cattle prices ever recorded in the fall of 2005? Does that add up in your mind?

Ask yourself this NebraskaDave, if lower cattle prices were being solely driven by imports as the R-CALFers claimed, why did we have higher cattle prices in the fall of 2005 with an opened Canadian border than in 2004 with a closed Canadian border? Does that add up in your mind?

If R-CALF is right, why can't they win a court case?


Most of the guys that cuss NCBA don't know a thing about NCBA. They just repeat what they hear. Fortunately, more and more "PROGRESSIVE" cattlemen are starting to think for themselves and research the facts on these issues.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Don't listen to the words of the ignorant, Dave. We can trace all cattle to country of origin NOW. All beef that hits our borders is labeled to country of origin NOW. We already have COOL at the base level, which would be the hardest. The packer backers try to ignore these facts and say we have to have some mandatory universal traceback system. They try to confuse the issue by making it sound harder and more expensive than it really is. Nothing but smoke and mirrors.

You're right about NCBA. If they were doing such a good job for producers, R-CALF wouldn't even exist, much less be challenging them.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "Don't listen to the words of the ignorant, Dave."

Excellent advise!

No words are more ignorant than yours Sandcheska.

Sandcheska: "We can trace all cattle to country of origin NOW."

"RED HERRING"

Tracing cattle has absolutely nothing to do with tracing the beef that came from those cattle. Once the hide comes off it's all the same unless you have a traceback on all the cattle entering and all the beef leaving the plant which is what the hypocritical "M"COOL proponents were opposed to.

USDA is the agency taxed with the responsibility of implementing COOL. USDA said that Country of Origin Labeling, as written, was unenforceable without a valid traceback system because once the hide comes off, there is no way to know where a certain package of beef originated without tracing all cattle that enter the packing plant.

Sandcheska: "All beef that hits our borders is labeled to country of origin NOW."

Which doesn't have a damn thing to do with imported cattle that become imported beef.

Another "RED HERRING".

Sandcheska: "The packer backers try to ignore these facts and say we have to have some mandatory universal traceback system. They try to confuse the issue by making it sound harder and more expensive than it really is. Nothing but smoke and mirrors."

The packer blamers think their oversimplistic view of Country of Origin is how it really is. They are not in charge of enforcing Country of Origin labeilng, USDA is. USDA has made it very clear that you cannot trace beef IN AN ENFORCEABLE MANNER without tracing ALL THE CATTLE.

Anyone can claim anything without enforcement.

These packer blaming monday morning quarterbacks are not in charge of enforcing their stupid law, that's why they have such an oversimplistic view of it. Repeating the mantra.

Sandcheska: "You're right about NCBA. If they were doing such a good job for producers, R-CALF wouldn't even exist, much less be challenging them."

R-CULT exists because the blaming segment of this industry needs someone or something to blame. Truth and facts don't matter to a blamer that's why they just repeat what they hear instead of looking for the facts that support their positions.

R-CALF is the equivalent of the democratic party of the cattle industry. They blame, they dislike large successful corporations, they look to government regulations for solutions to their "PERCEIVED" problems, and the facts don't matter to them. That's why R-CULT exists.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

92% of the US cattlemen say "Get er done", but SH and the old Packer supporter fogies at NCBA still whine, blame, cry, and drag their feet-- and live in DENIAL because they can't accept change....

92% of the cattlemen support the USA strong enough to support USA products-- 75% say so even if it costs us some checkoff funding.... but we still have the few that have sold out to the multinational Packers- and want nothing to change to interfer with the Packer rackett of FRAUD....

SH can't admit that they put together a M-COOL for shrimp and fish-- and its working...And that the new folks at USDA have said they can make it work for all meat products....Even they are seeing the handwriting on the wall....

And now it appears that many in Congress want to not only implement M-COOL, but to also remove the restaurant exemptions....

 

[Sandhusker]

Tell you what, Dave. Do a little search and review some of SH's posts and then decide if you've got a credible person here or not. It won't take you long to see what I'm talking about.

The packers seem to be able to segregate all the beef that comes from animals for their "natural" and premium programs. To say they couldn't do the same regarding country of origin reeks of ignorance or BS.

 

[nebraskadave]

ok ok.....

Tracing cattle has absolutely nothing to do with tracing the beef that came from those cattle. Once the hide comes off it's all the same unless you have a traceback on all the cattle entering and all the beef leaving the plant which is what the hypocritical "M"COOL proponents were opposed to.




IF we had an ID system for traceback, how would that help with COOL?

explain that to me.....

 

[Sandhusker]

ok ok.....

Tracing cattle has absolutely nothing to do with tracing the beef that came from those cattle. Once the hide comes off it's all the same unless you have a traceback on all the cattle entering and all the beef leaving the plant which is what the hypocritical "M"COOL proponents were opposed to.




