• 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 Shows Growth in 2005

Help Support Ranchers.net:

redcattle56

Active member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Location
Western America
NCBA Membership Makes Strong Showing in 2005

Over 4000 first-time members added
DENVER (October 26, 2005) – The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) ended its 2005 fiscal year with strong growth in the cow-calf sector of its membership, as well as in total revenue. NCBA’s direct members now total 25,000, with 93 percent of these members being individual cow-calf producers, feeders or stockers. About 4000 of these cattle producers joined NCBA for the very first time in 2005. NCBA dues revenue ended the fiscal year about 3 percent higher than a year ago.

NCBA President Jim McAdams says he is very pleased with the membership totals, especially considering the consolidation that is taking place in the industry and in trade associations nationwide.

“Like a lot of industries, the cattle business is seeing its share of consolidation, especially in the feeding sector,” McAdams said. “This can make it very hard to grow as a trade association, because the pool of prospective members is smaller. But NCBA has been able to offset feeder consolidation with powerful growth in our cow-calf sector.”

Cow-calf producers continue to comprise the largest segment of NCBA’s membership, followed by cattle feeders. This is directly reflected in the composition of the NCBA Policy Division Board of Directors, where cow-calf operators hold 81 of 136 board seats (61 percent). Feeders hold 41 board seats (30 percent), while allied industry members hold 7 seats (6 percent). Packers/processors hold 2 seats (1.5 percent), as do retail/foodservice members and dairy/veal producers. One seat is held by an auction market operator.

McAdams said that while the cattle industry faces some its most divisive and contentious issues, cattlemen have come together through their NCBA membership to provide real solutions to the challenges confronting the industry.

“Ours is a democratic process, so not every NCBA member will win on every policy vote – that’s just not possible,” he said. “But every member has the ability to shape policy, and produce a position that improves our ability to operate today and in the future.”

Membership surveys indicate that cattlemen value NCBA’s ability to address issues of national importance, including international trade and protecting cattlemen from overregulation. Members also appreciate NCBA’s role in helping the cattle industry grow, protecting cattlemen’s ability to market cattle they way they choose, and providing educational programs for producers.

NCBA’s 64 state and breed affiliate organizations are comprised of over 230,000 members. Many of these affiliates experienced strong growth in the past fiscal year. The following NCBA affiliates achieved at least 10 percent growth in either membership or revenue, or both, in the past year: Alabama Cattlemen’s Association, Arizona Cattle Feeders Association, California Cattlemen’s Association, Florida Cattlemen’s Association, Idaho Cattle Association, Missouri Cattlemen’s Association, Mississippi Cattlemen’s Association, Nebraska Cattlemen, North Carolina Cattlemen’s Association, New York Beef Producers Association, Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association, Pennsylvania Cattlemen’s Association, South Carolina Cattlemen’s Association, South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, Tennessee Cattlemen’s Association, Virginia Cattlemen’s Association and Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association.

The Livestock Marketing Council (LMC), a division of NCBA committed to enhancing opportunities for livestock market operators and order buyers, also achieved significant growth in the past year. LMC membership has grown by over 50 percent compared to one year ago. LMC also experienced dues revenue growth of 57 percent.


“As a livestock market owner for over 20 years, I feel that the Livestock Marketing Council offers a home for livestock dealers that are truly interested in the welfare of the entire beef industry,” said Dick Nock of San Luis Obispo, Calif., vice-chairman of LMC.

Harry Knobbe, a cattleman from West Point, Neb., and chairman of NCBA’s Membership Committee, emphasized that membership growth doesn’t just happen. He said the key is for producer-members to reach out to their fellow cattlemen, making them aware of the benefits and value that come with a membership in NCBA.

“NCBA members have learned how important it is to belong to an organization that can accomplish things collectively that the individual cattleman just can’t,” Knobbe said. “But the key is for us to get this message out to our neighbors – and we are doing that. There’s just no substitute for one-on-one, producer-to-producer communication.”

Knobbe points to NCBA’s “Top Hand Club” as a great example of grassroots membership growth. To become a Top Hand Club member, individuals must recruit three new NCBA members. To remain in the club, they must recruit two new members each subsequent year.

