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

Master of Beef Advocacy Program

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Great article in the Wall Street Journal recently on the Master of Beef Advocacy (MBA) program. This has been a very successful program for turning beef producers into advocates for our industry.

You can learn more at http://www.beef.org/mastersofbeefadvocacy.aspx

Beef Industry Carves a Course
Cattlemen's Group Promotes Red Meat, Trains Recruits to Win Over Consumers
By STEPHANIE SIMON

Colorado native Jen Johnson loved raising cattle and eating steak, a lifestyle some of her friends at Princeton University found a bit hard to swallow.

View Full Image

Adam Golfer
President Suzanne Strassburger, a graduate of the beef-advocacy course, inspects beef at Strassburger Meats in Carlstadt, N.J.

Ms. Johnson tried winning them over with sheer enthusiasm. But she soon realized she needed help persuading her salad-nibbling sorority sisters to order steaks. So she went back to school to get her MBA—Masters of Beef Advocacy.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which represents beef producers, launched the MBA two years ago. The course trains ranchers, feedlot operators, butchers, chefs—anyone, really, who loves a good, thick rib-eye—in the fine art of promoting and defending red meat.

Nearly 2,000 graduates have completed the program. The cattlemen aim to train at least 20,000 more, in the hope of building a forceful counterweight to the animal-rights advocates who denounce beef production as inhumane, and the vegetarian activists who reject beef consumption as unhealthy.

The advocacy effort comes at a tough time for the beef industry. Beef consumption in the U.S. plunged from a high of 94 pounds a person in 1976 to less than 62 pounds in 2009, according to the American Meat Institute, a trade group representing beef processors.


School districts across the country have adopted "Meatless Mondays" and are dishing out bean burritos in lieu of burgers. And this winter, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued new dietary guidelines advising consumers to replace some of the meat in their diet with seafood.

Meanwhile, veggie evangelists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have turned heads with ever-more-racy campaigns, including sending models clad only in strategically placed leaves of lettuce to hand out tofu hot dogs on street corners nationwide.

PETA says its tactics work. Last year, the nonprofit fielded 850,000 requests for "vegetarian starter kits" packed with recipes like Tofu Tamale Pie and testimonials from celebrity supporters like actress Natalie Portman.

"We're winning," said Bruce Friedrich, a PETA vice president.

Not so fast, the MBAs respond.

Beef has its own celebrity backers—actor Matthew McConaughey has done radio spots—but industry strategists decided that the best way to promote the product was to put the men and women who produce beef front and center.

Their goal: convince skeptical consumers that the shrink-wrapped sirloin tips in the supermarket aren't artery-clogging commodities mass-produced on factory farms, but wholesome meals turned out with great care by hard-working families. To that end, MBA students are encouraged to strike up conversations with strangers.

Ranchers are urged to talk about the hours they spend caring for cattle—all those trips to the pasture at 3 a.m. to help a laboring cow give birth. Retailers could mention nutritional facts—that a three-ounce serving of eye-round roast has just slightly more fat than a skinless chicken breast, for example.

Ms. Johnson, 26 years old, has taken to sending email blasts to her friends from Princeton, describing a morning she spent artificially inseminating cows or explaining how grazing helps ranch land thrive. The majority of beef cattle in the U.S. are raised on grass on family-owned ranches before they are sent to feedlots for fattening and then on to the slaughterhouse for processing.

"We can change the dynamic of the discussion going on with the consumer with two phrases: We care and we're capable," Daren Williams, an executive at the cattleman's association, told a recent MBA class in Denver.

But critics of the industry say true transparency about how burgers come to be may backfire.

Constant reminders that a juicy quarter-pounder was once a wobbly-legged, big-eyed calf may put some people "in the mood to have a steak," said Michael Pollan, who has written several books critical of modern beef production. "For others," he said, "it puts them in the mood to become a vegan."

To get their degrees, MBA students must listen to six online lectures on beef production and do homework assignments such as writing a pro-beef letter to the local paper. Most also attend a daylong in-person training that serves up tips on taking beef boosterism online through blogs, tweets, Facebook campaigns and YouTube videos.