IF we had an ID system for traceback, how would that help with COOL?

explain that to me.....

Have him explain how packers currently segregate the product from animals for their natural and premium lines and why they couldn't apply the same to animals by country.

Also, we're setting up a pool to see how many posts you'll make disagreeing with him before you're called a "blamer", "lemming" or a childish name. Everybody can PM me with their entries.

 

[nebraskadave]

LOL I've been called worse.

 

[Anonymous]

92% of the US cattlemen say "Get er done", but SH and the old Packer supporter fogies at NCBA still whine, blame, cry, and drag their feet-- and live in DENIAL because they can't accept change....

92% of the cattlemen support the USA strong enough to support USA products-- 75% say so even if it costs us some checkoff funding.... but we still have the few that have sold out to the multinational Packers- and want nothing to change to interfer with the Packer rackett of FRAUD....

That ("cant accept change") is an absolute out and out lie.

Progressive cattlemen were selling TOTAL PROCESS VERIFIED BEEF and SOURCE VERIFIED BEEF before R-CULT and their import blaming chronies ever came along and said, "don't consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from" only to turn around and hypocritically say, "don't burden me with traceback".

Can't accept change? You bet cheap talker.

Who was it that opposed "M"ID because they didn't want to be burdened with traceback??? You're such a hypocrite OT!

Sandcheska: "The packers seem to be able to segregate all the beef that comes from animals for their "natural" and premium programs. To say they couldn't do the same regarding country of origin reeks of ignorance or BS."

Nobody said they couldn't do it you deceiver.

What I'm saying and USDA is saying is that "M"COOL, as written, will not be enforceable without an ID system which R-CULT VOTED AGAINST.

You simply cannot accept your hypocritical position.

Sandcheska: "Tell you what, Dave. Do a little search and review some of SH's posts and then decide if you've got a credible person here or not. It won't take you long to see what I'm talking about."

More cheap talk from the ultimate hypocrite.

Nebraskadave: "IF we had an ID system for traceback, how would that help with COOL?"

First let me explain something so you understand my position. I do not support a Mandatory ID nor Mandatory COOL. In both situations, a consumer driven free market economy will provide what consumers want as opposed to the flawed, unenforceable, government mandate called "M"COOL. My position is that you cannot have a MANDATORY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING LAW that requires proof of where an animal was born, raised, and processed without a mandatory ID system.

Now to your question. "M"COOL, as written, demands proof of where beef was "born, raised, and processed". USDA has stated and it's obvious to anyone that understands beef processing, that the only way to prove where beef was born, raised, and processed, is to have proof on where the cattle that beef came from were born, raised, and processed.

How are you going to do that without a mandatory ID system?

R-CALF claims that we only need to mark the imported animals and the rest would be considered US beef by default. You tell me dave, how you are going to prove which package of beef was born, raised, and processed in the US from a packing plant that processes Canadian and Mexican cattle without a traceback system on all the cattle entering the plant and all the beef leaving the plant?

Hypocrites like Old Timer claim that the packers are committing fraud by selling foreign beef under the USDA inspection stamp because supposedly some consumers are not smart enough to realize that "USDA INSPECTED" does not mean "US BEEF", but they are willing to trust the packers to label foreign beef correctly WITHOUT A TRACEBACK SYSTEM??? Tell me how hypocritical that is?

"M"ID would make "M"COOL enforceable. Without "M"ID, "M"COOL is unenforceable because there is no way to prove which beef was "born, raised, and processed in the US".

This is ancient history. GIPSA has already stated that packers were perfectly within their rights to demand proof of origin to comply with COOL which is exactly what "M"COOL proponents didn't want.

Don't believe me, ASK USDA if M"COOL can be enforced without a mandatory ID system. It ain't gonna happen. USDA has already stated that proof of origin would have to be provided. If you have a law, you have to enforce it.

Sandcheska: "Have him explain how packers currently segregate the product from animals for their natural and premium lines and why they couldn't apply the same to animals by country."

Look at the spin job. Nobody said packers couldn't segregate animals. Nobody ever said that.

My position is clear. "M"COOL, without an enforceable ID program that proves where animals were born, raised, and processed, will not be enforceable.

R-CALF voted against "M"ID yet they want "M"COOL to be enforceable without it. TOTAL HYPOCRISY!

Anyone care to prove me wrong?


~SH~

 

[nebraskadave]

http://www.ams.usda.gov/lscp/beef/LS5Canned%20Meat%20Announcement%2011-19-03%20with%20attachments%203-4.pdf

Look at the bottom of page 7 in this document. It explains the requirements USDA has for the meat it purchases for the national school lunch program.

HAS to be USA raised.......there doesn't seem to be any problem keeping track of origin for that program.