Is it time to double the checkoff?

[Econ101]

I know you are asking Rkaiser the question.

My point in bringing up this was for people to realize that beef checkoff dollars need to basically pay for themselves in added return. Companies can track and tell if this is the case with their own advertising dollars so they can make their own adjustments to maximize profits. The checkoff is not that accountable and can not be traced. Chicken has made some real big claims of healthy eating over beef and those claims need to be countered (I am around too many women and I sometimes have to fight for my beef on the plate). Half of taxes spent are usually wasted and that could happen with these dollars instead of providing the return for the money.

Having producers pay for advertising that is on the retail level seems a little out there to me unless they have a chance to produce cattle for that retail market like Laura's Lean beef, Callicrate Beef, or whoever it happens to be. Laura provides a premium for cattle producers. People in the city with good disposable income may pick that type of meat up if they feel it is "special" in some way. Generic commodity beef may not provide the premiums necessary to afford advertisement. If you are selling to Wal-Mart on price it may not be worth advertising dollar.

 

[Tam]

I guess you can't read hey Tam. Who the hell ever said anything about not paying back debt?

and the checkoff (seperate from any other checkoff and unrelated) would pay down the loan. Every dollar from the checkoff would become a share for the producer in the plant or plants.

I can read Randy

 

[Econ101]

I guess you can't read hey Tam. Who the hell ever said anything about not paying back debt?

95% of the people who came out to BIG C meetings did agree with the concept Tam. Because they came out and listened and did not twist the idea into whatever they saw fit as you do. A checkoff for a producer owned plant would have nothing to do with ABP or CCA, but somehow you have things figured out in your own mind.

That's quite an opinion you have there about price fluctuation and advertising Tam. I said that I believe advertising is advantageous, just question the advertising we do with producer dollars, and how much actual advantage it gives to producers of Canada and the USA.

rkaiser, You will have to differentiate from the big boys or stay under the radar screen as you say. Would the Japanese be interested in providing a market if they had an interest in it? At the price of food in Japan, they can afford it.

 

[rkaiser]

You're not getting it Tam. Every Checkoff dollar would go to paying down the debt, and become a share in the plant. Does that not make sense?

When the debt is paid down the plant would become property owned by the producers who paid through the checkoff/levy. I am sorry I am not explaining the concept well enough for you to understand Tam. Too bad you didn't come out to one of the meetings.

Econo - We have approached the Japanese and this weekend some of our guys are meeting with a group from China. It may be the only way to convince our government to truely look at our idea. Most of the time our concept is so distorted by folks like Tam that we have a hard time getting it off the ground. Ad to that a group of people at our helm who are fed up with current industry BS and you can probably see why we haven't started up yet. (there's a good line for you to jump on SH).

 

[Tam]

My point in bringing up this was for people to realize that beef checkoff dollars need to basically pay for themselves in added return.

Are you saying the added demand for beef from the development of new products and the advertizing to promote those new products is not going to result in added returns to the industry as a whole.? In my opinion the money spent by the Checkoff to develop and promote new ways to sell beef is a great investment.

 

[Tam]

You're not getting it Tam. Every Checkoff dollar would go to paying down the debt, and become a share in the plant. Does that not make sense?

When the debt is paid down the plant would become property owned by the producers who paid through the checkoff/levy. I am sorry I am not explaining the concept well enough for you to understand Tam. Too bad you didn't come out to one of the meetings.

From what I heard it probably wouldn't have matter if I had come to the meeting as some of the guys that did thought they were buying shares. :wink:
Econo101 says

My point in bringing up this was for people to realize that beef checkoff dollars need to basically pay for themselves in added return.

Answer me this what good is the share and what value will there be in the share if every producer in Canada owns a share for every animal he sells. Just what kind of added return can I expect to see from my checkoff money if Tyson and Cargill run the plant into the ground like you think they will do to anyone else that trys to compete with them? We just have your opinion that this plant will be different but it's my opinion this is not what CHECKOFF dollars are for and I guess I'm not the only one in Canada that is of the same opinion.
I'm with Econo on his idea about Japan or any other Asian market. If you want to get their markets tried up with a little bow have them invest in the plant. If they invest it is a good bet they will be buying beef from your plant and not Tyson and Cargill. And the Checkoff dollars will still be working hard to develop new products and promote beef on behalf of the whole beef industry like it was intented to do.

