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

NCBA Continues Rubberstamping for USDA/Tyson etal

A

Anonymous

Guest
NCBA Members Approve Policies, New Officers at 2007 Annual Meeting



KTIC 840 Rural Radio

Nebraska, US



NASHVILLE (Feb. 3, 2007) – The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) held its regular annual board meeting and membership meeting today, concluding the 2007 Cattle Industry Annual Convention in Nashville. More than 6500 cattlemen from across the nation attended.



Renewable energy was arguably the hottest topic of the four-day convention, due to the surging demand for ethanol and its impact on feedgrain prices. Rapidly increasing prices for corn and other feedgrains have raised operating costs for cattle feeders over the past four months, which in turn has contributed to lower calf and feeder cattle prices.



The policy brought forward Friday by the NCBA Agriculture Policy Committee was approved in large part by NCBA members today, with modest modifications in the policy resolution language. The resolution voiced support for the nation’s commitment to reduced dependence on foreign energy, including efforts to develop renewable energy. But cattlemen called for transition to a market-based approach to renewable energy production, which would help level the playing field for cattle producers and other feedgrain users.



The resolution supports the “sunsetting” of fuel-blending tax credits and tariffs on imported ethanol, as these policies were primarily designed to boost the initial development in renewable fuel production and technology. With alternative fuel production now growing at an astounding pace, cattlemen do not consider it appropriate for Congress to renew these mechanisms in their present form when they expire near the end of the decade. The 54-cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol is set to expire in 2009, while the 51-cent per gallon fuel-blending tax credit expires in 2010. NCBA members also called for greater policy emphasis to be placed on development of cellulostic fuels. Production of these fuel types does not rely on feedgrains and could have much less impact on grain prices.



NCBA members also approved policy with regard to live cattle trade with Canada. Currently, cattle and beef imports from Canada are limited to cattle 30 months of age or younger. A pending USDA proposal would allow beef from Canadian cattle of any age, and live cattle up to eight years of age.



Cattlemen did not reject the USDA proposal, but adopted a policy voicing concerns about its possible impact. The policy resolution approved by NCBA members demands permanent identification of all live cattle imported from Canada through harvest, and calls for USDA to develop an orderly market transition plan before expanding the scope of cattle and beef imports from Canada.



“NCBA believes in treating our trading partners as we would like to be treated,” said incoming NCBA President John Queen. “But we want free, fair and reliable trade. USDA must look at the big picture and take steps to ensure that U.S. cattlemen are rewarded – not penalized – for opening our market to a wider range of imports.”



Cloning was also a topic of discussion at the convention, primarily because of the draft risk assessment announced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December. FDA’s initial findings state that meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring pose no health risk to consumers.



Cattlemen adopted a policy supporting the further development of cloning as one of many reproductive technologies that can be used to enhance the beef industry. But they also urged all technology companies and owners of cloned animals to voluntarily keep these animals and their offspring out of the food supply until FDA makes a final decision on its risk assessment.



NCBA members also proceeded with caution with regard to any changes in the Beef Checkoff Program. An industry-wide task force recently advanced a slate of recommendations for enhancing the checkoff, including an increase in the $1-per head checkoff rate (contingent on a producer referendum). But the policy resolution adopted by cattlemen seeks greater input and discussion on these task force recommendations, before giving them renewed consideration at next year’s convention.



Queen, of Waynesville, N.C., leads a full slate of new officers elected by NCBA members. He succeeds Missouri cattleman Mike John as president. Guymon, Okla., cattle feeder Paul Hitch is the new president-elect, while Andy Groseta of Cottonwood, Ariz., was chosen as vice president.



Illinois cattleman Steve Fogelsong will chair the NCBA Policy Division in 2007, with Montana rancher Bill Donald serving as vice chairman.



Gary Voogt of Michigan now chairs the Federation of State Beef Councils, with Iowa cattleman Alan Albright serving as vice chairman.



All policies adopted and officer elections are now subject to approval by approximately 28,000 NCBA members nationwide. Convention results become official only after the ballot process is completed.



kticam.com
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"NCBA members also proceeded with caution with regard to any changes in the Beef Checkoff Program. An industry-wide task force recently advanced a slate of recommendations for enhancing the checkoff, including an increase in the $1-per head checkoff rate (contingent on a producer referendum). But the policy resolution adopted by cattlemen seeks greater input and discussion on these task force recommendations, before giving them renewed consideration at next year’s convention."

This is funny. The "industry-wide task force" was a group assembled by NCBA. They controlled who was there so, big surprise, the "task force" passed what NCBA wanted. Now, however, they're in a pickle because the latest producer poll didn't match what the "task force" came up with, but rather mirrors what R-CALF has been calling for!