At the Denver training, South Dakota rancher Troy Hadrick—one of the first MBA graduates—told students about one of his recent triumphs.

It came about after Mr. Hadrick learned Yellow Tail wine had donated $100,000 and pledged $200,000 more to the Humane Society of the U.S., an animal-rights group that has embarrassed the cattle industry with undercover videos of slaughterhouse abuses.

Mr. Hadrick, outraged, set a video camera on a fence post and filmed himself dumping a bottle of Yellow Tail onto his snowy pasture while blasting the donations as an affront to ranching families.

Mr. Hadrick's video went viral on YouTube—at least among fellow cattlemen, who bombarded Yellow Tail with protest emails. Chagrined, the winery withdrew its $200,000 pledge to the animal-rights group.

MBA graduate Suzanne Strassburger, who sells steaks to high-end New York City restaurants, hasn't tried YouTube advocacy yet, but she says the course has helped her pump up her sales pitches. "It gives me more confidence" to talk about how the meat was produced, she said. And talk she does: Beef "is my love and my passion," Ms. Strassburger said. "This is what I get up for."

Write to Stephanie Simon at [email protected].
 
Beefman, thanks for sharing that POSITIVE information!

We don't see enough of that on this site, at least not on this particular forum!

It is so good to have so many young people involved in that program. I know several who have been involved, and more who most likely will do so.

And that is only ONE such project our beef checkoff dollars are making possible involving young people and enhancing their ability to communicate the great things they have learned from either FFA, their own family business, or ag school about raising cattle and the value and health benefits of beef.

I especially appreciate the fact that a primary part of the teaching is that we need to be FACTUAL, ACCURATE, and HONEST, and at least as important, to remain CIVIL when dealing with direct attacks on our industry. Correct with solid facts, and a smile, and it will be received well by the reasonable 'bystanders'.

mrj
 
I totally agree with you on this, mrj.

I still wonder whether the campaign to glorify "white meat" and "the other white meat" wasn't concocted by some of our current "partners" in the cattle industry.

In any case, beef is eaten a lot in my family and there is no reason to disparage its consumption. It is part of a healthy lifestyle, not to be confused with some of the dealings of some of the crooks in the industry. I think that is where the bad vibes really come from.

Tex
 
Tex, thank you for the 'civility'......yet it sounds like a dig about the fact that some of us raising cattle for living believe it more beneficial to the cattle business to work with others when possible, than
it is to point fingers ALL too often, such as in your your comment on "the other white meat" campaign.

Obviously, it wasn't working well for the pork industry to emulate chicken rather than the red meat industry!

Hopefully, their checkoff is run by the same TYPE people running the beef checkoff......PRODUCERS!

Do you really believe NCBA determines what is done with beef checkoff dollars???

If recall serves me correctly, the "Where's the Beef" slogan that served us well since it's inception was a 'happy accident', not a brilliant idea from a professional. It took professional help to capitalize onit and to develop the "Beef It's What's For Dinner" campaign......and who knows how many other such 'accidents' we have overlooked.

That can happen when professional CATTLE PRODUCERS, most of them in family businesses, RUN the checkoff. The majority must believe it still is worth that risk to maintain control of our checkoff, judging by the poll numbers.

Point being, the Beef checkoff is FAR more than just the advertising, which can back-fire, while solid science based research that finds the true nutrient to calorie density so favorable to foods at the current time.

Additionally, the hard work with government agencies folks to show them how they cannot honestly portray beef as not healthful in the face of such research puts the research results to good use.

mrj
 
mrj said:
Tex, thank you for the 'civility'......yet it sounds like a dig about the fact that some of us raising cattle for living believe it more beneficial to the cattle business to work with others when possible, than
it is to point fingers ALL too often, such as in your your comment on "the other white meat" campaign.

Obviously, it wasn't working well for the pork industry to emulate chicken rather than the red meat industry!

Hopefully, their checkoff is run by the same TYPE people running the beef checkoff......PRODUCERS!

Do you really believe NCBA determines what is done with beef checkoff dollars???

If recall serves me correctly, the "Where's the Beef" slogan that served us well since it's inception was a 'happy accident', not a brilliant idea from a professional. It took professional help to capitalize onit and to develop the "Beef It's What's For Dinner" campaign......and who knows how many other such 'accidents' we have overlooked.