 

[RobertMac]

Randy, you have my deepest sympathy for having to deal with anal retentive producers and you and your group a definitely on the right path for giving producer their best chance at attaining stable profitability. Best of luck!

Tam, it amazes me that you don't understand Randy's "checkoff". It's not "THE CHECKOFF"!!! :???: A dollar per head for each animal processed through the plant is assessed from each producer's check to go to paying back the construction loan. When the loan is paid, each producer will own a share of the plant, the size of which is determined by the number of cattle that producer had processed. The more cattle a producer processes, the larger his share of ownership is. This is to encourage loyalty to the business. Randy is wrong to call it a checkoff because it is obviously confusing...to some! :shock:

As for proof that "The Checkoff" is working, where is yours?????
I have offered proof the beef's market share has declined 10.3% since "The Checkoff" (USA) started....it has stabilized in the upper 30% for the last ten or so years.....per capita consumption has dropped and stabilized in the low to mid 60 pound range over the same time period....the only growth has been to match population growth, which has mainly come from increased carcass weights and, with new FTAs, increased sources of supply. The only jump in consumption can be more correctly aligned with the 'high protein diets'.
GOT PROOF?

 

[Jason]

Advertising definately does work. For proof, information from BIF (Beef Improvement Federation) told about 'The Keg' looking for an increase in market share as a steak house. They polled consumers and found they wanted a consistant steak. The Keg choose 28 day aged center cut steaks and priced them accordingly. Beef consumption went up something like 28% (that is a guess from memory) and satisfaction rating went to over 90%.

People switch to chicken when they aren't sure what to have. They know it will taste like a chicken every time. They would prefer a good steak but are sometimes scared to try a steak at the price on the menu, unless they know it will be enjoyable. Part of this is the establishment cooking it right, and replacing it if it isn't.

 

[Jason]

Randy, please clarify the BigC plan.

A gov't garanteed loan.

Producer checkoff on all cattle or just those sold to the BigC?

1 animal 1 share, again 1 animal sold anywhere or 1 sold to BigC?

If producers didn't understand the business model, maybe it wasn't clear enough, or was thought to have too many strings attached.

You haven't been extremely clear on the plan here, so here's your chance.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy Kaiser,

By your own admission, you admit that you can't back your position. Your positions are based totally on what you want to believe not on what the facts will support.

Cargill and Tyson investing in packing industry expansion in Canada is not proof of excessive profits in Canada. Using that ridiculous logic would be to assume that Tyson and Cargill didn't have any other assetts available to them to invest in Canada other than the profits they made in their Canadian packing plants. How ridiculous is that? Another of your many baseless allegations.

The proof of Lakeside's profits is available in the investigation conducted by the Canadian government but you don't want to know the truth about the added costs of SRM removal. You need someone to blame.

The proof of Lakeside's profits is also available through Tyson's financial reports where they stated that profits in Lakeside dwindled to virtually nothing in 2005. That's not what you want to believe so you refuse to believe it.

You are completely brainwashed with your need to blame packers that you condemn anyone that would dare to present facts to the contrary of what you want to believe.

There is nothing conservative about your anti corporate packer position. Your views are the liberal views. "Punish achievement, regulate prosperity, how dare you be successful if I'm not". That's not a conservative view, that is a liberal view. I suppose it cleanses your packer blaming conscience to accuse me of having liberal views when you are the one with liberal views here. "PLEASE GOVERNMNENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES". That's you Randy!

A conservative view is to become a successful packer rather than regulating the packers. Instead of getting investors to finance your plant, you want the government to step in and fund it for you and other producers to invest in the same venture.

You also offer contradicting arguments. You say that packers are making excessive profits then you turn around and tell Tam that the large packers will squash their packing venture. You can't have it both ways. If there is so much money in the packing industry as you lead others to believe, then why woudn't a competitive packing company also survive?

If producers unite and committ their cattle to a certain packing company, WHAT WOULD TYSON AND CARGILL SQUISH IT WITH??? You see what a defeatest blamer you are?