“Membership in The Top Hand Club grew by over 30 percent this year, and the number of members recruited by Top Hand Club members grew by over 40 percent,” Knobbe said. “This is just phenomenal. These Top Hands commit a lot of time and energy to strengthening NCBA, and I tip my hat to all of them.”

For McAdams, reviewing the year-end membership numbers is especially gratifying, considering the picture some critics have attempted to paint of NCBA.

“To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of NCBA’s demise have been grossly exaggerated,” McAdams said. “NCBA is an organization on the rise, representing an industry on the rise. I defy anyone to look at these numbers and tell me otherwise.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thanks for posting this Red Cattle.

Most cattle producers are conservative by nature. They want to base their decisions on truth and facts as opposed to conspiracy theories, populist opinions, and a need to blame. Most want less government regulation rather than more. Most realize we need to get more of the consumers dollar rather than trying to get more dollars with packer parasite lawsuits.

Yes NCBA will prevail!



~SH~
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
~SH~ said:
Thanks for posting this Red Cattle.

Most cattle producers are conservative by nature. They want to base their decisions on truth and facts as opposed to conspiracy theories, populist opinions, and a need to blame. Most want less government regulation rather than more. Most realize we need to get more of the consumers dollar rather than trying to get more dollars with packer parasite lawsuits.

Yes NCBA will prevail!



~SH~

Could you show me the truth and facts of net industry growth throughout NCBA's tenure?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Are you still trying to blame burdensome supplies, competitive meat supplies, and beef's lost market share to poultry on NCBA and the checkoff? LOL!

Blamers............sheeeesh!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Are you still trying to blame burdensome supplies, competitive meat supplies, and beef's lost market share to poultry on NCBA and the checkoff? LOL!

Blamers............sheeeesh!



~SH~

The swinging of these markets does give advantage to these other substitutes. Higher highs and lower lows. Just what the pork and poultry love.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Cow-calf producers continue to comprise the largest segment of NCBA’s membership, followed by cattle feeders. This is directly reflected in the composition of the NCBA Policy Division Board of Directors, where cow-calf operators hold 81 of 136 board seats (61 percent). Feeders hold 41 board seats (30 percent), while allied industry members hold 7 seats (6 percent). Packers/processors hold 2 seats (1.5 percent), as do retail/foodservice members and dairy/veal producers. One seat is held by an auction market operator.
One auction mart operator? :lol: :lol: :lol: Interesting that despite what Haymaker, OldTimer and Co. would lead us to believe, the majority (91%) of seats are held by producers.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
Members also appreciate NCBA’s role in helping the cattle industry grow,...

Show me the increase in market share and the growth in the cow/calf side of the industry. If that's who NCBA claims to represent, show me the proof. I've never blamed the decline in the beef industry on the Checkoff or NCBA, but don't claim growth if you can't show it.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
SH
Most cattle producers are conservative by nature. They want to base their decisions on truth and facts as opposed to conspiracy theories, populist opinions, and a need to blame. Most want less government regulation rather than more. Most realize we need to get more of the consumers dollar rather than trying to get more dollars with packer parasite lawsuits.

This is a very true statement SH. Especially the part about less government regulation rather than more.

The problem with this is that the NCBA and the CCA, led by the USDA would rather let the power of the almighty packer dictate the direction of government regulation, and call anyone who has anything else to bring to the table a BWAMER etc. etc. etc.

Or is there no government regulation SH? Are laws relating to the packing industry just "there". Do they ever change? How would you suggest they change? Should we all simply agree to everything the packer wants? Should we agree with everthing SH says? (same difference).

Why do you keep posting your opinions SH? Why do you keep blaming anyone who doesn't agree with you for the "demise of the industry"?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
RobertMac said:
Members also appreciate NCBA’s role in helping the cattle industry grow,...

Show me the increase in market share and the growth in the cow/calf side of the industry. If that's who NCBA claims to represent, show me the proof. I've never blamed the decline in the beef industry on the Checkoff or NCBA, but don't claim growth if you can't show it.

RobertMac, how important do you think the increase in tonnage produced while the cow numbers are declining will be in those figures?

I'm not a number person, but it seems to me the US cow herd produces way more beef even with our much lower cow numbers. Our calf weights keep increasing despite drought and moving toward smaller cows, and I'm sure we are not alone in that circumstance.

