Is it time to double the checkoff?

[Faster horses]

If we don't pay to advertise our product, who will?

I will tell you one thing for sure. Before the Checkoff, we got really bad press. Ladies magazines loved to rip beef apart. They could, and it didn't hurt them in the least because they lost no advertising because of it.

After the Checkoff when there was advertising dollars to be spent and money was spent with these magazines, they began to print more favorable articles about beef. That type of advertising, money can't buy. Oh yeah, we paid for ads, but the favorable press we got was a definite benefit.

Think about all those movie stars they interviewed that was dead-set against eating meat. The magazines were full of 'em. Heck, now you can read about movie stars that EAT meat. Drastic change, if you ask me.

BTW, Jacquline Smith is a BURGER GIRL. That's what she said in a national magazine. Talked about how she ate burgers and ate them several times a week. That my friends, is effective advertising. And no one PAID her to do it. But the magazine that printed what she said might not have done so, if not for the Beef Checkoff and advertising dollars.

So again, if we aren't going to pay for it, WHO WILL?

And ask NIKE and a few others if advertising pays.

 

[jigs]

the difference between beef and Nike is simple....

the little asian kids making the shoes are not FORCED to return a portion of thier pay to advertise for the Nike shoes they made.

that is my hang up!

 

[Anonymous]

I agree Brad but we need to figure out a way to not carry the checkoff blamers.

The solution to this dilema is to create a checkoff that only benefits those who pay. Then the checkoff blamers can watch as their commodity beef industry withers on the vine just like the sheep producers did while the progressive producers take control of the industry.

I agree that blamers should not be forced to benefit from the beef checkoff against their will. By all means, allow them to self destruct.

BTW, who the hell made the livestock marketing police with their commission dollar bias the voice of the cattlemen? They are nothing more than a service provider to this industry, certainly not the voice.

The Livestock Marketing Police don't like the checkoff because the checkoff funded strategic alliances program showed progressive producers how much they were losing by not retaining ownership on their higher quality cattle as opposed to selling in the "AND HOW MUCH YA GONNA GIVE FOR EM" socialized price taking system of marketing offered by the sale barns. The good cattle carry the poor cattle when they are all "FANCY", "OUTSTANDING" and from "REPUTATION OUTFITS BOYS".

Let the progressive producer move forward and leave the blamers like OT behind to wonder what happened. That would suit me just fine!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "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."

That statement really bothers me. Agman, you chose the words, "The U.S. benefits" as if we all benefit, when actually the greatest benefit goes to only the outfit doing the exporting.

 

[Econ101]

I agree Brad but we need to figure out a way to not carry the checkoff blamers.

The solution to this dilema is to create a checkoff that only benefits those who pay. Then the checkoff blamers can watch as their commodity beef industry withers on the vine just like the sheep producers did while the progressive producers take control of the industry.

I agree that blamers should not be forced to benefit from the beef checkoff against their will. By all means, allow them to self destruct.

BTW, who the hell made the livestock marketing police with their commission dollar bias the voice of the cattlemen? They are nothing more than a service provider to this industry, certainly not the voice.

The Livestock Marketing Police don't like the checkoff because the checkoff funded strategic alliances program showed progressive producers how much they were losing by not retaining ownership on their higher quality cattle as opposed to selling in the "AND HOW MUCH YA GONNA GIVE FOR EM" socialized price taking system of marketing offered by the sale barns. The good cattle carry the poor cattle when they are all "FANCY", "OUTSTANDING" and from "REPUTATION OUTFITS BOYS".

Let the progressive producer move forward and leave the blamers like OT behind to wonder what happened. That would suit me just fine!


~SH~

If the beef checkoff does not fall into your definition of a "socialized" marketing policy, I don't know what does.

You do bring up the concept of "free riders". R-calf's contention, I would guess (and I admit I don't really know) is that their check off dollars go to pay for a program that benefits ALL beef sales, not just theirs. In this case, the "free rider" is the imported meat and those that are importing it. If the money was obtained off of the boxed beef sold in the U.S. instead of the cattle, the problem of the packers getting a free ride would not exist.

