• 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

Bill

Well-known member
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2007/feb07/feb5/beefwargameon.cfm

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)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's really a shame the the R-CULTers are forced to benefit from the checkoff against their will. If this industry could further seperate progressive forward thinkers from regressive blamers, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep the blamers from benefitting from the efforts of the progressive.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It is funny tho that when USDA was forced to do a survey of all the cattle producers in the nation- not just the NCBAer little clique-- a high majority of these nationwide cattlemen felt the exact same way as the policy positions that R-CALF has taken... :shock: :p :wink: :lol:

This may be the first time that 92% of US cattlemen ever agreed on anything....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Unfortunately, most of the respondents didn't realize that under your stupid labeling law, only 5% of our total US beef consumption would be labeled as imported and the law would be unenforceable without a traceback system.

SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!


~SH~
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
It is funny tho that when USDA was forced to do a survey of all the cattle producers in the nation- not just the NCBAer little clique-- a high majority of these nationwide cattlemen felt the exact same way as the policy positions that R-CALF has taken... :shock: :p :wink: :lol:

This may be the first time that 92% of US cattlemen ever agreed on anything....

Yep and it says a lot that the uninformed and the small timers are driving the bus.

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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
Unfortunately, most of the respondents didn't realize that under your stupid labeling law, only 5% of our total US beef consumption would be labeled as imported and the law would be unenforceable without a traceback system.

SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!


~SH~

Yep--You're the only bright boy in the world-- the rest of the cattlemen are all dunces and don't know whats good for them...

Thats the normal NCBA arrogance- you fit in with them well.... :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's not like R-CULT ever told producers that their stupid law would exempt 75% of the imported beef leaving only 5% to be labeled or that the law would be unenforceable without a traceback system. That would be too honest for deceptive R-CULT.

R-CULT misled producers about your stupid labeling law just like you mislead consumers about the USDA grade stamp.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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.

That does not surprise me---I would say that probably sums up the majority of the cattleowners in the US anymore... That is the folks that pay the majority of the checkoff and the ones that should have the say in how its spent....

And I doubt many belong to NCBA- the reason NCBA is so off track...But the Congressmen are definitely taking notice....

Bill- Are you saying that folks that don't own 100 head shouldn't have any say in where their checkoff dollar is spent? What should be the limit- survey only those with 250-- or 500- or maybe 5000?
Yep you think like the corporate NCBA too...

92%-- You couldn't even get that many cattleman to agree that the sun rises in the east on most days... :wink: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tell me OT, why hasn't R-CULT told the truth about Country of Origin Labeling? Why haven't they told producers that 75% of the beef that is imported into this country would be exempt under the food service exemption? Why haven't they told producers that USDA has stated that just marking the imports will not be an option? That "M"COOL will require a traceback system to be enforceable?

92% said that we should promote US beef with the beef checkoff.....

HOW MANY OF THEM REALIZE THAT ONLY 5% OF OUR TOTAL US BEEF CONSUMPTION WOULD BE LABELED AS IMPORTED GIVING IMPORTED BEEF NOVELTY STATUS????

R-CULT DIDN'T TELL THEM AND FOLLOWERS LIKE YOU SURE AS HELL DIDN'T!

How would they know the truth about your "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES" labeling law?

My biggest concern with NCBA is that they haven't slam dunked R-CULT's lies at every turn. R-CULT's deception and outright lies about food safety have been a huge disservice to this industry.


~SH~
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
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.

That does not surprise me---I would say that probably sums up the majority of the cattleowners in the US anymore... That is the folks that pay the majority of the checkoff and the ones that should have the say in how its spent....

And I doubt many belong to NCBA- the reason NCBA is so off track...But the Congressmen are definitely taking notice....

Bill- Are you saying that folks that don't own 100 head shouldn't have any say in where their checkoff dollar is spent? What should be the limit- survey only those with 250-- or 500- or maybe 5000?
Yep you think like the corporate NCBA too...

92%-- You couldn't even get that many cattleman to agree that the sun rises in the east on most days... :wink: :lol:

I could care less if they were a member of NCBA, R-Klan, the Optomists, or American Auto Assoc.

The fact is that they were so disinterested an uninformed about the beef industry that a good number of them didn't even know what the hell the checkoff is.

Those are hardly the people I want shaping the direction of my business.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
Tell me OT, why hasn't R-CULT told the truth about Country of Origin Labeling? Why haven't they told producers that 75% of the beef that is imported into this country would be exempt under the food service exemption? Why haven't they told producers that USDA has stated that just marking the imports will not be an option? That "M"COOL will require a traceback system to be enforceable?

92% said that we should promote US beef with the beef checkoff.....

HOW MANY OF THEM REALIZE THAT ONLY 5% OF OUR TOTAL US BEEF CONSUMPTION WOULD BE LABELED AS IMPORTED GIVING IMPORTED BEEF NOVELTY STATUS????
~SH~

Probably because it is you that are wrong on these assumptions....
 