MRJ
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
MRJ said:
RobertMac, how important do you think the increase in tonnage produced while the cow numbers are declining will be in those figures?

I'm not a number person, but it seems to me the US cow herd produces way more beef even with our much lower cow numbers. Our calf weights keep increasing despite drought and moving toward smaller cows, and I'm sure we are not alone in that circumstance.

MRJ

MRJ, think about what you just said and tell me what NCBA official has stood before the convention and told cow/calf producers, "NEXT YEAR, WE WILL NEED FEWER OF YOU". That is truthfully the consequences of the production efficiency you are referring WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN TOTAL CONSUMPTION. This is good for the feeder and packer, but their are problems for cow/calf producers. The heifer mates to these high efficiency steers become large, high maintenance cows back at the ranch. Supplemental feeding of the cow herd is killing the bottom line for producers...so the producers that are left aren't any better off!

The fact is that total tonnage/usage has NOT significantly grown since the 1970s and there is no upward trend line other than merely accounting for population growth. If I'm wrong, believe me Agman will correct me.

Again...

RobertMac said:
Members also appreciate NCBA’s role in helping the cattle industry grow,...

Show me the increase in market share and the growth in the cow/calf side of the industry. If that's who NCBA claims to represent, show me the proof. I've never blamed the decline in the beef industry on the Checkoff or NCBA, but don't claim growth if you can't show it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Randy Kaiser: "The problem with this is that the NCBA and the CCA, led by the USDA would rather let the power of the almighty packer dictate the direction of government regulation, ......."

How is USDA being led by the packer. Give me an example.


Randy Kaiser: "Are laws relating to the packing industry just "there". Do they ever change? How would you suggest they change? Should we all simply agree to everything the packer wants?"

I would change the PSA if it was up to me. I think the part of price fixing is important. I think the part of packers not being able to discriminate against packer blamers is wrong. I think packers should be able to refuse business to anyone they want. Talk about "socialism" when a packer is forced to do business with a packer blamer.


Randy Kaiser: "Why do you keep posting your opinions SH?"

I keep posting the facts to offset all the baseless packer blaming rhetoric posted by you, Kindergarten, Sandparasite, Old Timer, and other packer blamers.


Robert Kaiser: "Why do you keep blaming anyone who doesn't agree with you for the "demise of the industry"?"

I'm simply stating facts about those who are too ignorant to understand the consequences of their short sighted actions.

Why do you post the packer blaming garbage you post when you can't back any of it?


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "How is USDA being led by the packer. Give me an example."

Banning private BSE testing on grounds it is not based on sound science when other products that clearly are not based on sound science do not have that same requirement.

Abandoning standing health policy that was used on 22 countries without any problems because applying the same to country number 23 would cause the packers economic damage.

Exclusions in reporting that render the original legislation virtually worthless (per the author of the legislation).

You want any more examples?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH:
I would change the PSA if it was up to me. I think the part of price fixing is important. I think the part of packers not being able to discriminate against packer blamers is wrong. I think packers should be able to refuse business to anyone they want. Talk about "socialism" when a packer is forced to do business with a packer blamer.

I think your local electric company should be able to discriminate against you, SH. How would you like that? Do you have a windmill? (stupid question) Do you know how to hook it up to a generator? Maybe you are the hope for our energy crisis.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "Banning private BSE testing on grounds it is not based on sound science when other products that clearly are not based on sound science do not have that same requirement."

What other products are not based on sound science?

KOSHER KILL? That's a religious practice which hardly creates a false impression of food safety.

Want to try another apples to watermelons comparison?


Sandman: "Abandoning standing health policy that was used on 22 countries without any problems because applying the same to country number 23 would cause the packers economic damage."

That's a bullsh*t argument because USDA never abandoned standing health policy which is nothing more than an R-CULT spin to stop Canadian live cattle imports. Health policies will change to reflect actions that have been taken such as the ruminant feed ban, SRM removal of OTM cattle, increased BSE surveilance, and other BSE measures. R-CULT's ignorance is reflected in their inability to understand that you cannot impose excessive restrictions on one country without having the opportunity for those same restrictions to be placed on the U.S. As a prominent spokesperson for Japan stated, "R-CALF only confused the issue". R-CALF has done far more to hurt this industry than help.