I guess you will take a free ride for the packers, SH, while at the same time condemning cattle ranchers for not being "progressive".

I do not disagree that dollars may need to be raised to increase beef consumption and that would be a good thing for all producers. The question is why should the cattle rancher pay for the packer's free ride?

 

[Mike]

What would be wrong with allowing the producers who sell to a "Branded" beef program to donate their checkoff dollars to that program exclusively. (Of course only the legitimate ones that are registered with the USDA)

If several of them wanted to get together and fund research etc., then so be it. We need more creativity and fresher minds in the beef promotion business.

The producers who sell commodity beef could continue the status quo, by contributing to the CBB.

Competition makes the world go round.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Agman, "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."

That statement really bothers me. Agman, you chose the words, "The U.S. benefits" as if we all benefit, when actually the greatest benefit goes to only the outfit doing the exporting.

Boy sandhusker you have your blinders on. Don't communities benefit from the spin offs from feeding cattle? Jobs. grain sales , services. If your exporters make money from selling cattle I think it is a benefit for the surrounding community.
Do you work for a really small bank?

 

[Econ101]

What would be wrong with allowing the producers who sell to a "Branded" beef program to donate their checkoff dollars to that program exclusively. (Of course only the legitimate ones that are registered with the USDA)

If several of them wanted to get together and fund research etc., then so be it. We need more creativity and fresher minds in the beef promotion business.

The producers who sell commodity beef could continue the status quo, by contributing to the CBB.

Competition makes the world go round.

Why don't the politicians and judges understand something so simple? Why are they both trying to give a free ride to the packers?

Since I believe in free and fair trade and that Canada's trade is worthwhile and beneficial to both countries, why do we allow these giant agribusines companies to play one producer against another with the current answers given to the benefit of politician bribing companies with ever increasing market power?

Are they trying to Mexicanize us all? Our country has been there and done that before. That is the reason why we have antitrst legislation and the PSA. Why do we have to learn these economic lessons again because some are too young or do not know history or economics well enough to understand the real reasons for the problems today?

 

[rkaiser]

I actually agree with SH on this one in a way. Up the checkoff for packer lovers like SH to 10 dollars or maybe even 20 dollars per head to help Cargill and Tyson out with their advertising costs and leave us blamers to find ways to promote beef on our own. That would mean freedom for those of us on the right and SH and his band of RED commrades could help out the chosen few.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "R-calf's contention, I would guess (and I admit I don't really know) is that their check off dollars go to pay for a program that benefits ALL beef sales, not just theirs."

The amount that's imported that would be labeled under the flawed "M"COOL law is so insignificant that it's irrelevant. Labeling 5% of the U.S. beef consumption at the cost of labeling all beef would give a decided advantage to the imported beef as a novelty item. Anyone can look at the success of New Zealand lamb sales in the U.S. to see that.

Considering that 33% of our population is hispanic do you actually believe they would shy from Mexican beef while they fly their Mexican flags in the U.S.??

Leave beef marketing up to those that actually understand it. You obviously don't understand that either.

Kindergarten: "In this case, the "free rider" is the imported meat and those that are importing it. If the money was obtained off of the boxed beef sold in the U.S. instead of the cattle, the problem of the packers getting a free ride would not exist."

Most of the beef that is imported into the U.S. is lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand that are blended with our surplus 50/50 trim TO ADD VALUE TO IT. If you knew anything about this industry you would know that but you don't.

If the packers paid the checkoff, they would simply pay that much less for the cattle. Nobody has more incentive to pay the beef checkoff than we do. Packers are a margin operator. They are not getting any free ride.

Kindergarten: "I guess you will take a free ride for the packers, SH, while at the same time condemning cattle ranchers for not being "progressive"."

Display your ignorance again!

Any value that is added to the carcass comes back to the producer in the form of higher cattle prices. Packer profits fluctuate very litttle. The biggest diservice to this industy is packer blamers like you that think we can squeeze more money out of the packer instead of realizing that any new money into this industry will come from the consumer.

These packer parasite lawsuits, if successful, would only serve to rob peter to pay paul.

Kindergarten: "I do not disagree that dollars may need to be raised to increase beef consumption and that would be a good thing for all producers. The question is why should the cattle rancher pay for the packer's free ride?"

