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

Is it time to double the checkoff?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
HELL YES!

First, the checkoff is returning something like $20 to $1, perhaps the next dollar might only return $10. I could live with that.

Second, these great prices allow it - we can afford it.

Third, inflation over the last 20 years has reduced the buying power of the 1986 dollar to less than half of what we began the checkoff with.

Finally, demand faces real and new challenges that require greater beef industry input. Look no further than bse hysteria. Consider high energy prices, the right ad campaign could make "enjoying beef at home" offset some sales losses in the restaurant sector if/when travel is reduced.

The Great Gretzki, when asked what accounted for his superrior skill, responded with, "most skate to where the puck is, I try to skate to where the puck is going to be."
 

alabama

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,743
Reaction score
0
Location
Alabama
Win one little court case and right away you want to double the price. :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I would just as soon (and will) voluntarily send OCM $1.00 so at least that dollar can be used to promote U.S.A BEEF and not the generic of the world as NCBA and CBB are currently doing......
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
You say the price of inflation has off set the $1.00 check-off, well so has the inflation on the "good prices" we can afford it. Well all expense has gone up and ate all that good price up, we are back to square one with added income from the so called good prices. I say we drop it to 50 cents and see if it does the same. I think I will get a government grant and check this out. :D
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,021
Reaction score
234
Location
Big Muddy valley
[7] Plaintiff Pat Goggins ("Goggins") is a grower, breeder and livestock marketer from Billings, Montana. Goggins objects to the use of his checkoff dollars to produce messages promoting all cattle rather than American cattle. Goggins is of the opinion that American produced cattle are superior to foreign produced cattle. Goggins objects to being compelled to pay for and promote foreign products. Goggins' auction business collects from producers and pays approximately $30,000 each year to the Board under the checkoff.

[8] Plaintiff Johnnie Smith ("Smith") from Pierre, South Dakota, raises cattle and owns a partnership interest in a livestock market. Smith believes that the generic promotion of beef serves to promote imported beef. In fact, from September 11, 2001, to October 2001, foreign beef imports from Canada increased 26% while imports from Mexico increased 8%. Smith believes that foreign cattle are generally older with meat that is stringy and tough and that the foreign animals are more likely to have been subjected to pesticides. Smith opposes the use of his checkoff dollars to promote imported beef.

[9] Herman Schumacher ("Schumacher") is a cattle producer from Herried, South Dakota. He also owns a livestock auction. He believes that generic advertising increases foreign imports which hurts his business. Foreign grown beef is in direct competition with his business. He objects to the use of his checkoff dollars for generic advertising of beef.

[10] Plaintiff Jerry Goebel ("Goebel") is a cattle producer from Lebanon, South Dakota. Goebel objects to the use of checkoff funds for generic advertising which implies that beef is all the same.

[11] Plaintiff Robert Thullner ("Thullner") is a cattle producer from Herried, South Dakota. Thullner objects to the generic messages paid for by checkoff dollars, which messages are contrary to his belief that only American beef should be promoted.

I cut and pasted this about the LMA boys opposing the check off. They say they don't want their dollars promoting tough stringy beef.
Is their no tough stringy beef produced in the US? I think so and some might even come from their home states. Boy i think they should get in a "Branded "program cause it is going to be tough just to collect the Check off from just the good beef. :cowboy:
Remember that Hamburgers are beef that that results in higher cull prices. I hear the importers don't want their dollars to promote US beef so In those famous words of Rancher" Why can't we all just get a thong"
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
famous words of Rancher" Why can't we all just get a thong"

I don't know if I want a thong, wonder if they saddle sore ya.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
BMR, " Why can't we all just get a thong"

I've seen a picture of you, and while you're certainly a nice looking man (and I say this from a staunch hetereosexual standpoint), I think the thongs should be left to the ladies, and even then, some of them should be disqualified as well.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,021
Reaction score
234
Location
Big Muddy valley
Mention Thongs and that's all you guys can think about.
The point i was trying to make was the Checkoff may not be perfect but it does promote beef and that is the end result of our production. The high end customers will buy top grade staeks and roasts and the lower customers will buy hamberger that is useing some cheaper meats but if the producer is creating demand for beef he is better off then doing nothing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BMR- Are you not proud of Canadian beef?...Do you not feel Canada produces some of the best beef in the world? During the period the border was shut tight did not Canadian consumers go the extra mile to support Canadian producers and Canadian beef?

Well I feel the same way about US beef- and I feel many consumers would take the extra step to purchase US beef if it was identified and promoted....The dollars collected from US producers should not be being used to promote beef from Canada, Mexico, Australia or Buku Egypt.....They should promote USA born, raised and slaughtered....

I guess my feeling is that US citizens tax dollars should not be used to promote products from a foreign country....They can use the dollar tax collected at the ports to support the generic beef- but the rest should be promoting USA BEEF.....

I would gladly give the checkoff $1 more if they would use it to fund and promote M-COOL- but with NCBA running it that will be a cold day in Hates.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Oldtimer said:
BMR- Are you not proud of Canadian beef?...Do you not feel Canada produces some of the best beef in the world? During the period the border was shut tight did not Canadian consumers go the extra mile to support Canadian producers and Canadian beef?