If they actually follow what producers have voiced, their "industry-wide task force" gets tossed and R-CALF is elevated. If they ignore the poll and do what they want, they're putting a target on their backs. Mercy me, what to do?! :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandcheska: "The "industry-wide task force" was a group assembled by NCBA. They controlled who was there so, big surprise, the "task force" passed what NCBA wanted."

Was R-CALF represented on the "industry - wide task force"?

Yes or no?



Sandcheska: "Now, however, they're in a pickle because the latest producer poll didn't match what the "task force" came up with, but rather mirrors what R-CALF has been calling for!"

What aspects of the latest producer poll did not match what the "task force" came up with but mirrored what R-CALF has been calling for besides the promotion of US beef with the checkoff???

R-CALF had numerous suggestions for the checkoff. Would you like to present those suggestions for review now Sandcheska and let's see how many were mentioned in the poll shall we?


Watch the diversion............


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I had a chance to talk with a NCBA member that had just been at the NCBA convention...He said that this "wishy washy" border policy was a watered down compromise since there is such a split on the Rule 2 and many want more guarantees on open export markets, border rules, and tracking from USDA first.... He agreed that it actually says nothing....

He also said that it was pretty much concensus at the meeting that M-COOL passage and implementation was inevitable and pretty much a gimme by the feeling in D.C. right now...It was just how much more (removal of food service exemptions, etc) that would also be done to tighten M-COOL that was open to speculation...

He was also very very concerned about the Packer ownership bill- saying that Grassley and crew are building a big backing and may get it thru this time...Then he threw out the bombshell to me and admitted that that would probably close up his feedlots (10,000+ head) and put him/ranch out of business...Altho he had always put out that the 15 some different brands and names were all differing family corporations, he admitted that much of these are packer owned/financed cattle- and that they would never be able to come up with the capital to finance them on their own if they lost the Packer Corporate backing... :roll:
And since they are tied in with a huge set of owned and leased feedlots in Nebraska that all go under one owners name too, and finish the cattle- it brings about a question as to how many more of these feedlots that claim or portray themselves to be private run operations are really just fronts for Packer owned cattle :???:

Also makes you wonder how many of the thousands of yearlings and thousands of cow calf pairs he runs on "leased" pasture owned by a one person huge corporate interest, that has been buying up every place that comes up for sale (spent $25 million so far), is really Packer cattle...Pasture to Plate :roll:

Going to be an interesting year in the Congress.... :)
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandcheska: "The "industry-wide task force" was a group assembled by NCBA. They controlled who was there so, big surprise, the "task force" passed what NCBA wanted."

Was R-CALF represented on the "industry - wide task force"?

Yes or no?



Sandcheska: "Now, however, they're in a pickle because the latest producer poll didn't match what the "task force" came up with, but rather mirrors what R-CALF has been calling for!"

What aspects of the latest producer poll did not match what the "task force" came up with but mirrored what R-CALF has been calling for besides the promotion of US beef with the checkoff???

R-CALF had numerous suggestions for the checkoff. Would you like to present those suggestions for review now Sandcheska and let's see how many were mentioned in the poll shall we?


Watch the diversion............


~SH~

See the grown man act like a junior high punk while constantly referencing his homosexual lover.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandcheska: "The "industry-wide task force" was a group assembled by NCBA. They controlled who was there so, big surprise, the "task force" passed what NCBA wanted."

Was R-CALF represented on the "industry - wide task force"?

Yes or no?



Sandcheska: "Now, however, they're in a pickle because the latest producer poll didn't match what the "task force" came up with, but rather mirrors what R-CALF has been calling for!"

What aspects of the latest producer poll did not match what the "task force" came up with but mirrored what R-CALF has been calling for besides the promotion of US beef with the checkoff???

R-CALF had numerous suggestions for the checkoff. Would you like to present those suggestions for review now Sandcheska and let's see how many were mentioned in the poll shall we?


Watch the diversion............


~SH~

See the grown man act like a junior high punk while constantly referencing his homosexual lover......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandcheska: "See the grown man act like a junior high punk while constantly referencing his homosexual lover......"

Nobody cares about your homosexual lover Sandcheska so just stick to the issues.


Was R-CALF represented on the "industry - wide task force"?

Yes or no?


What aspects of the latest producer poll did not match what the "task force" came up with but mirrored what R-CALF has been calling for besides the promotion of US beef with the checkoff???

R-CALF had numerous suggestions for the checkoff. Would you like to present those suggestions for review now Sandcheska and let's see how many were mentioned in the poll shall we?


Questions too uncomfortable for you?


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandcheska: "I'm going to tell you one final time; act like a man, you'll get treated like a man."


Was R-CALF represented on the "industry - wide task force"?

Yes or no?


What aspects of the latest producer poll did not match what the "task force" came up with but mirrored what R-CALF has been calling for besides the promotion of US beef with the checkoff???

