http://www.hpj.com/archives/2007/feb07/feb5/beefwargameon.cfm
A sizable number did not know there was a beef checkoff until it was explained to them, at which time a sizable percentage had bad things to say about it. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: (MUST HAVE BEEN THE R-KLANNERS)
Beef war game on!
The long suffering beef checkoff is back on the table and the foes of the Cattlemen's Beef Board and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) may have finally maneuvered a place at the trough. In an industry of strong willed people, this is the classic fight where no one has given up and no agenda has been surrendered.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) commissioned a survey of beef producers to document their views on the 20-year-old program to see if cattlemen favored a change of direction in philosophy and how the mandatory payment is spent. The results have been widely disseminated, including in this publication. The perceptions and percentages have merit, but the real issue is power. Here are the players:
--NCBA, based in Denver, which willed the $1 per head producer funded research, promotion and advertising program into existence over 20 years ago and has a strong relationship with the Cattlemen's Beef Board and USDA. The checkoff generates $45 million per year that is spent under the discretion of the Cattlemen's Beef Board. Only certain entities may contract with the Beef Board, primary among them is NCBA.
--Livestock Marketing Association (LMA), based in Kansas City, whose members are auction market operators and hold a close relationship with small cattle producers. LMA has an avowed hatred for the packing industry as it circumvents their auction rings when buying cattle.
--Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, the pained acronym (R-CALF), based in Billings, Montana. It is best known as a protectionist group protesting Canadian cattle entering the United States and gained prominence in the BSE scare of 2003.
Both LMA and R-CALF USA want policy influence with NCBA as well as access to the Beef Board (money) by serving as contractors to conduct research and promotion. They are willing to sacrifice the checkoff to gain their objectives.
You can read the results obtained by the Gallup Organization by going to the USDA website: http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/rp-beef.htm
What the 8,002 producers said was that they don't want to pay more than the current $1 per head, don't want to promote imported beef and don't care who contracts with the beef board. They also gave strong indication that they would favor a periodic vote on the referendum. This is what NCBA has feared for more than a decade as they have battled back those who would petition for a vote. The case launched by LMA went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court last year with a ruling that the checkoff is constitutional as "Government Speech" which raises many questions of who now controls it: producers or government.
Never have I seen more strong willed players than those in the cattle industry. It is born of the rugged individualism of the American West but seems to be a modern version of the power and privilege of land and cattle barons who defend against all comers. NCBA has dominated the beef checkoff since it's inception with the assistance of the USDA and a referendum system that makes it almost impossible to change or repeal the program.
Now that the USDA has conducted the survey, they will be hard pressed not to act on its findings. This may allow LMA and R-CALF USA real influence within the system. R-CALF wants Congress to implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) legislation and LMA wants the packers to be determined "personal non grata" within livestock organizations. NCBA could accomplish both purposes.
If USDA modifies the program to allow a periodic vote, then NCBA will have to start dealing with these aggressors or face the potential of losing the entire program. LMA took the checkoff all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court two years ago and lost on a decision about "government speech" that, in itself, may end producer control.
The best reading in the survey is who responded: 90 percent male with 68 percent over 55 years old and 70 percent with less than 100 cattle. A sizable number did not know there was a beef checkoff until it was explained to them, at which time a sizable percentage had bad things to say about it.
The logical, informed and faithful were in the mix, but the nature of cattlemen, reflected in the survey, is that they tend to be older men who distrust the government, don't pay dues to any cattle organization and are generally angry at the world. Given a chance, they will vote out a program that they perceive to have harmed them, or helped someone they don't like.
Will the USDA allow a vote without 100,000 valid signatures of cattlemen? If it interprets the Supreme Court decision on "government speech" to mean that government determines allowable activities and expenditures with producers there for advice and counsel, then it's not in USDA's best interest to risk it. There is a lot of bureaucracy built into this program and we shouldn't think that it won't be weighed by regulators. Remember that wool and pork producers voted down their referendums, even though the Bush administration declared the pork referendum vote void, and reinstated it.
Although it hasn't happened in the cattle industry, USDA has shown that it is willing to accommodate the policy making side of the pork and soybean industry by providing funds from the government mandated checkoff to assist the unrestricted membership organization.
The United Soybean Board bought the International Marketing Division from the American Soybean Association for $6 million to be paid over 10 years. The Pork Board bought the slogan, "The other white meat" from the National Pork Producers Council for $60 million. In both of these cases, checkoff funds were paid to producer organizations without restriction on the use of the funds. ASA and NPPC can now use the money to lobby government with the blessing of the USDA. Am I the only one to see the blatant misappropriation in all of this?
The next step is for the major livestock organizations to meet and measure their power and the damage that can be done to the checkoff. If NCBA forms a coalition with LMA and/or R-CALF USA, then they may save the beef checkoff. If that happens, then getting the Sunni's, Shiites and Kurds to share government power and establish peace in Iraq, will be a snap.
Editor's note: Ken Root is now celebrating his 34th year as an agricultural professional. His career began as a vocational agriculture teacher then turned to agricultural broadcasting and writing as well as environmental consulting and association management. He was the original host of AgriTalk (1994-2001) and now is lead farm broadcaster for WHO Radio in Des Moines, Iowa.
B
11
2/5/07
1 Star WK
Date: 2/1/07
A sizable number did not know there was a beef checkoff until it was explained to them, at which time a sizable percentage had bad things to say about it. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: (MUST HAVE BEEN THE R-KLANNERS)