• 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

feeder

Well-known member
In a previous post the checkoff was mentioned as possibly doubling for the US producer. I read in an article that imported beef's checkoff $$ amount was going to decrease by half. What is the reasoning of increasing our amount and decreasing imported beef amount?
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
I can't find the link where it was explained but this is how I understood it.

Live imports will continue to equal domestic per head fee

BEEF imports are charged on an average carcass weight. Average carcass weights have increased so the fee is not actually lowered but the fee covers a few more pounds.

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.
 

mrj

Well-known member
S.S.A.P. said:
I can't find the link where it was explained but this is how I understood it.

Live imports will continue to equal domestic per head fee

BEEF imports are charged on an average carcass weight. Average carcass weights have increased so the fee is not actually lowered but the fee covers a few more pounds.

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.

SSAP, you have the change quite accurately described. Per live animal imported will stay the same, but the carcass equivalent weight will increase to reflect average carcass weight increases over the past few years.
I seriously doubt it will decrease by half, but do not have the numbers in hand. To do that it seems average carcass weights would have to have increased by half. Have they really done that????

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'll see if I can find the article again- it said it would reduce the checkoffs income by about $1 million......
 

Mike

Well-known member
MRJ said:
S.S.A.P. said:
I can't find the link where it was explained but this is how I understood it.

Live imports will continue to equal domestic per head fee

BEEF imports are charged on an average carcass weight. Average carcass weights have increased so the fee is not actually lowered but the fee covers a few more pounds.

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.

SSAP, you have the change quite accurately described. Per live animal imported will stay the same, but the carcass equivalent weight will increase to reflect average carcass weight increases over the past few years.
I seriously doubt it will decrease by half, but do not have the numbers in hand. To do that it seems average carcass weights would have to have increased by half. Have they really done that????

MRJ

I think (?) I read that carcass weights had increased 165 pounds in the past 15-20 years.

Would the change in assessments be based on US carcass weights...or the carcass weights of the exporting country?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Importers To Pay Less In Checkoff Fees
Meanwhile... a new final rule starting Sept. 15 will allow U.S. beef importers to pay lower checkoff fees. The checkoff, in addition to the $1/head fee assessed on animals sold in the U.S., also assesses fees on imported beef based on the amount imported and the average weight of cattle carcasses.

The change raises the average weight to 592 lbs., up from 509 lbs. That means the Checkoff program will collect about $1 million less than expected for the rest of 2006, according to Kenneth Payne, USDA chief of marketing programs.
-- Clint Peck
 

ocm

Well-known member
I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
ocm said:
I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef.

MRJ wants to support generic beef though..........she might as well be supporting chicken.

Oh how will we ever get it done? :shock: :shock: :shock: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef."

SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!

95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.

Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."

The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
OCM: "I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef."

SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!

95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.

Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."

The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!


~SH~

Do you see imports increasing or decreasing in the future?
 

ocm

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
OCM: "I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef."

SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!

95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.

Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."

The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!


~SH~

Was there something new in that response that we have not heard before?


I'm beginning to think that the idea of supporting beef without supporting US beef should be considered unpatriotic. It kind of reminds me of the absurdity of "supporting the troops" but "not supporting the war."
 

the chief

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
OCM: "I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef."

SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!

95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.

Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."

The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!


~SH~


5%? Then what does this article from US beef mean?

US beef production is now pegged at 25.751 billion lbs (11.68 million tonnes) this year, down from the 26.151 billion lbs (11.86mt) forecast on February 9. US beef imports were revised up to 3.74 billion lbs (1.70mt) from the previous estimate of 3.66 billion lbs (1.66mt).

According to my figures, that is 12.6% of our market is imported. And this doesn't take into account what we export from our production. Hmmmm? Could these figures be wrong. :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
OCM: "I think importers ought to be given a better break than that. Cut them out of the checkoff completely. Let them pay nothing, and then we can use the checkoff money to support US beef."

SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!

95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.

Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."

The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!


~SH~

Was there something new in that response that we have not heard before?


I'm beginning to think that the idea of supporting beef without supporting US beef should be considered unpatriotic. It kind of reminds me of the absurdity of "supporting the troops" but "not supporting the war."

