NCBA Membership Policy Ballot

[Soapweed]

Having just spent quite a bit of time this morning filling out the NCBA membership policy ballot, I have to say that I am more impressed than ever with the NCBA. This ballot is very in-depth, and consists of their stance on each issue covered. Each different issue has a place for a yes or a no vote. If you agree with their stance, you mark yes, and if you disagree, you mark no. There are 85 separate items to be voted on, and I must say I agreed with all 85 of their stances. The only one I wrote anything to supplement my answer was on the issue of alternative feedstuffs. They say, "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, NCBA encourages cattle producers to seek alternatives to poultry litter as cattle feed." I supplemented my "yes" answer with, "but be stronger on the subject, just flat out forbid feeding poultry litter to cattle."

On the issue of permanent animal identification, there was nothing about mandatory ID for home-raised cattle born in the USA. The NCBA did however strongly support and promote that any live cattle coming into this country from Canada or Mexico have permanent livestock identification, which certainly makes sense to me.

All in all, I am very impressed with all the work done by the NCBA that has determined how and why they have come by their decisions. They have taken stances on many different segments of the raising of cattle, and the stands that they have taken are all common sense approaches that will make for a better beef industry. My hat is off to the NCBA.

 

[Econ101]

Soapweed, where there ANY questions on the mismanagement at GIPSA on the ballot in regards to NCBA positions?

 

[Anonymous]

The only one I wrote anything to supplement my answer was on the issue of alternative feedstuffs. They say, "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, NCBA encourages cattle producers to seek alternatives to poultry litter as cattle feed." I supplemented my "yes" answer with, "but be stronger on the subject, just flat out forbid feeding poultry litter to cattle."

I agree with you Soap- I would like to see NCBA take a stronger stance- but that is probably the strongest stance the corporate world will allow them- can't be rocking the boat :wink: ....

On the issue of permanent animal identification, there was nothing about mandatory ID for home-raised cattle born in the USA. The NCBA did however strongly support and promote that any live cattle coming into this country from Canada or Mexico have permanent livestock identification, which certainly makes sense to me.

I like that stance too- but what bothers me is that has been very different from the public stance their leadership keeps putting out... :???:

I just did the same earlier in the month with the R-CALF election and policy stance...I also agreed pretty much with every R-CALF policy altho I did note that I would not support the Canadian and Japanese import court battle anymore if USDA implemented the M-COOL so the decision could be left to the consumer and the FDA implemented the more restrictive feed ban as it was originally proposed by former HHS director Tommy Thompson, which included the poultry litter ban....

 

[pointrider]

Hi Econ! I've been busy. Can you bring me up to date? Which 2 or 3 NCBA positions, for example, have resulted in GIPSA's actions being characterized as "mismanagement" in your neighborhood? Thanks in advance!

 

[Econ101]

Hi Econ! I've been busy. Can you bring me up to date? Which 2 or 3 NCBA positions, for example, have resulted in GIPSA's actions being characterized as "mismanagement" in your neighborhood? Thanks in advance!

Their absence of action across the board and their active participation in fake economic studies of the industry to support packer objectives of consolidating and controlling the industry.

 

[pointrider]

Soapweed, do you feel there has been an absence of action across the board at NCBA as Econ contends? What about their participation in fake economic studies? Will the membership actually let NCBA get away with participating in fake studies?

One more question, please. How are membership fees calculated these days at NCBA? What if there were half the number of cow-calf producers tomorrow but the same total number of cattle? Would total membership fees be the same? I'm trying to figure out the motivation at NCBA for the alleged actions and lack of actions.

 

[Soapweed]

Soapweed, do you feel there has been an absence of action across the board at NCBA as Econ contends? NO, they are a smart bunch of people that are progressive and diligent in their responsibilities.


What about their participation in fake economic studies? NO, why would a concientious organization resort to "fake enconomic studies".

Will the membership actually let NCBA get away with participating in fake studies? NO, there are checks and balances. With this large of an organization, someone would take any potential offenders to task.

One more question, please. How are membership fees calculated these days at NCBA? What if there were half the number of cow-calf producers tomorrow but the same total number of cattle? Would total membership fees be the same? I'm trying to figure out the motivation at NCBA for the alleged actions and lack of actions.

Here is the breakdown for the Nebraska Cattlemen/and/or NCBA


Number of Head NC/NCBA NC Only
1 - 100 $165.00 $75.00
101 - 300 $255.00 $125.00
301 - 500 $375.00 $175.00
501 - 700 $525.00 $225.00
701+ $200.00 + $0.45/hd. $50.00 + $0.25/hd.

 

[pointrider]

Thanks, Soapweed, for your response. Looking at the fees structure you provided it's pretty clear to me that if there were half the members (due to consolidation, mergers, acquisitions, etc.) with the same total number of cattle, then the total money going into NCBA would be less if the fees were not raised. How about that? Are fees being raised as consolidation and other things occur? What are the chances that fees will be raised enough to actually increase the total dollars going into NCBA as the industry consolidates?