Robert Mac,

How in the world can you blame the checkoff in beef's reduced market share? Using your ridiculous logic would be to assume that the beef checkoff's WHOPPING $1 PER HEAD INVESTMENT is the only factor playing on the markets. Gosh, you'd think you would have learned something about focusing on a single factor affecting cattle markets since the Canadian border is now opened and we have the highest cattle prices ever recorded. Talk about anal retentive. What could be more anal than to credit a single supply and demand factor for the trend in the cattle market without looking at all the factors that contribute to cattle prices. Sheesh Robert, go back to school.

I was calling coyotes once and I had a coyote come charging in. I threw my hat at him to get him to stop and he kept coming. Using your narrow minded logic, I guess I could conclude that throwing your hat at a coyote was an attraction for the coyote since he kept running in? That's just about as anal!



~SH~

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Robert Mac I think you are wrong. when Big C came out with their plan they wanted a $1 off every head sold in canada to go towards this plant not just the cattle sold thru that plant . If they had started that way with even a higher levy I could have supported them.
Also by the time we heard of them over here in Sask. they were already fighting mad in Alberta and didn't give a good impression to some of us here in Sask to begin with. It takes a special person to win friends and Influence peolpe and i didn't get that feeling.

 

[rkaiser]

Scott - When you finally get away from your cut and paste game SH, you are as lost as any other puppy on this site. No comprehesion of what other are saying due to your own lack of ability to see anything but the packer lover way.

Go back over your own post SH, and see the mistakes you made for yourself. If you cannot see them, then my point is proven.

Big Muddy - Your fighting mad point is well taken, but isn't it amazing that some of the things we fought for were eventually adopted by the ABP and especially CBEF?

You are correct about the LEVY Big Muddy. And I personally still support a mandatory levy on all cattle sold IF IT WERE TO PASS A DEMOCRATIC VOTE AMONG ALL PRODUCERS. If we were to ask for a levy from cattle sold through the plant, we would not differenciate much from the New Gen Co-ops starting up, like the one you are likely part of.

The difference in the BIG C plan is that the levy would pay down the bridge financing (completely conservative capitalist approach in my mind) It would be a loan for cripes sake, paid off by private money.

This paydown of the loan from the side would be the advantage that BIG C would have over investor funded plants in that profits would not go towards loan payment or returns to investors until the plant was paid down. Your honey Tam might see this as some unfair advantage over her plant, but I see it as a well thought out business idea. Like I said before, the competition that will squash your plant will not come from BIG C who are also considering export to countries other than the USA as their top priority.

Jason - what else do you want me to clarify. I'm sorry if I don't take your mutinational packer loving defense seriously. Packers are essential, advertising is good, but the packers have enjoyed a vitual salmon run here in Canada for over two years, and it simply boggles my mind that you and Tam and SH want to continue to ignore that FACT.

Something needs to change. And change will never come if turtles like yourself want to continue with your games. Tam and SH support producer owned plants ------- WHY?

The mandatory levy (voted on) that I support will likely never happen in this country. People are too scared and want to keep twisting it into something it is not. Big Muddy talked about anger holding BIG C back. What about you and Tam and good old SH. All to angry with Randy's opinion to ever see the merits of a plan to bring more competition into the Canadian industry, and possibly change some direction in America as well.

 

[RobertMac]

Your positions are based totally on what you want to believe not on what the facts will support.

~SH~

How self applicable for YOU! :lol: :lol: :lol:

How in the world can you blame the checkoff in beef's reduced market share?

Simple answer...I DIDN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To quote you...prove it! :lol: :lol: :lol:
I just pointed out the facts using ERS-USDA figure (1985 to 2003...latest year for data). I'm not blaming the checkoff for the market share facts, just pointing out that there aren't the advances in the industry that some so want to believe. I'm for the checkoff and believe it has done some good things, but it hasn't grown the industry for producers and I believe there should be accountability.

 

[RobertMac]

Tam, I apologize...I see I was wrong. But one thing I will say for Randy's position is that, unlike local governments giving tax breaks to industries, the tax break(the $1.00 checkoff on all cattle) of Big C's plan would be voted on by the people paying the tax. Interesting idea!

 

[Econ101]

I think what rkaiser is getting at is that for the cattle producer, the packer is like a public good for the producers. Economies of scale and geographic (nash equilibriums of competition) necessities call for a single large packer in the area. Having that one packer is a public good for all of the cattlemen. Why not ask the cattlement to pay for a public good and keep it "non profit"- all profits going to producers? It sure would have helped in the BSE game that was played out.