Perhaps Sh advocates supporting generic troops.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!

95% of the beef labeled under "M"COOL would be US Beef.

Consumer: "Let's see, do I want to buy the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF, or the US BEEF........."

The blind leading the blind. Repeat what you hear whether it makes sense or not. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!


~SH~

Was there something new in that response that we have not heard before?


I'm beginning to think that the idea of supporting beef without supporting US beef should be considered unpatriotic. It kind of reminds me of the absurdity of "supporting the troops" but "not supporting the war."

Perhaps Sh advocates supporting generic troops.

SH just supports anything the USDA/NCBA/AMI do without question. Then he calls others lemmings. :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Do you see imports increasing or decreasing in the future?"

I deal in facts not speculation.

Still trying to justify the stupidity of this law huh? Imports could increase and if you R-CULTers are not willing to source verify your cattle and the majority of imported beef is still channeled towards food service, this argument is as empty as most of your arguments because "M"COOL would still be unenforceable and most imports would still end up NOT LABELED due to the "food service exemption".

This tiger can't change it's stripes.


OCM: "Was there something new in that response that we have not heard before?"

Nothing that you ever understood!

OCM, tell me, why are you not proud enough of your beef to verify it's origin with a traceback system? Talk about the ultimate hypocrite!


OCM: "I'm beginning to think that the idea of supporting beef without supporting US beef should be considered unpatriotic."

I'm beginning to think that the idea of supporting "non source verified generic US beef" in the advent of branded beef programs that add value to US BEEF should be considered the ultimate in R-CALF hypocrisy.

"don't consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from..... don't burden me with traceback".

Like a fish in a boat!


Chief: "I'm beginning to think that the idea of supporting beef without supporting US beef should be considered unpatriotic."

If you weren't such a blind follower of your flawed "M"COOL law, you would realize that 75% of the imported beef into the US would not be labeled under the "M"COOL law that Leo McDonnell admits to helping to write due to the "food service exemption". Another example of the blind leading the blind.

Don't you know anything about the laws you "BLINDLY" support?

Under "M"COOL, AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN", only 5% of our total US beef consumption would be labeled as imported PROVIDING THAT ALL IMPORTED BEEF IS NOT CHANNELED TOWARDS FOOD SERVICE LEAVING NONE LABELED AS IMPORTED.

Goooooooooooooo R-CULT! The think tanks of the cattle industry.......NOT!


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "SH just supports anything the USDA/NCBA/AMI do without question. Then he calls others lemmings."

Hahaha! Listen to the ultimate lemming. Anything that is supported by R-CULT, you will find a way to justify. That's just what you are trying to do here. You won't address the fact that a traceback system is required to enforce your "blind leading the blind" "M"COOL law nor will you admit that the majority of imported beef ends up in food service. You accuse others of what you do best to cleanse your filthy conscience.

You are a lemming with wool! LOL!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Quote:
Sandbag: "Do you see imports increasing or decreasing in the future?"


SH, "I deal in facts not speculation."

What you just told us is that you lack the wisdom to plan ahead. I'm not real surprised.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
SH:
New postPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:57 am


I deal in facts not speculation.

"BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH! "



If you say it to yourself, sh, does that make it true?

You are a legend in your own mind.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "What you just told us is that you lack the wisdom to plan ahead. I'm not real surprised."

What's this "US" crap? You don't speak for anyone but you and the ipod you probably carry around in your pocket.

As far as "planning ahead", I'm an advocate of consumer driven source verified branded beef programs while you are still advocating an unenforceable labeling law for "GENERIC US BEEF" that exempted 75% of the imported beef. YOU BET, REAL FORESIGHT THERE SANDBAG!

Shor nuff got me up a tree again.....ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz!


Stalker: "If you say it to yourself, sh, does that make it true?"

When you think you can contradict anything I have stated with opposing facts without lying, step up to the plate. Until then, keep packing water.

Go stalk someone else you freak!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, since you diverted to another topic, is it safe to say that you have no idea on whether or not beef imports to this country are likely to increase or decrease?
 
Top