Well I feel the same way about US beef- and I feel many consumers would take the extra step to purchase US beef if it was identified and promoted....The dollars collected from US producers should not be being used to promote beef from Canada, Mexico, Australia or Buku Egypt.....They should promote USA born, raised and slaughtered....

I guess my feeling is that US citizens tax dollars should not be used to promote products from a foreign country....They can use the dollar tax collected at the ports to support the generic beef- but the rest should be promoting USA BEEF.....

I would gladly give the checkoff $1 more if they would use it to fund and promote M-COOL- but with NCBA running it that will be a cold day in Hates.

What if those imports add value to your prodcut? You know that does happen don't you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
BMR- Are you not proud of Canadian beef?...Do you not feel Canada produces some of the best beef in the world? During the period the border was shut tight did not Canadian consumers go the extra mile to support Canadian producers and Canadian beef?

Well I feel the same way about US beef- and I feel many consumers would take the extra step to purchase US beef if it was identified and promoted....The dollars collected from US producers should not be being used to promote beef from Canada, Mexico, Australia or Buku Egypt.....They should promote USA born, raised and slaughtered....

I guess my feeling is that US citizens tax dollars should not be used to promote products from a foreign country....They can use the dollar tax collected at the ports to support the generic beef- but the rest should be promoting USA BEEF.....

I would gladly give the checkoff $1 more if they would use it to fund and promote M-COOL- but with NCBA running it that will be a cold day in Hates.

What if those imports add value to your prodcut? You know that does happen don't you?

Not all imports are imported to add value- and if they do- good...Let them advertise their generic or country labeled beef with the checkoff collected at the ports-- but not with my dollar.....I still believe in the United States of America- not the New World Order of Global Trade.........
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Brad S said:
HELL YES!

First, the checkoff is returning something like $20 to $1, perhaps the next dollar might only return $10. I could live with that.

Second, these great prices allow it - we can afford it.

Third, inflation over the last 20 years has reduced the buying power of the 1986 dollar to less than half of what we began the checkoff with.

Finally, demand faces real and new challenges that require greater beef industry input. Look no further than bse hysteria. Consider high energy prices, the right ad campaign could make "enjoying beef at home" offset some sales losses in the restaurant sector if/when travel is reduced.

The Great Gretzki, when asked what accounted for his superrior skill, responded with, "most skate to where the puck is, I try to skate to where the puck is going to be."

Brad you make an excellent point. However I believe the real reason to increase the beef checkoff is the simple fact that it is paid on a per head basis and our cattle inventory has declined approximately 13 million head since the checkoff was initiated while beef production has increased. Thus, fewer dollars are collected to promote higher levels of beef production because of the efficiency of our herd.

How are the little ones doing?
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
What if those imports add value to your prodcut? You know that does happen don't you?

Agman, do you have the numbers on how much of imported beef is to add value and how much is competition to our beef? Thanks
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
652
Reaction score
0
Location
Southeastern Colorado
Will any increase in the check-off be subject to a vote?

Do we need to get 10% of the beef producers to ask for this or what?

Is there a mechanism in place already for doing this?

Where can a person get answers to the above?
 

jigs

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
0
Location
KANSAS
why stop there? lets raise land taxes, fuel sur charges, John Deere needs more money for equipment, hell, lets up the bean and corn check offs.

I swear, there must be a check off fund on B.S. the way some of you guys spew out the bull.


the check off is a manditory tax, levied against the producer, who has absolutely no say in how it is spent. If the check off is doing so great, why is pork all I hear about on tv and radio???

I want MY money in MY pocket, and no one will EVER convince me that a group of "experts" or a govt. panel can spend my dollar wiser than me.
If you honestly believe that they spend wiser than you, then you obviously voted for Clinton.



 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rancher said:
What if those imports add value to your prodcut? You know that does happen don't you?

Agman, do you have the numbers on how much of imported beef is to add value and how much is competition to our beef? Thanks

The last time I calculated the lean trim was approximately 65% of imported product. As the demand for leaner ground beef grows it takes more lean product for blending to absorb our 50/50 trim production. The largest gains in ground beef sales at retail have been in the 85%-90% lean. Most fast food companies like McD's use a blend of 73% lean.

Regarding cattle imports, many of those cattle when fed to U.S specs for grading ended up in the export market also. The U.S benefits from the added value of those exports also.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
jigs said:
why stop there? lets raise land taxes, fuel sur charges, John Deere needs more money for equipment, hell, lets up the bean and corn check offs.

I swear, there must be a check off fund on B.S. the way some of you guys spew out the bull.


the check off is a manditory tax, levied against the producer, who has absolutely no say in how it is spent. If the check off is doing so great, why is pork all I hear about on tv and radio???

I want MY money in MY pocket, and no one will EVER convince me that a group of "experts" or a govt. panel can spend my dollar wiser than me.
If you honestly believe that they spend wiser than you, then you obviously voted for Clinton.

Why don't the packers spend thier money on advertising? If advertising is profitable wouldn't a free market encourage it? Wouldn't that increase beef consumption and hence their profitability? Why does there need to be a tax on producers for advertising? You may be on to something here Jigs.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Econ101, do you know what the packers spend on advertisiment and promotion, independtly of the beef checkoff?


I don't , but would like to, does anybody know the answer?
 

Latest posts

Top