What free ride?

You want the packer to pay the beef checkoff, fine, they will in turn pay that much less for cattle. Whatever! If that will make you feel better, go for it.

THE PACKER IS A MARGIN OPERATOR!!!! A MIDDLEMAN!

They pay based on what they get.


~SH~

 

[agman]

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.

Have you not seen Tyson's ads on national TV? As far as the checkoff, I will stay with my long-standing position. That is, we should fund R&D for new product development to be shared by the entire beef industry.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "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."

That statement really bothers me. Agman, you chose the words, "The U.S. benefits" as if we all benefit, when actually the greatest benefit goes to only the outfit doing the exporting.

Boy sandhusker you have your blinders on. Don't communities benefit from the spin offs from feeding cattle? Jobs. grain sales , services. If your exporters make money from selling cattle I think it is a benefit for the surrounding community.
Do you work for a really small bank?

Aside from your slam, I see your point, BMR. However, there is danger in the words "The US". That gives the impression that it is just plain all good for everybody, which is generally not the case with anything. It's simply too wide a brush and it can get you into trouble. Everytime I see the words "the US benefits" or an equivalent, I interpret it as the person pushing the deal benefits and is selling it as we all benefit, because that's generally how that deal works.

 

[rkaiser]

Quote:
Kindergarten: "I do not disagree that dollars may need to be raised to increase beef consumption and that would be a good thing for all producers. The question is why should the cattle rancher pay for the packer's free ride?"


What free ride?

You want the packer to pay the beef checkoff, fine, they will in turn pay that much less for cattle. Whatever! If that will make you feel better, go for it.

THE PACKER IS A MARGIN OPERATOR!!!! A MIDDLEMAN!

They pay based on what they get.


~SH~

Good one SH, you have just admited that the checkoff does nothing for the producer. If the packer pays, he will adjust the price accordingly. And that is the truth.

I don't believe that Econo was talking about packers paying the beef checkoff so much as paying for their own damn advertising.

I won't be convinced by anyone that the checkoff here in Canada or the USA for that matter has increased demand for beef. Nobody sees it but those who look for it. And supporters look very very hard. Demand is based firstly on price, and then on promotion and advertising which SH has admitted, has no financial connection to the producer.

Packers are willingly taking advantage of producer dollars to advertise while using every effort possible to pay the producer as little as possible for his cattle.

Call that integrated till the dogs come home SH, but it is the truth.

 

[Econ101]

SH:

If the packers paid the checkoff, they would simply pay that much less for the cattle. Nobody has more incentive to pay the beef checkoff than we do. Packers are a margin operator. They are not getting any free ride.

SH, Are you telling me that the beef imported from what ever country the packers import from are paying beef checkoff dollars for the benefit of advertising that product in the USA where it is being sold? If not then the ones selling it are free riders on USA producer paid advertising. Period. I don't care what the reason you make up to justify your garble. You are just wrong.

Where does most of the U.S. beef imports come from? I did not hear you.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "Good one SH, you have just admited that the checkoff does nothing for the producer."

I never said anything of the damn sort! Any increase in consumer demand for beef is reflected in the prices paid for fat cattle. You are simply too ignorant to understand that.

Randy: "If the packer pays, he will adjust the price accordingly. And that is the truth."

That's just what I said. If the packer pays the checkoff, it would add to their expenses so they will pay that much less for the cattle. If all the packers give their employees a pay raise, did you think the packers would lose money to pay for it or do you think it would be reflected in the price of fat cattle?

With the lack of understanding of this industry that you have, it's no wonder why you wanted all Canadian producers to contribute to the Big "C".

Randy: "I don't believe that Econo was talking about packers paying the beef checkoff so much as paying for their own damn advertising."

Kindergarten doesn't even know what he's talking about so how could you possibly know?

Randy: "I won't be convinced by anyone that the checkoff here in Canada or the USA for that matter has increased demand for beef."

Of course you won't because you are a blamer. Facts don't mean anything to you. I could take you into a retail outlet and show you the price of a flat iron steak that used to be ground up. I could show you the checkoff funded research of muscle meat seperation that led to it's discovery and you still wouldn't believe it because you are a chronic bitcher. Truth and facts mean nothing to you.