That can happen when professional CATTLE PRODUCERS, most of them in family businesses, RUN the checkoff. The majority must believe it still is worth that risk to maintain control of our checkoff, judging by the poll numbers.

Point being, the Beef checkoff is FAR more than just the advertising, which can back-fire, while solid science based research that finds the true nutrient to calorie density so favorable to foods at the current time.

Additionally, the hard work with government agencies folks to show them how they cannot honestly portray beef as not healthful in the face of such research puts the research results to good use.

mrj

mrj, I totally agree with you on working with people. The question is whether or not those who are "working with you", are in fact, using you. The white meat campaign was one against beef by its very nature. It was an attempt to bring gains to poultry at the expense of beef.

You just need to be real careful who your partners are. They might just have other incentives than you have.

The white meat campaign showed that.

I will admit I like chicken. I like beef more and pork a little less. I don't think having a major poultry producer in the NCBA is beneficial to the beef side of business. They have other interests than the ones you have. They should be kept at arms distance. I know people in the NCBA and they are the salt of the earth (a good thing). They don't have a clue about what is happening with the NCBA but they are seeing some of the leaders of the NCBA misrepresent the GIPSA rules and they aren't happy about it.

Tex
 
Tex said:
mrj said:
Tex, thank you for the 'civility'......yet it sounds like a dig about the fact that some of us raising cattle for living believe it more beneficial to the cattle business to work with others when possible, than
it is to point fingers ALL too often, such as in your your comment on "the other white meat" campaign.

Obviously, it wasn't working well for the pork industry to emulate chicken rather than the red meat industry!

Hopefully, their checkoff is run by the same TYPE people running the beef checkoff......PRODUCERS!

Do you really believe NCBA determines what is done with beef checkoff dollars???

If recall serves me correctly, the "Where's the Beef" slogan that served us well since it's inception was a 'happy accident', not a brilliant idea from a professional. It took professional help to capitalize onit and to develop the "Beef It's What's For Dinner" campaign......and who knows how many other such 'accidents' we have overlooked.

That can happen when professional CATTLE PRODUCERS, most of them in family businesses, RUN the checkoff. The majority must believe it still is worth that risk to maintain control of our checkoff, judging by the poll numbers.

Point being, the Beef checkoff is FAR more than just the advertising, which can back-fire, while solid science based research that finds the true nutrient to calorie density so favorable to foods at the current time.

Additionally, the hard work with government agencies folks to show them how they cannot honestly portray beef as not healthful in the face of such research puts the research results to good use.

mrj

mrj, I totally agree with you on working with people. The question is whether or not those who are "working with you", are in fact, using you. The white meat campaign was one against beef by its very nature. It was an attempt to bring gains to poultry at the expense of beef.

You just need to be real careful who your partners are. They might just have other incentives than you have.


The white meat campaign showed that.

I will admit I like chicken. I like beef more and pork a little less. I don't think having a major poultry producer in the NCBA is beneficial to the beef side of business. They have other interests than the ones you have. They should be kept at arms distance. I know people in the NCBA and they are the salt of the earth (a good thing). They don't have a clue about what is happening with the NCBA but they are seeing some of the leaders of the NCBA misrepresent the GIPSA rules and they aren't happy about it.

Tex

Yep-- just like when NCBA crawled in bed with the WWF and all the Nature Conservancy groups-- to get folks to put their land into "conservation easements'' which essentially puts restrictions on the land that eventually gives the land to the "Greeny-Weeny" groups that have much more money than any producers can make (especially with the easement restrictions)- and takes more land out of production (which will eventually lead to a cross country buffalo commons) -- while the NCBA folks doing it take big government/conservation groups funding- and get NCBA Stewards of the Land awards for spending the taxpayer/conservationalist funded $ :roll:

Comments on another thread were about Cowboy poets taking government payments from the NEA-- and everyone complaining about it because cattlemen/ranchers/cowboys don't/shouldn't take government payments... :???:

Horsesh*t!!! Years ago I- and many ranchers- used to harass farmers for the mailbox roll in the brim of their caps- which came from looking into the mailbox waiting for the USDA/Government payments and subsidy check.... :shock:

Now I love to harass those same ranchers for the mailbox roll all their cowboy hats have from waiting for all the government funded subsidy checks (conservation payments, easement payments, EQUIP, Disaster payments/programs, public land rights, federal sponsored pasture/grazing insurance. etc. etc.) that they set at the mailbox waiting for the check from... :roll: :wink: :p :lol:

But they all complain about the federal "entitlements" and "aid" programs-(which they should) - but hypocritically keep telling everybody how they take/get nothing from government-- and are only working with the other groups for betterment of the country- and get nothing out of it..... :roll:
 
Tex said:
I totally agree with you on this, mrj.

I still wonder whether the campaign to glorify "white meat" and "the other white meat" wasn't concocted by some of our current "partners" in the cattle industry.

In any case, beef is eaten a lot in my family and there is no reason to disparage its consumption. It is part of a healthy lifestyle, not to be confused with some of the dealings of some of the crooks in the industry. I think that is where the bad vibes really come from.

Tex

"The other white meat" wouldn't that put pork in competition with chicken rather then beef?

If it was an Ad ran by the Pork producers why not?
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
Tex said:
I totally agree with you on this, mrj.

I still wonder whether the campaign to glorify "white meat" and "the other white meat" wasn't concocted by some of our current "partners" in the cattle industry.

In any case, beef is eaten a lot in my family and there is no reason to disparage its consumption. It is part of a healthy lifestyle, not to be confused with some of the dealings of some of the crooks in the industry. I think that is where the bad vibes really come from.

Tex

"The other white meat" wouldn't that put pork in competition with chicken rather then beef?

If it was an Ad ran by the Pork producers why not?

I totally agree, BMR. The whole presumption that white breast meat from a chicken was better for you was wrong but the chicken industry sure pushed it, didn't they?

You have to understand that most people have just one meat type at their table at a time except the holidays, maybe. If you are getting pork, you usually don't get beef too. If you are getting chicken, you usually don't get beef too--or pork in addition. If I am barbecuing you usually get all three.

These major meat packers have positions in all three of those meats (they didn't in the past), and margins that increase as price increases in them because of tying contracts. If the price of chicken wholesale goes up 10 cents per lb, they pocket all of it and none of the additional price goes in the family farmer's pocket. In cattle, when there isn't market manipulation, those increases in price are passed on to the suppliers. If you were a beef meat packer and chicken processor, which one would you chose to go with? Hint---they go with the most money.

These meat packers have different interests than just beef and they will naturally go with the most money with their supply management. That isn't always in the cattleman's best interest. Maybe that is why chicken has taken over so much of the market at the expense of beef.

Tex
 
Tex said:
I know people in the NCBA and they are the salt of the earth (a good thing). They don't have a clue about what is happening with the NCBA but they are seeing some of the leaders of the NCBA misrepresent the GIPSA rules and they aren't happy about it.

Tex

What specifically is NCBA misrepresented regarding the proposed GIPSA rules?
 
Beefman said:
Tex said:
I know people in the NCBA and they are the salt of the earth (a good thing). They don't have a clue about what is happening with the NCBA but they are seeing some of the leaders of the NCBA misrepresent the GIPSA rules and they aren't happy about it.

Tex

What specifically is NCBA misrepresented regarding the proposed GIPSA rules?

I have seen quoted news articles with NCBA saying, and I will recognize the quotes may not be accurate, that the new GIPSA rules will not allow premiums to be paid for programs like the branded programs (Angus), or traceback or other quality traits for premiums to be paid.

This is factually incorrect. The premiums have to be stated so they aren't illegal premiums that lead to or are a part of market manipulation. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act, these premiums have to be available to all those who meet the premium standards. Of course the whole Packers and Stockyards Act is being undermined by the federal courts at the present time.



They aren't hard to look up.

Tex
 
Tex how is it you seem not to question your own discernment, yet you imply that others cannot do so regarding others with whom they may work?

No one has ever said that all who work together within NCBA are aligned on every single issue in which each group may be involved at any given time.

It is possible, and even beneficial to unite on issues commonly supported, and go their separate way on issues not beneficial or useful to all.