R-CALF had numerous suggestions for the checkoff. Would you like to present those suggestions for review now Sandcheska and let's see how many were mentioned in the poll shall we?



They're just simple questions Sandman, why take offense?


~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
SH...What aspects of the latest producer poll did not match what the "task force" came up with but mirrored what R-CALF has been calling for besides the promotion of US beef with the checkoff???


Eighty two (82) percent of those surveyed would strongly approve or somewhat approve of “voting periodically on the continuation of the Beef Checkoff Program.”

Checkoff Task Force...An opportunity to petition for a referendum. The beef referendum process be revised to provide producers the opportunity to petition every five years for a referendum on continuing the Checkoff. Ten percent of beef producers signing the petition at county offices will trigger the USDA to conduct a vote within a year. This is similar to the Soybean referendum model.


Ninety-two (92) percent of those surveyed would strongly agree or somewhat agree that “if it were possible, all or at least some portion of the Beef Checkoff dollars should be used to promote only U.S. born and raised beef.”


Checkoff Task Force...Nothing about using Beef Checkoff dollars to promote USA beef.

Sixty-six (66) percent of those surveyed would strongly approve or somewhat approve of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board contracting directly “with any entity, including businesses, university researchers, advertising and marketing agencies, and other consultants.

Checkoff Task Force...Enhanced understanding of the Federation of State Beef Councils. The Federation of State Beef Councils gives priority to enhancing its identity in order to strengthen beef industry stakeholder understanding of the Federation. Options such as changing its name from The Federation Division to The Beef Checkoff Federation could be considered
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "They're just simple questions Sandman, why take offense?"

The question isn't offensive, it's the childish manner in which the question was presented. It's offensive to me and should be embarrasing to you. However, since you'll throw a tantrum and claim I'm "factually void" or a "blamer" unless I answer, here it is;

NOTE: Jim Hanna is a past President of NCBA affiliate Nebraska Cattlemen. :wink: Maybe I could get Ben to post his testimony about R-CALF for his wall!

Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA Checkoff Committee Chair Jim Hanna said the organization is extremely encouraged by the results of the recently completed survey of cattle producers on the Beef Checkoff Program. The survey was conducted by the Gallup Organization.

“To have an overwhelming majority of those surveyed agree completely with R-CALF’s policy positions gives us a tremendous boost as we begin to work with Congress to make needed changes to the program,” Hanna said.

“Specifically, the survey showed that 66 percent of the producers polled would support the idea of allowing the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) to contract directly with vendors, ending the requirement that they contract with an existing national industry governed organization, and 82 percent of respondents said they would support a periodic referendum on the Checkoff,” he noted. “Ninety-one percent thought the current $1 per head assessment was adequate, while 92 percent wanted to use Checkoff dollars to support products derived from cattle that are specifically born, raised and processed in the United States.

“The survey also agreed with R-CALF’s position that a producer-financed promotion program is critical to the financial health of the domestic cattle industry,” Hanna continued. “I find it gratifying that R-CALF, as well the Livestock Marketing Association (LMA) and the National Livestock Producers Association (NLPA) and others who have pushed these ideas all along, have received confirmation by 8,000 producers that we were promoting exactly the agenda items that are most important to them.

“Independent cattle producers across the U.S. have spoken, and done so with a nearly unanimous voice,” Hanna emphasized. “This gives us the springboard we need to show Congress that the Beef Checkoff Act and Order is in need of review, and that R-CALF USA intends to be the leader in assuring that any changes made will be consistent with the wishes of U.S. cattle producers.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandcheska,

Why do you pick and choose the questions?



1. Was R-CALF represented on the "industry - wide task force"?

Yes or no?



2. R-CALF had numerous suggestions for the checkoff. Would you like to present those suggestions for review now Sandcheska and let's see how many were mentioned in the poll shall we?

I'm sure you have to have their checkoff suggestions close at hand. Let's see how many were mentioned in the survey.


~SH~
 

Red Barn Angus

Well-known member
I may just be naive and poorly educated on the NCBA and I am not a member of either the NCBA or R-Calf but I find that resolution unbelievable. It says nothing and almost apologizes for having an opinion if it could even be considered an opinion. From a cow/calf producer standpoint it is useless. I know there are a lot of good folks who raise cattle and are members of the NCBA. I really wonder why they pay their dues. In my area hay has doubled in price, range cubes (cake) is up 35%, corn has doubled in price and feeder cattle are off by 30% since the highs of last fall. To me this is serious. It is pretty much a given that feeder cattle prices have dropped because of the corn price increase and that has been caused, at least in part, by the potential demand for ethanol production which is also being subsidized by the government. It is a nobel goal to become energy independent but at the expense of domestic food production? I hope not. Can't the NCBA see this or do the packers truly control NCBA?
 
Top