Jason

Well-known member
I like this quote:

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.

Sounds like a few I have met.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Tell me OT, why hasn't R-CULT told the truth about Country of Origin Labeling? Why haven't they told producers that 75% of the beef that is imported into this country would be exempt under the food service exemption? Why haven't they told producers that USDA has stated that just marking the imports will not be an option? That "M"COOL will require a traceback system to be enforceable?

92% said that we should promote US beef with the beef checkoff.....

HOW MANY OF THEM REALIZE THAT ONLY 5% OF OUR TOTAL US BEEF CONSUMPTION WOULD BE LABELED AS IMPORTED GIVING IMPORTED BEEF NOVELTY STATUS????

R-CULT DIDN'T TELL THEM AND FOLLOWERS LIKE YOU SURE AS HELL DIDN'T!

How would they know the truth about your "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES" labeling law?

My biggest concern with NCBA is that they haven't slam dunked R-CULT's lies at every turn. R-CULT's deception and outright lies about food safety have been a huge disservice to this industry.


~SH~

Why haven't you told the truth that it was NCBA who advocated those exemptions?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT: "Probably because it is you that are wrong on these assumptions...."

PROVE IT CHEAP TALKER!

Prove that more than 5% of the US beef consumption would be labeled as imported. Prove that "M"COOL would be enforceable without a traceback system. Prove that just labeling the imports would be an option.

The biggest problem with this law is that you import blamers with your overly simplistic solutions are not in charge of enforcing your flawed law. You hypocrites who claim packers are hiding foreign beef behind the USDA grade stamp now want to trust packers enough to label imported beef without a valid traceback system. Hahaha! What a bunch!

You want to keep producers in the dark and keep lying to them about this law don't you OT?


Sandcheska: "Why haven't you told the truth that it was NCBA who advocated those exemptions?"

Don't try to pawn your stupid law off on NCBA, it was Leo who said that "M"COOL was a good law as written. NCBA supports voluntary COOL not another "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES AGAIN" mandate.

I don't have a problem with the food service exemptions. It makes perfect sense that labeling the beef in every Ball Park hot dog, Dominos pizza, McDonalds hamburger, Taco Johns Taco, etc. as "BLENDED BEEF" would be a stupid thing to do WHEN CONSUMERS AREN'T EVEN ASKING FOR IT.

You "M"COOL proponents simply didn't know enough about this industry to realize that only 25% of the imported beef would make it's way to the retail counter. You're just that ignorant.

Leave it to R-CULT to save consumers from themselves.

There is no justification for any aspect of this stupid law brought to us by the import blaming outfit named R-CULT.



~SH~
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Thanks for posting that ranch hand. If one reads the actual survey, you find a completely different story than the one Bill posted. The guy who wrote that article has a way of writing like Tam. It makes you wonder what the hell they were reading! :???:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/beef/BeefProducerAttitudeReport.pdf
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
fedup2 said:
Thanks for posting that ranch hand. If one reads the actual survey, you find a completely different story than the one Bill posted. The guy who wrote that article has a way of writing like Tam. It makes you wonder what the hell they were reading! :???:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/beef/BeefProducerAttitudeReport.pdf

As I commented the other day when I posted the checkoff results-- I wondered how NCBA/USDA/CBB would try to discredit it...Since it was USDA contracted and done by a very reputable polling firm (Gallup) they couldn't attack the poll itself....But now they are going to try and say that the folks polled were a bunch of dummies and didn't know what they were doing....

Typical NCBA tactic-- those thar dum folk don't know whats good for them- they can do it our way or else.... :wink: :lol: :lol: Thats the reason I shed them.......
 

fedup2

Well-known member
I want to make it plain Oldtimer, I am not against the checkoff. I believe that somehow we have to fight the anti-beef, peta's, veggies, & the tons of bad information they are putting out. That takes money. I do believe the checkoff as its stands now needs improvement & some new blood.

The article posted in no way reflected what the actual survey shows.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Here's the poll question that should have been asked OT!

Do you believe the beef checkoff should promote only US BEEF knowing that, under the "M"COOL law as it's written, only 5% of the beef at the retail level would be labeled as "Imported" giving it novelty status and knowing that it will require a traceback system to enforce??

That HONEST question would yield a totally different answer but KEEP THEM IN THE DARK OT! Can't have the light of truth shining on R-CULT's lies and deception can we?


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
fedup2 said:
I want to make it plain Oldtimer, I am not against the checkoff. I believe that somehow we have to fight the anti-beef, peta's, veggies, & the tons of bad information they are putting out. That takes money. I do believe the checkoff as its stands now needs improvement & some new blood.
.

I can agree with you on that...I have even said and posted on several of the sites that I wouldn't be against the raise to $2 IF the CBB makeup were changed and it became a stand alone entity away from the NCBA and the checkoff dollars were used to promote born raised and slaughtered in the US Beef...
 
Top