That's right Kindergarten, any company should be able to refuse to conduct business with anyone they want. For me to be forced to do business with you is nothing more than "socialism". Par for your course!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "What other products are not based on sound science? KOSHER KILL? That's a religious practice which hardly creates a false impression of food safety."

Nice attempt at a strawman again, SH. Creekstone was denied on the basis of "sound science". That was it. No other considerations were mentioned - not impressions and not religious practices - just "sound science" as an absolute.

SH, "That's a bullsh*t argument because USDA never abandoned standing health policy which is nothing more than an R-CULT spin to stop Canadian live cattle imports. Health policies will change to reflect actions that have been taken such as the ruminant feed ban, SRM removal of OTM cattle, increased BSE surveilance, and other BSE measures."

If that is the case, why hasn't the USDA opened to Europe? Europe's BSE prevention measures far exceed Canada's.

SH, " R-CULT's ignorance is reflected in their inability to understand that you cannot impose excessive restrictions on one country without having the opportunity for those same restrictions to be placed on the U.S."

You ignorance is reflected in your inability to open your eyes and see what other countries have actually done. Let me explain something to you, SH. Other counties will do what is in their best interests to do, regardless of what we do.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You were the one preparing to set up the strawman apples to melons comparisons again Sandman.

Creekstone was denied testing because it was sending a false impression of food safety that it could not deliver. We've been over this a thousand times.

When you have R-CULT, WHO SUPPOSEDLY REPRESENTS CATTLE PRODUCERS, telling the world that having BSE in your herd means your beef is contaminated and "HIGH RISK", you are going to have an impact on how foreign countries view the safety of our product but R-CULT is simply too ignorant to understand that.

Same worthless empty arguments you always had!


~SH~
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
SH, "How is USDA being led by the packer. Give me an example."

Banning private BSE testing on grounds it is not based on sound science when other products that clearly are not based on sound science do not have that same requirement.

Abandoning standing health policy that was used on 22 countries without any problems because applying the same to country number 23 would cause the packers economic damage.

Exclusions in reporting that render the original legislation virtually worthless (per the author of the legislation).

You want any more examples?

Sandhusker if the USDA had stood on the idea all beef coming from a country that has the same and in some cases stricted safeguards than the US, is unsafe, how would you expect them to sell your beef? Since you could not prove what were import cattle and what weren't your BSE issue started in DEC 2003 not 2005. So if all beef from Canada was a genuine risk of death shouldn't that also mean US beef was a genuine risk of death if eaten by domestic consumer too. Just how many cattle would you be selling to the packers if nobody was buying beef from them?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Creekstone was denied testing because it was sending a false impression of food safety that it could not deliver."

That is incorrect and you know it. I suggest you examine the definition of "lying" that you posted and compare it with your above statement.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
SH, "How is USDA being led by the packer. Give me an example."

Banning private BSE testing on grounds it is not based on sound science when other products that clearly are not based on sound science do not have that same requirement.

Abandoning standing health policy that was used on 22 countries without any problems because applying the same to country number 23 would cause the packers economic damage.

Exclusions in reporting that render the original legislation virtually worthless (per the author of the legislation).

You want any more examples?

Sandhusker if the USDA had stood on the idea all beef coming from a country that has the same and in some cases stricted safeguards than the US, is unsafe, how would you expect them to sell your beef? Since you could not prove what were import cattle and what weren't your BSE issue started in DEC 2003 not 2005. So if all beef from Canada was a genuine risk of death shouldn't that also mean US beef was a genuine risk of death if eaten by domestic consumer too. Just how many cattle would you be selling to the packers if nobody was buying beef from them?

Tam, does the EU have stricter BSE safeguards than the US? Are we importing from them?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oh, I see, so Creekstone's Fielding saying that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE" was not the truth?

USDA's denial of Creekstone's testing request was based on the LACK OF sound science that Creekstone's Fielding admitted to.

"BY GAWD CREEKSTONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECEIVE JAPANESE CONSUMERS IF THEY WANT TO BE DECEIVED!"

I know your position well. Give it a rest, you got nothing!



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top