Randy: "Demand is based firstly on price, and then on promotion and advertising which SH has admitted, has no financial connection to the producer."

Price is a function of demand, not the other way around. I never said advertising has no financial connection to the producer. That is another of your many damn lies.

Randy: "Packers are willingly taking advantage of producer dollars to advertise while using every effort possible to pay the producer as little as possible for his cattle."

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK JUST DROVE LIVE CATTLE PRICES TO A 50% ADVANCE IN A SINGLE YEAR IF CATTLE PRICES ARE NOT DRIVEN BY BEEF DEMAND????

You can't answer that!

Don't be such an idiot!

Randy: "Call that integrated till the dogs come home SH, but it is the truth."

You don't know anything about truth.

Kindergarten: "SH, Are you telling me that the beef imported from what ever country the packers import from are paying beef checkoff dollars for the benefit of advertising that product in the USA where it is being sold?"

Where did that come from?

Importers are paying the beef checkoff so we can advertise beef against POULTY AND PORK, THE REAL COMPETITION!

Kindergarten: "If not then the ones selling it are free riders on USA producer paid advertising. Period. I don't care what the reason you make up to justify your garble. You are just wrong."

I already told you that the bulk of imports are lean trimmings that are blended with our WORTHLESS 50/50 TRIM TO ADD VALUE TO IT!

If checkoff dollars are used to advertise this leaned down ground beef, WE BENEFIT because these imported lean trimmings add value to our virtually worthless trim.

Any beef advertisements increasese all beef consumption over poulty and pork, OUR REAL COMPETITION.


Keep telling yourself I'm wrong becasue you are much better at that then ever proving it.

Kindergarten: "Where does most of the U.S. beef imports come from? I did not hear you."

Australia and New Zealand and it comes in the form of lean trimmings THAT ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS TRIM!

Something else you import blamers do not understand.



~SH~

 

[rancher]

Quote:
Kindergarten: "Where does most of the U.S. beef imports come from? I did not hear you."


Australia and New Zealand and it comes in the form of lean trimmings THAT ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS TRIM!

Something else you import blamers do not understand.



~SH~

Pre BSE it was Australia and Canada, just about a tie for the most as Canada was 1% under Australia.

 

[rkaiser]

I truely feel sorry for you SH. You are such a loser that all you can do is call names to try to make yourself out to be some kind of authority. Pathetic.

Quote:
Randy: "Good one SH, you have just admited that the checkoff does nothing for the producer."


I never said anything of the damn sort! Any increase in consumer demand for beef is reflected in the prices paid for fat cattle. You are simply too ignorant to understand that.


Quote:
Randy: "If the packer pays, he will adjust the price accordingly. And that is the truth."


That's just what I said. If the packer pays the checkoff, it would add to their expenses so they will pay that much less for the cattle. If all the packers give their employees a pay raise, did you think the packers would lose money to pay for it or do you think it would be reflected in the price of fat cattle?

With the lack of understanding of this industry that you have, it's no wonder why you wanted all Canadian producers to contribute to the Big "C".


Quote:
Randy: "I don't believe that Econo was talking about packers paying the beef checkoff so much as paying for their own damn advertising."


Kindergarten doesn't even know what he's talking about so how could you possibly know?


Quote:
Randy: "I won't be convinced by anyone that the checkoff here in Canada or the USA for that matter has increased demand for beef."


Of course you won't because you are a blamer. Facts don't mean anything to you. I could take you into a retail outlet and show you the price of a flat iron steak that used to be ground up. I could show you the checkoff funded research of muscle meat seperation that led to it's discovery and you still wouldn't believe it because you are a chronic bitcher. Truth and facts mean nothing to you.


Quote:
Randy: "Demand is based firstly on price, and then on promotion and advertising which SH has admitted, has no financial connection to the producer."


Price is a function of demand, not the other way around. I never said advertising has no financial connection to the producer. That is another of your many damn lies.


Quote:
Randy: "Packers are willingly taking advantage of producer dollars to advertise while using every effort possible to pay the producer as little as possible for his cattle."


WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK JUST DROVE LIVE CATTLE PRICES TO A 50% ADVANCE IN A SINGLE YEAR IF CATTLE PRICES ARE NOT DRIVEN BY BEEF DEMAND????

You can't answer that!

Don't be such an idiot!


Quote:
Randy: "Call that integrated till the dogs come home SH, but it is the truth."


You don't know anything about truth.

Can't even comprehend your own words when you are irritated SH so how could you possibly comprhend someone else's words. Go get some medication to calm your packer lover mind.

Take me to that counter SH and show me that flank steak, and then take me to the ranch and show me how it made the rancher one red cent.
You cannot prove that increase in demand was brought on by the checkoff any more than you can prove Tyson and Cargill lost money due to the closed border.

You are more blinded by packer love than I am by packer blame any day.

The one I like the most on this name calling fluery of yours is the 50% advance in a single year statement. What the hell did that have to do with what I said just above. You are a lost sorry soul SH, hell bent on your packer loving mission, and bound to dispell anyone with name calling and intimidation. Yap on about BIG C you idiot, and then support a program with a lot of the same intentions. Anything for attention hey bud.

A peron should know better than to keep coming back here as SH will never grow up. Such a sorry excuse for a closet Liberal I have never seen.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy the packer blamer: "you are such a loser that all you can do is call names to try to make yourself out to be some kind of authority."

You haven't corrected me on anything yet. All you can do is make your meaningless little "poor me" packer blaming statements. Same-O Randy!

Randy the packer blamer: "You cannot prove that increase in demand was brought on by the checkoff any more than you can prove Tyson and Cargill lost money due to the closed border."

I already proved that Tyson and Cargill lost money due to the closed border. Your simply too ignorant to understand a financial statement.

Flint Hill Farms was one of the main distributers of the 10 minute microwavable products which was developed from checkoff dollars. FHF was paying $3/cwt more for fat cattle due to the value they added to the chuck and the round. You will refuse to believe that because it doesn't support your "POOR ME" packer blaming agenda. Any value that is added to beef and beef by products is passed on to the producer in the form of higher cattle prices. If that was not the case, the markets would never move. That obvious fact is simply too obvious for a packer blamer like you. Poor Randy!

Randy the packer blamer: "The one I like the most on this name calling fluery of yours is the 50% advance in a single year statement. What the hell did that have to do with what I said just above."

You're right, why should I try to explain to a complete idiot how increased demand has led to higher cattle prices let alone what contributes to increased beef demand. Good point. Forgot the level of ignorance I was dealing with.

Randy the packer blamer: "You are a lost sorry soul SH, hell bent on your packer loving mission, and bound to dispell anyone with name calling and intimidation."?

Yeh keep telling yourself that Big R because it's sure a hell of a lot easier than actually backing it with anything of substance. All you cheap talkers are the same.

Randy the packer blamer: "A peron should know better than to keep coming back here as SH will never grow up."

Yeh you should know better than to try to spread your baseless packer blaming bullsh*t here and think it would stand uncorrected. This a place where facts rule. It's understandable why you wouldn't feel at home unless you had the fellowship of a bunch of whining packer blamers.

Poor Randy!


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Rancher: "Pre BSE it was Australia and Canada, just about a tie for the most as Canada was 1% under Australia."

I am well aware of where our imports come from rancher as I have posted the information at this site including the Central American countries. I didn't forget what I posted.

As I said, the bulk of our imports come from Australia and New Zealand in the form of lean trimmings that add value to our 50/50 trim.




~SH~

 

[rancher]

Rancher: "Pre BSE it was Australia and Canada, just about a tie for the most as Canada was 1% under Australia."

I am well aware of where our imports come from rancher as I have posted the information at this site including the Central American countries. I didn't forget what I posted.

As I said, the bulk of our imports come from Australia and New Zealand in the form of lean trimmings that add value to our 50/50 trim.




~SH~

Sorry SH, but don't see where you said bulk of imports. The question was where do most of our beef imports come from. You never answered bulk. Got the old cranky pants on, I gave them up and you must have found them. Smile the sun is shining and will be tomorrow too.