Animal Rights activists' damaging effect on any and all of us would be one example.

Certainly "the other white meat" campaign is about aligning pork with poultry, and implying it is better for health than red meats.

That faulty premise was strongly promoted by government entities, health professionals, and of course, the activist groups at the time, some still persisting today. It may have served pork producers well. I'm doubtful it hurt beef producers much, if at all.

Whatever is your point re. "most people have just one meat type at their table at a time"??? That is a given! The point of beef promotion is to get people to choose beef more often, to show them with valid science the facts of nutrient superiority of beef, and even to 'give them permission', to eat beef because of the factual information showing them that is really a healthy choice for them. People do pay attention to what is good for them, up to a point, but price is the final determining factor in their food choices, according to many surveys and polls of consumers, especially in the age 18 to 54 group which makes most of the choices at the market.

People will use chicken to bring the family food costs down, but if they can afford to have beef, many will choose beef. Using beef checkoff dollars to show them how they can make a low cost meal from beef, or to develop lower priced, but high quality 'new' cuts by using beef muscle groups differently such as the tender individual muscles found in chucks, has helped both producers and consumers. NCBA has been pivotal in this.

You, Tex, and you, too, OT, seem to have to be critical of NCBA in order to feel better about whomever you support, who doesn't have a fraction of the success NCBA has had in improving the knowledge of consumers about beef. Why is that?
 
mrj said:
Tex how is it you seem not to question your own discernment, yet you imply that others cannot do so regarding others with whom they may work?

No one has ever said that all who work together within NCBA are aligned on every single issue in which each group may be involved at any given time.

It is possible, and even beneficial to unite on issues commonly supported, and go their separate way on issues not beneficial or useful to all.

Animal Rights activists' damaging effect on any and all of us would be one example.

Certainly "the other white meat" campaign is about aligning pork with poultry, and implying it is better for health than red meats.

That faulty premise was strongly promoted by government entities, health professionals, and of course, the activist groups at the time, some still persisting today. It may have served pork producers well. I'm doubtful it hurt beef producers much, if at all.

Whatever is your point re. "most people have just one meat type at their table at a time"??? That is a given! The point of beef promotion is to get people to choose beef more often, to show them with valid science the facts of nutrient superiority of beef, and even to 'give them permission', to eat beef because of the factual information showing them that is really a healthy choice for them. People do pay attention to what is good for them, up to a point, but price is the final determining factor in their food choices, according to many surveys and polls of consumers, especially in the age 18 to 54 group which makes most of the choices at the market.

People will use chicken to bring the family food costs down, but if they can afford to have beef, many will choose beef. Using beef checkoff dollars to show them how they can make a low cost meal from beef, or to develop lower priced, but high quality 'new' cuts by using beef muscle groups differently such as the tender individual muscles found in chucks, has helped both producers and consumers. NCBA has been pivotal in this.

You, Tex, and you, too, OT, seem to have to be critical of NCBA in order to feel better about whomever you support, who doesn't have a fraction of the success NCBA has had in improving the knowledge of consumers about beef. Why is that?

mrj, the head of the NCBA is just lying about the GIPSA rules, which will increase the costs of the meats industry in that segment because they will have to stop cheating their suppliers. I don't think that lying does anything to help with beef==it hurts it greatly.

The NCBA had better be the ones who have success at promoting beef as they are getting almost all of the checkoff dollars to do it. Who else comes close to to the amount the NCBA gets from producers through the checkoff program?

You are an absolute nut to think that the head of the NCBA who is just quoting what meat packers say is an any way carrying the interests of cattlemen when he is lying through his teeth and either isn't smart enough to know it or is working for meat packers against the interests of cattlemen. Everyone can see that. There isn't even very much of a discussion on it except, "What else is new?"

Even I would commend programs like the beef advocacy program even when it comes from the NCBA. For all the money they get from cattlemen, they ought to be able to say beef is good for you with a straight face and really mean it. It is too bad the situation has been driven to such a low point that this kind of program is necessary but it came directly from the white meats campaign of the NCBA's partners.

Is it not too crazy to expect you to realize this?

Tex
 

Latest posts

Top