The recent play in the economics of the poultry industry show that if the PSA rules are not enforced, that strategy too will not work in the long run. Goldkist went public with its CEO, Becker(sp?), arguing that Tyson's economic fraud on its growers would run them out of business if they remained a co-op and (ostensibly) not be able to play the same games on its growers. You guys are dealing with some economists here, you better bone up on economics.

 

[mrj]

Your positions are based totally on what you want to believe not on what the facts will support.

~SH~

How self applicable for YOU! :lol: :lol: :lol:

How in the world can you blame the checkoff in beef's reduced market share?

Simple answer...I DIDN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To quote you...prove it! :lol: :lol: :lol:
I just pointed out the facts using ERS-USDA figure (1985 to 2003...latest year for data). I'm not blaming the checkoff for the market share facts, just pointing out that there aren't the advances in the industry that some so want to believe. I'm for the checkoff and believe it has done some good things, but it hasn't grown the industry for producers and I believe there should be accountability.

RobertMac, why do you believe there is not accountability in the Beef Checkoff? Detail please!

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "Go back over your own post SH, and see the mistakes you made for yourself. If you cannot see them, then my point is proven."

Talk is cheap! Prove it!


Randy Kaiser,

Allow me to show you how completely hopelessly brainwashed you are.

Randy: "Jason - what else do you want me to clarify. I'm sorry if I don't take your mutinational packer loving defense seriously. Packers are essential, advertising is good, but the packers have enjoyed a vitual salmon run here in Canada for over two years, and it simply boggles my mind that you and Tam and SH want to continue to ignore that FACT."

HOW MANY FLIPPING TIMES DO I HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THE PACKERS IN CANADA PROFITTED DUE TO HAVING MORE CATTLE THAN SLAUGHTER CAPACITY BEFORE IT SINKS INTO YOUR CONCRETE HEAD?????? 100 TIMES???? 1000 TIMES????

I HAVE REPEATED THAT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND STILL YOU THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO REALIZES THAT THE PACKERS PROFITTED FROM A CLOSED CANADIAN BORDER.

NOBODY EVER ARGUED TO THE CONTRARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The issue was never whether they profited, THE ISSUE WAS HOW MUCH AND FOR HOW LONG?

You are so brainwashed in your quest to blame Tyson and Cargill that you can't even comprehend what you are reading.

Either a producer is a 100% packer blaming conspiracy theorist like you, Parasite, and Kindergarten, or they are a packer lover. That's how it is in your twisted world. There is no room for truth. If it's what you want to believe, that's all there is to it.

BTW, when it comes to understanding this industry, you wouldn't make a pimple on Jason's ash.


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

I like the pimple on the ash comparison SH. You've been kissing John Tyson's ash so long you no longer look like a pimple, you look like a wart.

You're the one who talks of every person being a packer blamer who doesn't agree with you SH, and everyone on this site knows that but you.

How much and how long did Cargill and Tyson profit at the expense of the producers of Canada SH? -------Too long.

If the same debacle had occured in any other industry - heads would have rolled.

But due to ash kissers like yourself and most of our CCA, we just bent over a little farther. And Packer Bwamers like myself become instant idiots, ignorant of your REAL world. What a joke. As you say SH Go suck your thumb.

 

[Econ101]

SH, the great economic genius:

HOW MANY FLIPPING TIMES DO I HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THE PACKERS IN CANADA PROFITTED DUE TO HAVING MORE CATTLE THAN SLAUGHTER CAPACITY BEFORE IT SINKS INTO YOUR CONCRETE HEAD?????? 100 TIMES???? 1000 TIMES????

SH, if there was a terrorism act (or a strike or something else) and it took out 25% of the capacity of packing plants in the U.S., would the cash price still follow boxed beef prices?

 

[Econ101]

SH to rkaiser:

BTW, when it comes to understanding this industry, you wouldn't make a pimple on Jason's ash

SH, How well do you know Jason's >>>? Never mind. Too much information.

Could you please refrain from your vulgar name calling and judgements of other people? Maybe you should have gone to church more. If you can't say anything nice.......