I have to ask for the sake of this string. You will understand I'm sure. Is the leadership at NCBA on the take from the big packers? How well is NCBA leadership screened to be certain of a commitment to the producer members and their well-being?

Truth is, consolidation, mergers, acquisitions, taking the land out of agriculture, etc. will continue to happen in the cow-calf industry as the Top Third makes money and the Bottom Third loses money. And some of my questions above will actually have to be addressed in the long term (eg raising fees to maintain needed operating income). But that is not the intent of my comments and questions today. Today I am more concerned about what people are saying about NCBA and the packers in today's world. I think we need to get to the bottom of it, and bring things to light for the benefit of all.

 

[mrj]

Econ, you need to provide some additional information if anyone is to make any sense of your comment.

What are the "fake economic studies of the industry...." As a member reasonably active in the organization, I've sure never heard or seen any thing like you describe.

pointrider, I have a little different personal take on the dues structure. Partly based on the fact ( believing this still is the case, anyway) that USDA considers an entity a "farm" if they have as little as $1,000.00 in income from their "farm".

That includes as "cattle producers" a LOT of VERY small operators. I'm sure it is possible that some of the smaller ones are members of NCBA simply because they find it useful in learning more about the cattle business, for one thing. They probably are not going to leave the business or the org. because they obviously do not depend upon it for their living.

There are many at the top of the industry.......didn't we read not long ago the only 2% of ranchers own the herds of over 500 head or more cows?

NCBA covers such a broad range of activities of interest to the cattle producer, that I doubt those who do make a living off their cattle are going to leave the organization that is addressing and serving MOST of their concerns. Especially an org. where the cow calf operators are a 67% majority, and feeders are 30+% of the membership......and those members know that they can successfully bring their concerns from the county/state level and be successful on getting them brought into the national polilcy.

Add the fact that the membership has recently grown to 26,600+ indicates healthy growth and committment of the members. The previously existing members are the ones who brought the new ones in, after all.

BTW, the dues structures have changed several times over the past 40 years.....as in most serious, working cattlemens' organizations in trying to best serve the needs of the members and the organization.

BTW, again, I voted the same way on the mail in ballot as I did at the meeting........but I know someone who changed his mind on a couple of them for minor reasons, feeling the need for the resolutions had been met and they were no longer needed.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Econ, you need to provide some additional information if anyone is to make any sense of your comment.

What are the "fake economic studies of the industry...." As a member reasonably active in the organization, I've sure never heard or seen any thing like you describe.

pointrider, I have a little different personal take on the dues structure. Partly based on the fact ( believing this still is the case, anyway) that USDA considers an entity a "farm" if they have as little as $1,000.00 in income from their "farm".

That includes as "cattle producers" a LOT of VERY small operators. I'm sure it is possible that some of the smaller ones are members of NCBA simply because they find it useful in learning more about the cattle business, for one thing. They probably are not going to leave the business or the org. because they obviously do not depend upon it for their living.

There are many at the top of the industry.......didn't we read not long ago the only 2% of ranchers own the herds of over 500 head or more cows?

NCBA covers such a broad range of activities of interest to the cattle producer, that I doubt those who do make a living off their cattle are going to leave the organization that is addressing and serving MOST of their concerns. Especially an org. where the cow calf operators are a 67% majority, and feeders are 30+% of the membership......and those members know that they can successfully bring their concerns from the county/state level and be successful on getting them brought into the national polilcy.

Add the fact that the membership has recently grown to 26,600+ indicates healthy growth and committment of the members. The previously existing members are the ones who brought the new ones in, after all.

BTW, the dues structures have changed several times over the past 40 years.....as in most serious, working cattlemens' organizations in trying to best serve the needs of the members and the organization.

BTW, again, I voted the same way on the mail in ballot as I did at the meeting........but I know someone who changed his mind on a couple of them for minor reasons, feeling the need for the resolutions had been met and they were no longer needed.

MRJ

MRJ, You know so little about this industry other than the secretarial bs that the NCBA has to offer as to not even know what I am talking about. I don't blame you, as you only go off of the information provided to you, but you continue to not even understand the frauds or to even comment on the OIG report on GIPSA or even read the report, that it is probably a waste of my time to even try to educate educate you on the problem. Read the OIG report on GIPSA and then we will talk further.

In specific, I will gladly talk about the $427,000 study on contracting that the three person committee at GIPSA consisting of Joann Waterfield, McBride, and Brett Offutt approved. Read the hog study foundation and if you understand the research grant enough, I will inform you of what you ask.

 

[ocm]

What are the "fake economic studies of the industry...." As a member reasonably active in the organization, I've sure never heard or seen any thing like you describe.
MRJ

The Spark's Study for one. Terry Stokes told me that it had brought the NCBA a lot of grief. He was embarrassed by it. That was right after it came out. Yet the NCBA has never "corrected" it.